"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions :-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
a cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...ghlight-_-CFLs

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers. And the "You're a smart guy" .... but ... I can almost see the
head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
? What kind of scientist is he ?

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open.
Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
up and be counted.

And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.

I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
hysteria that has gripped the world over it.

I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
is still out.

Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.

Arfa

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:14:53 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers.

snip

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic.

See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?

Hmmm, indeed.

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions :-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to
undestand the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is
necessary. I no longer waste my time with those who choose to
insult, rather than present a cogent argument. It's better for my
health. Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some
more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...ghlight-_-CFLs

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically
lower than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about
CFL prices in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that
personal preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the
testing done by Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects
of CFLs are significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the
abscence of evidence to the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing
energy cost that is approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I
find deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be
willing to reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that
has shown that rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we
find ourselves experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science,
in preference for the hysterical ravings of those who have clear
links to the fossil fuel industry. OTH, the scientists who study and
report on global warming, for the most part, do not have links to
the alternative energy business. They do what a good scientist
should do - report the science without regard to political or
business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were issuing
very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the
Howard government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the
CSIRO) was issuing clear reports to the government that
anthropogenic global warming was going to cause serious problems for
Australia and the rest of the planet. Yet the Howard government was
aligned with the Bush government, in that denial of the science was
the order of the day. In fact, the leftover ministers of the Howard
government are still denying the science, even today. Most are
religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore. Please do some
reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion
on CFLs (which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very
important issue. --
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like
'denier' that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to
put those who have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket
as the holocaust deniers.

**I was EXTREMELY careful in my use of the term 'denier'. I did not call you
a denier (though you may well be - or not). I called John Howard (and his
government) and George W Bush deniers. I was quite specific. John Howard was
a lawyer and a politician. He has little knowledge of scientific matters.
George W Bush was/is a drug-addled college drop-out, whose daddy managed to
keep him out of gaol and then became a politician. His knowledge of
scientific matters was/is virtually non-existent. Both these men employed a
bunch of very smart climate scientists (the EPA, NASA, US Academy of
Sciences - in the US. CSIRO, BoM, Australian Academy of Science - in
Australia) to inform them on the situation regarding climate change (aka:
global warming) and the relevance of human influence. ALL these
organisations informed both men that there was almost no doubt that human
induced global warming was a serious problem that needed to be addressed.

Not only did these men ignore the advice of the scientists that they paid to
inform them, but they actively denied the overwhelming evidence presented
and decided that the people who are employed by the fossil fuel industy were
correct.

That is what I call a denier.

And the "You're a smart guy" .... but
... I can almost see the head sadly shaking.

**Not at all. We've had dealings in the past and I have no issues with the
term. As a technical guy, you will likely have a good grounding in science.
I find it curious that you've managed to find fault with everything in the
IPCC AR4 though. I tazke it that you've read the report? All 1,600 odd
pages?

If you think that I'm
so smart, do you honestly believe that I never do any reading on all
this ?

**I'm sure you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?

Do you think my position on all this has come about as a
result of me just wanting to take an alternate view for the sake of
it ?

**Possibly. Many people take such a view.


I don't know what the situation is in your half of the world,
but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion.

**As it should be. Many researchers have predicted that if CO2 levels reach
500ppm, positive feedback will ensue and there will be nothing humans can do
to prevent catastrophic warming from occuring. At least one researcher
believes that the 'tipping point' has already been reached. It would seem
prudent to listen to the guys who study climatology, rather than the guys
who speak for the fossil fuel industry in this matter.

No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being
screamed down as a "denier".

**Well, it would seem that, since climatologists study the climate, ignoring
what they say is, at a very minimum, stupid.

When I say that the case is by no means
proven, except in the media,

**The Murdock controlled media claims it is all wrong. The scientific medai,
OTOH, has made it's case very clear. AGW is a problem.

it's reached the point now where the BBC
don't basically carry any news that might present an alternate view.

