kreed wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:44 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:46:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:
**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
The reports are he
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_report...
I've only read the one on the physical science basis.
The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013
thru Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous
reports. http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml
"...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what
to do. I can't wait.
**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant
and will be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel
industry. There is certainly no doubt that many nations will be
dragging their feet on the way to reduce CO2 emissions.
That is a very scientific observation.
We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.
**I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand
the science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise.
Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
action will be too little too late.
Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of
controlling us, throw this AGW crap and those involved in it
straight in the bin, cut the big guys out of controlling everything
(including both sides of our government and media) stop them from
creating artificial shortages of resources in order to fleece us,
and stop worrying about lies and lead productive lives.
**I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous
questions and comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid
science, in preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand
approach. You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and
Alan Jones are a good match for each other. None of you deals with
the science.
That is an extremely contradictory statement.
**No, it is not. You have consistently failed to back your claims with any
science. You supply only opinions. I cite science, whilst you cite nothing.
You avoid the fact that
you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual,
**In this thread, I have cited a dozen or so SCIENTIFIC sources of good
repute. Some of those sources (NASA, the US EPA, the US Academy of Sciences)
were reporting the dangers of AGW, while George W Bush was in charge of the
US. Just a reminder: George W Bush was inextricably linked to the oil
industry and a well-known AGW denier. Same deal with CSIRO and John Howard.
Care to explain that?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
and as being
"solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for"
theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular
industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.
**Care to prove it?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.
**There is no other way to fund science or any other form of research.
These people are therefore owned,
**Care to prove that?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
and both groups who own them want
the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power
to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that
they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to
ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them
cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in
Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its
competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist) This is litereally
worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of
billions of humans. With this at stake, no one is going to let the
facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human
history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has
happened.
**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.
We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required
results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding
if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told
to get.
**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.
This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with.
Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries
by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.
**So, what you are saying is this:
AGW science is a popularity issue, with the people who really know their
stuff (IE: The climatologists) don't know what is going on, but the
uneducated masses (IS: You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, et al) are right, for
some unknown reasons? Is that what you're trying to say?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
invalid.
the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
day too.
**Were they? Cite your proof of this.
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or
you didn't have a life. Ditto if you were in the media, or other
industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.
Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global
warming industry.
**The research by the IPCC and others is about independent, quality science.
Which, if you had taken the time to read and digest the IPCC reports, you
would understand. By choosing NOT to read the IPCC reports and then
criticising those same reports, you merely expose your extreme ignorance.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au