**Perhaps the BBC is concentrating on facts, rather than fiction. I accept
that. They leave the fiction, lies and distortions to the Murdock media.
Would you prefer that the BBC was more like the Murdock media?

If they do have anyone on a programme that dares to suggest any
alternate view, they make sure that there are three loud-mouthed
greenies in the studio, to shout the person down.

**I have no problems with charlatans being exposed. In fact, I support it.

Plus the
interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is twisted
to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

**Given the fact that it is a very serious problem, you should expect to her
a great deal about it.


Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models.

**No, it did not. The initial momentum came about during the early 1970s
(which is when I first began reading about CO2 induced global warming in the
pages of Scientific American). The warming that was occuring was begining to
alarm researchers. Sometime later (1988), the IPCC was set up to investigate
the measured warming.

Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill
correctly, when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's
with just a few variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from
the University of East Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed
'hockey stick' graph came from, that sought to show the rapid
warming, that actually hadn't taken place. The guy in charge of all
this was suspended from his position, after his emails were obtained,
showing communications with his contemporaries, inviting them to
massage the data to fit the model.

**I am familiar with the illegally obtained emails, which were carefully
cherry-picked for release, in a shabby attempt to discredit some very
dedicated scientists. Fortunately several independent inquiries have
exonerated the scientists.

It was largely as a result of
this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart, as
it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is
that ? What kind of scientist is he ?

**A very good scientist, actually. Of course, if you had taken the time to
investigate the matter, you might realise that the (Murdock controlled?) did
a number on the CRU.


My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation.

**Some do. Some don't.

As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done,
dusted, and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a
heretic.

**Nope. The only people who don't accept the reality of AGW a

* Idiots.
* Religious nutters.
* Fossil fuel apologists.
* Those who are too lazy to read the best information on the issue (AR4).

Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the
slightest doubt, the case isn't proven and closed, and a good
scientist should keep his mind open.

**Indeed. Have you read AR4? All 1600-odd pages?

Fortunately, there is a recent
groundswell of alternate view from a number of equally reputable
scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand up and be
counted.

**Wrong. There are a very, very tiny number of climate scientists who
challenge the consensus view. Most are paid by the fossil fuel industry and
are, therefore, suspect. The opinions of scientists whose discipline is not
climate science are not of much interest.


And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have
you stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now
the green movement ?

**What are you attempting to draw a comparison here with? A wind turbine
manufacturer, compared to Exxon? Yeah, right. The fossil fuel industry is
extremely well-funded, entrenched and uses EXACTLY the same tactics as those
employed by the tobacco industry. In fact, they use the same organisations
to promote their position. THAT should send warning bells to any sane
person.

Do you think that for some reason, because they
are greenies, they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel
?

**I am not talking about nice. I'm talking about science. Keep the
discussion centred on the science. Personalities are a spurious issue.

Not prepared to have people in their pay to say what they need them
to ?

**Some people say what they're paid to say and some say what they believe.
And some say what the science says. They're the scientists and they are the
only ones I care about.

If the whole man-made global warming argument were to collapse,
it would spell the death of the green industrial machine, with no
less implications and impact that a similar demise of the fossil fuel
industry would have.

**You may as well ask what would happen if NASA admitted that the Moon
landing was bull****. It happened. Global warming is happening. The trend is
impossible to refute.


I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made
global warming is made with 100% certainty.

**Call it 95% certainty. That's close enough for me. If my local fire
authorities suggested that there was a 95% probability that my home would be
destroyed in a bushfire within the next 10 years, I'd make certain my
insurance policy covered such an event. Are you one of those people who
prefers to cling to the 5% possibility? I call that dumb.

That is your prerogative.
But please understand that I, and many others also read the same data
and arguments, and arrive at a different conclusion.

**Have you read AR4?

I don't have a
closed mind on the subject. I am still open to persuasion if
indisputable data is presented. But I would really like it to all
become detached from the religious hysteria that has gripped the
world over it.

**It's science, not religion.


I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history.

**Just a reminder: We're discussing CLIMATE change, not the daily weather.


Maybe man's activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously
don't believe that all of the changes that are perceived are down to
things that we are doing.

**NO ONE EVER said that humans were solely responsible. The Sun is the major
driver of climate on this planet. CO2 is _a_ driver of climate. A small one.
Small, but significant. CO2 is not insignificant.


There are many other factors that
contribute to weather patterns, and some of them may be more
significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's activities,
would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury is
still out.

**Have you read AR4?


Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change
anything, and I expect there will still be a lot of people pursing
their lips and shaking their heads at this poor deluded fool, but
hey-ho. That's life, and I don't really have the inclination to spend
any more time on it now.

**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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_reports.shtml
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.





--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

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_reports.shtml
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.


Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that action will
be too little too late.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:03:13 +1000, "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_reports.shtml
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.

True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office.
Politicians tend to pick whatever helps them win:
http://woods.stanford.edu/?q=research/surveys-climate-energy/climate-views-elections

They are not likely to be pleasant and will
be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry.

Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If
everyone agrees with the IPCC consensus, there would be no need for a
5th report, no need to fund research, and no need to debate the
issues. Without opposition, the IPCC would probably be disolved.

There is
certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on the way
to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it
has served mankind quite well since we climbed out of the trees. If
we were more impulsive, we would probably be extinct by now. Evolution
sometimes rewards aggressive action. Human society does not.

Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that action will
be too little too late.

As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem.
I don't think there's any serious opposition to the observation that
the global climate is changing. It has changed before and will
certainly do so again. The real questions are is it caused by human
activity and can we do anything about it? The options are not very
appealing. Leave things as they are, and civilization comes to an
end. Drastically downsize the population with a corresponding
reduction in greenhouse gas production, and it's almost as likely that
we would also put an end to civilization, at least as we know it
today. Since genocide and enforced austerity are not popular
concepts, the compromise is to do nothing, which we are now doing
quite nicely.

Drivel: I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
same mistake with AGW.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:03:13 +1000, "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_reports.shtml
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.

True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office.
Politicians tend to pick whatever helps them win:
http://woods.stanford.edu/?q=research/surveys-climate-energy/climate-views-elections

They are not likely to be pleasant and will
be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry.

Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If
everyone agrees with the IPCC consensus, there would be no need for a
5th report, no need to fund research, and no need to debate the
issues. Without opposition, the IPCC would probably be disolved.

There is
certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on
the way to reduce CO2 emissions.

Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it
has served mankind quite well since we climbed out of the trees. If
we were more impulsive, we would probably be extinct by now. Evolution
sometimes rewards aggressive action. Human society does not.

Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that
action will be too little too late.

As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem.
I don't think there's any serious opposition to the observation that
the global climate is changing. It has changed before and will
certainly do so again. The real questions are is it caused by human
activity and can we do anything about it? The options are not very
appealing. Leave things as they are, and civilization comes to an
end. Drastically downsize the population with a corresponding
reduction in greenhouse gas production, and it's almost as likely that
we would also put an end to civilization, at least as we know it
today. Since genocide and enforced austerity are not popular
concepts, the compromise is to do nothing, which we are now doing
quite nicely.

Drivel: I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
same mistake with AGW.

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the
climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed
the ability of the population of this planet to pay.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the
climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed
the ability of the population of this planet to pay.

No downside? What about the economic downside? If we went on a major
global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
transportation would come to an end, many inherently inefficient
industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned, and production
of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
fertilizer) would be drastically reduced. I'm sure the IPCC has
recognized this downside, which might explain their 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 the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I
said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success,
but the patient died" comes to mind.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann"

I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
same mistake with AGW.


** Ever hear of Politician's Logic ??

It goes like this:

A group of politicians is confronted with what looks like a serious problem.

They say to each other:

" This is just terrible - we must do SOMETHING "

Then a rather obvious suggestion is made and they all latch onto it saying:

" This is SOMETHING therefore we MUST do it !! "



.... Phil

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no
serious downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent.
If all the climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then
the costs may exceed the ability of the population of this planet to
pay.

No downside? What about the economic downside?

**I did say: "No serious downside". The estimated costs, right now, are not
onerous. As we move foreward, those costs will increase. Possibly more
importantly, there are some potential upsides for many new industries.

If we went on a major
global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
transportation would come to an end,

**Which it exxentially will anyway. Oil is rapidly running out.

many inherently inefficient
industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned,

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the
point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present level (in
Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was approximately
$400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be very
profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't
menton the massive profits.

and production
of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
fertilizer) would be drastically reduced.

**That would depend on the measures that are taken.

I'm sure the IPCC has
recognized this downside, which might explain their 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 the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I
said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success,
but the patient died" comes to mind.

**There will certainly be some serious downsides in any CO2 abatement
programmes. The alternative is, however, utterly unthinkable.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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.


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.


--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the
point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present level (in
Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was approximately
$400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be very
profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't
menton the massive profits.

Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

Price (not adjusted for inflation)
US$ per lb
2010 1.214
2009 1.252
2008 1.205
2007 0.794
2006 1.017
2005 0.688
2004 0.649
2003 0.681
2002 0.840
2001 0.880
2000 0.771
1999 0.655
1998 0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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. You avoid the fact that
you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual, 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.

Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.
These people are therefore owned, 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.


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.

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.

the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
day too. 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.


--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 27, 11:14*am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

...



Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions *:-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
a cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...gation?storeId...

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore.

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers. And the "You're a smart guy" *.... * but *... *I can almost see the
head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

Whenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you
know that the speaker
or the forum is bought and has no credibility.

There are other weasel words too used here like "working families"
"tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as
discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation
building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA
draconian internet censorship) etc.

Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when
their lies are exposed
to the world, and no one believes them anymore. Be very careful of
them.
Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam,
the
"scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming
up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with
it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed
by supporting this scam.

It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control
was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and
common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the
truth.


The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the
emperors new clothes on - wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo
deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in
class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would
be done for "making and possession of child abuse material" but of
course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective
enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.


Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
? What kind of scientist is he ?

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open.
Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
up and be counted.

And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.

I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
hysteria that has gripped the world over it.

I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
is still out.

Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.

Arfa

On Sep 27, 9:42*pm, kreed wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:14*am, "Arfa Daily" wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

...

Arfa Daily wrote:
Well, I guess we're never going to agree on any aspect of this. You
seem predisposed to take the wrong way, a number of points that I
have repeatedly made, but ho-hum, it's been an interesting line of
chat, and at least it hasn't descended into a screaming match as is
so often the case in these discussions *:-)

**Provided there is some respect on both sides and an attempt to undestand
the other POV, I see no reason why a screaming match is necessary. I no
longer waste my time with those who choose to insult, rather than present
a cogent argument. It's better for my health.

Your comments about prices of CFLs have me intrigued. I did some more
research. Here are some prices in the US:

http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/...gation?storeId....

Prices appear to be somewhat lower than Australia and dramatically lower
than in the UK. I suggest that you should be complaining about CFL prices
in the UK. Clearly, something is seriously awry.

I accept personal preferences for ICs are valid. I accept that personal
preferences against CFLs are also valid. I also accept the testing done by
Choice and others, that prove the efficiency aspects of CFLs are
significantly in advance of ICs. I accept, in the abscence of evidence to
the contrary, that CFLs have a manufacturing energy cost that is
approximately 6 times that of ICs.

Having said all that, there is one aspect of our discussion that I find
deeply troubling. You're a smart guy. Yet you appear to be willing to
reject the overwhelming bulk of good, solid science that has shown that
rising CO2 levels are causing the present warming we find ourselves
experiencing. You appear to be rejecting the science, in preference for
the hysterical ravings of those who have clear links to the fossil fuel
industry. OTH, the scientists who study and report on global warming, for
the most part, do not have links to the alternative energy business. They
do what a good scientist should do - report the science without regard to
political or business bias. Consider the NASA and EPA scientists who were
issuing very clear warnings to President Bush. Bush was a rabid global
warming denier. We had the same thing here in Australia. During the Howard
government years, Australia's premier scientific body (the CSIRO) was
issuing clear reports to the government that anthropogenic global warming
was going to cause serious problems for Australia and the rest of the
planet. Yet the Howard government was aligned with the Bush government, in
that denial of the science was the order of the day. In fact, the leftover
ministers of the Howard government are still denying the science, even
today. Most are religious loonies, so no one takes much ntice anymore..

Please do some reading on the topic. Unlike the present discussion on CFLs
(which is really a bit of a distraction), it is a very important issue.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit ****ed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers. And the "You're a smart guy" *.... * but *... *I can almost see the
head sadly shaking. If you think that I'm so smart, do you honestly believe
that I never do any reading on all this ? Do you think my position on all
this has come about as a result of me just wanting to take an alternate view
for the sake of it ? I don't know what the situation is in your half of the
world, but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion. No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being screamed
down as a "denier". When I say that the case is by no means proven, except
in the media, it's reached the point now where the BBC don't basically carry
any news that might present an alternate view. If they do have anyone on a
programme that dares to suggest any alternate view, they make sure that
there are three loud-mouthed greenies in the studio, to shout the person
down. Plus the interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is
twisted to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

Whenever you hear any of these 'weasel words" as we call them, you
know that the speaker
or the forum is bought and has no credibility.

There are other weasel words too used here like "working families"
"tackle" "planet" (except when used in the proper context - such as
discussing a planet in legitimate science discussion), "nation
building" "empowerment" "clean" (as in clean energy, clean feed AKA
draconian internet censorship) etc.

Yes, these people get extremely angry and potentially violent when
their lies are exposed
to the world, and no one believes them anymore. *Be very careful of
them.
* Imagine all the money that has been spent cooking up the AGW scam,
the
"scientists" that had to be funded and coerced into coming
up with the right results, the media, government to all go along with
it, even in our case where our PM has bascially been totally destroyed
by supporting this scam.

It was all working perfectly the goal of ultimate power and control
was right there, ready to be grabbed, and thanks to the internet and
common sense, the whole thing got dissolved by bright light of the
truth.

The anger must be immense, and they are still walking around with the
emperors new clothes on - *wanting to "arrest deniers", "Tattoo
deniers" (Australia), run adverts showing children being blown up in
class for not believing in AGW - which if you or I tried it - we would
be done for "making and possession of child abuse material" *but of
course, no one gets charged or jailed for it because of selective
enforcement of laws, in what is rapidly becoming a lawless world.

Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models. Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill correctly,
when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's with just a few
variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from the University of East
Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed 'hockey stick' graph came
from, that sought to show the rapid warming, that actually hadn't taken
place. The guy in charge of all this was suspended from his position, after
his emails were obtained, showing communications with his contemporaries,
inviting them to massage the data to fit the model. It was largely as a
result of this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart,
as it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is that
? What kind of scientist is he ?

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic. Well, I'm
sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the slightest doubt, the case
isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist should keep his mind open..
Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of alternate view from a number
of equally reputable scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand
up and be counted.

And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have you
stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now the green
movement ? Do you think that for some reason, because they are greenies,
they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel ? Not prepared to
have people in their pay to say what they need them to ? If the whole
man-made global warming argument were to collapse, it would spell the death
of the green industrial machine, with no less implications and impact that a
similar demise of the fossil fuel industry would have.

I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made global
warming is made with 100% certainty. That is your prerogative. But please
understand that I, and many others also read the same data and arguments,
and arrive at a different conclusion. I don't have a closed mind on the
subject. I am still open to persuasion if indisputable data is presented.
But I would really like it to all become detached from the religious
hysteria that has gripped the world over it.

I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history. Maybe man's
activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously don't believe that
all of the changes that are perceived are down to things that we are doing.
There are many other factors that contribute to weather patterns, and some
of them may be more significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's
activities, would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury
is still out.

Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change anything, and I
expect there will still be a lot of people pursing their lips and shaking
their heads at this poor deluded fool, but hey-ho. That's life, and I don't
really have the inclination to spend any more time on it now.

Arfa

Also take a look at the Green Movement.

Note that like most evils, it always starts out with reasonable
things, like don't throw rubbish everywhere, dont dump large
quantities of toxic waste in streams, or land etc (especially where it
gets back into your food or water supply). Fair enough, people say.
Then over time things change

The entire core and philosophy of the modern Green movement is to sell
to people to a totally non-negotiable blinding hate and loathing of
yourself and humans generally, that "people are filth, a disease, have
to be gotten rid of (Except for greenies and those in power of course
who are totally exempt from this, they are allowed to drive large
cars, fly everywhere, have large families, huge homes, and electricity
usage etc - where you and I are absolute filth who shouldn't be
allowed electricity, children, meat, or any resources).

Out of interest, I was pointed by another poster to a guy called
"Alfred Adask" who discovered an interesting phrase in the drug
enforcement laws - where the term "Man and other animals" is used. He
used this successfuly as a defense to get a charge of producing
nutritional supplements dropped. I would advise checking this out.
Note the term "animals" - very convenient to remove someone's rights
and possibly a reason why the government is so keen on pushing
"evolution" (Note the implication - If you are evolved from animals -
you are an animal yourself, have no rights, like cattle and are not a
human being ?)

Note too that for greenies, who tend over time to get everything they
want legislated for - Nothing at all is ever enough. They get handed
everything, then they come up with a set of crazier and crazier
demands. There is no room whatsover for negotiation, or avoiding bad
consequences - their word is the way it is and that is the end of it.


Electricity ? Can't have coal, becuase of "carbon pollution", but
hydro and wind are ok - No carbon ?

Hydro - Oh no, damming rivers destroys wildlife, and some rare
fish.
Wind ? No way, it kills some rare bird, and the noises from the
blades distresses animals.
Nuclear - Oh no, Chernobyl !

Solar - They haven't attacked that yet - but the fact is that it isnt
a solution in that it doesn't work at night, in climates where there
isnt much sun, and with high rise apartment buildings and office
blocks would not have enough roof space to collect sufficient power.
It also doesnt work well when there is bad weather. It would be
useless to power heavy industry or something like an aluminium plant.


As you can see - the goal is not to make "clean" (though unaffordable)
power, but to progressively remove these resources from the average
person, and turn us back to a feudal state where we are mere slaves
and animals, and these elites are our rulers living in unbelievable
luxury. People like that are kept on the edge of starvation, they
have no rights, they do not question, they do not protest, they do
little to resist, and are flat out surviving. This sort of society is
the wet dream of anyone in power, who wants to stay in power. Without
affordable energy, the ability to travel you are nothing and have no
economic future, no way out of ignorance or any form of life. Take a
look at countries where this already happens.


Look also at Agenda 21 which is a scary policy of environmental evil.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on the
aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
level (in Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
approximately $400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be
very profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
don't menton the massive profits.

Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

Price (not adjusted for inflation)
US$ per lb
2010 1.214
2009 1.252
2008 1.205
2007 0.794
2006 1.017
2005 0.688
2004 0.649
2003 0.681
2002 0.840
2001 0.880
2000 0.771
1999 0.655
1998 0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars.
Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
plant (here in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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.

Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels. Everyone that
disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections. That data shown is the
rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

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.

Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels.

**I have a policy of treating people the way they deserve to be treated. If
a person wilfully ignores the science and resorts to parrotting
unsubstantiated rumour, then they have opened the door to the appropriate
descriptors.

Everyone that
disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.

**People who dispute those who have spent their lives studying a subject,
without presenting a shred of evidence to support their claims, are
uneducated idiots. People who have failed to read the premier document on a
given subject and then proffer their own unsupported opinions are uneducated
idiots.



Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).

**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?


Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Indeed. However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gl...10_(Fig.A).gif

Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.

That data shown is the
rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Here are some graphs that are directly related to the issues faced by
Australia (and the rest of the planet):

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climat...12&av e_yr=11

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climat...12&ave _yr=11

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climat...12&ave _yr=11

The tools are available for you to mess around with the graphs all you wish.
The results will be pretty much the same. The trend to higher temperatures
accross Australia are clear and unequivocal. These are not guesses, nor
projections. They're real, hard data.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 28, 6:44*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on the
aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
level (in Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
approximately $400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be
very profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
don't menton the massive profits.

Interesting. *I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. *Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. *Sorry for the mess:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-al....
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

* Price (not adjusted for inflation)
* * *US$ per lb
2010 * *1.214
2009 * *1.252
2008 * *1.205
2007 * *0.794
2006 * *1.017
2005 * *0.688
2004 * *0.649
2003 * *0.681
2002 * *0.840
2001 * *0.880
2000 * *0.771
1999 * *0.655
1998 * *0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. *That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. *However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times. *Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars..
Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
plant (here in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
are the usual suspects.

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 6:44 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on
the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
level (in Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
approximately $400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still
be very profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
don't menton the massive profits.

Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-al...
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf

Price (not adjusted for inflation)
US$ per lb
2010 1.214
2009 1.252
2008 1.205
2007 0.794
2006 1.017
2005 0.688
2004 0.649
2003 0.681
2002 0.840
2001 0.880
2000 0.771
1999 0.655
1998 0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in
Australia went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened
in Australia during this time period to produce this difference?

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US
Dollars. Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of
approximately 2 between 1989 and now, the cost to aluminium
processors is not so clear. Aluminium processors do deals with
suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of energy. In at least
one case, the producers has their own power generating plant (here
in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
are the usual suspects.

**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the
facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:50:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Please try to phrase your
questions without the implied insults.

When it was first leaked, I read the original and made up my own mind
as to what it represented. I later read the Wikipedia article and
some of the referenced articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
That was about 2 years ago. Accepting the conclusions of eminent
authorities is certainly easier than trying to understand what
happened, but I find it more interesting. From the above article:
"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions. Unfortunately, as I didn't understand everything that
was happening in the document, I can only offer a general impression.

Incidentally, I don't recall the exact report, but one of the early
AGW research reports produced spectacular predicted temperature rises.
Even the supporters were amazed, as was the press which carried the
story in the most alarmist manner possible. It turned out that the
researchers had used history from weather stations located in urban
areas, which tend to be heat islands. When all the urban sensor data
was removed, leaving only rural sensors, the numbers looked like
random garbage with no obvious trend line. Recently, satellite data
has eliminated much of these types of problems, but it was amusing to
watch the cover up after this was pointed out.

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Indeed.

I just wanted to point out how easy it is to do. Much to my disgust,
the local water district used my method to justify drought funding a
few years ago. We really did have a drought, but the historical
numbers were insufficient to qualify for federally funded relief. So,
they produced ominous trend graphs, but also "normalized" (tweaked)
some of the data. Computers make all this so easy to do.

However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif

Holdit. A few rants ago, I mentioned that I believe that there's no
question that there's been a trend towards temperature increase. I
don't question any of that type of historical data (unless the
original data is suspect). The pressing questions a
1. What is the predicted trend line?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
3. Should we do anything about it?
4. Will doing anything about it actually work or cause more problems?
My comments were specifically directed towards predicting future
trends, not historical data.

Incidentally, I find it amusing that the IPCC and you are both using
the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) where anthropogenic means
"caused by humans" as if it's already conclusive that any and all
effects are the result of human activities. Begging the question
comes to mind.

Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
Hmmm... I wonder if the current unusual lack of sunspots is caused by
human activity?

**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.

Ok. I won't argue.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more accurately
as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't totally clear.
However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the
facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist. This
cannot be 100% proven as fact, but I doubt any normal adult fully
believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.

I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away


as Phil would say. **** Off.



--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

kreed wrote:
**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal
with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.



I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.

**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports,
clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for
the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have
not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my
questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is
utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need
to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start,
is to read the damned report.

This
cannot be 100% proven as fact,

**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume
that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

but I doubt any normal adult fully
believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.

**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off,
that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC,
NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian
Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a
host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated
requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
claims.

As they say: "Put up or shut up."

If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.

As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.


I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

**********. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept
that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have
failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild
claims.

Now who is being an idiot?

The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the
one who believes the ******** promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and
Tony Abbott?


I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.


There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away

**I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.



as Phil would say. **** Off.

**An expected response from a person who has no answers.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Jeff Liebermann"


"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions.


** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a
logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
scientifically worthless.

By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion
you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.

Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly
removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example
of scientific dishonesty.



..... Phil

"kreed"
Speaking about TW:

I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away

as Phil would say. **** Off.


** People like TW have no idea they give themselves away in their own words
all the time.

Charlatans do not have to fool everyone, either all or some of the time, to
be a success.

They just have to fool particular people, when it counts.

That why the call them " marks ".




..... Phil

On Sep 28, 12:44*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more accurately
as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't totally clear.
However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558


Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .


They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.



IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

On Sep 28, 2:25*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann"



*"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
*reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. *There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions.

** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence *- *a
logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
scientifically worthless.

By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion
you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.

Dunno what definition of *"scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly
removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example
of scientific dishonesty.

.... *Phil


So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
This won't happen though

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558


Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .


They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.



IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bull**** for a rational argument does not
enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions
and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.

Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He
will receive one.

Still waiting for some answers from you.......



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .


** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?



..... Phil

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann"



"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions.

** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a
logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
scientifically worthless.

By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any
conclusion you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.

Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but
quietly removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta
be an example of scientific dishonesty.

.... Phil


So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
This won't happen though

**LOL! Nor should it. Accusing several dozen of the best scientific
organisations on the planet of fraud, demands some pretty solid evidence.
Thus far, you've presented exactly nothing.

Still waiting for some answers.......


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 28, 2:47*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

** *Rabid greenies, space aliens *- *what's the difference ?

.... *Phil

I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,

I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
"alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
done.

When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,
they would be right up there with governments (historically the
greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
mankind.

On Sep 28, 2:24*pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal
with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.

I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.

**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports,
clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for
the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have
not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my
questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is
utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need
to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start,
is to read the damned report.

*This

cannot be 100% proven as fact,

**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume
that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

*but I doubt any normal adult fully

believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.

**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off,
that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC,
NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian
Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a
host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated
requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
claims.

As they say: "Put up or shut up."

If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.

As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.



I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

**********. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept
that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have
failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild
claims.

Now who is being an idiot?

The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the
one who believes the ******** promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and
Tony Abbott?



I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.



There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. *You are not hard to see through. *The words and
manner of delivery give it away

**I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.



as Phil would say. ***** Off.

**An expected response from a person who has no answers.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing
that, go away.

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:47 pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?

.... Phil

I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,

**Have yourself committed. You've completely lost touch with reality.


I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
"alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
done.

**There you go again: Ignoring science, logic and reason. Crop circles were
created by humans. There is no reputable evidence that this planet has been
visited by aliens. Ever. Significantly, so-called 'alien abductions' suddely
began at around the time science fiction movies about aliens made their way
to cinemas. Like your ideas, such things are purely fictional.


When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,

**OK, I'll bite: What damage and what potential dmage do you refer to? Be
specific. Compare that damage to:

* The war in the Gulf.
* The Vietnam War.
* WWII
* WWI
* Chernobyl
* The recent nuclear reactor problems in Japan
* Bhopal
* The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_P..._Garbage_Patch
* The extinction of thousands of species during the last 100 years

Which is worse and why?

they would be right up there with governments (historically the
greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
mankind.

**Is that so? How so? Be specific in your answer.

I fully expect that you will adopt your usual attitude and you will fail to
respond to any of my questions.

I accept, in advance, that you acknowledge that you are full of ****.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal
with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are
wrong.

I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.

**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC
reports, clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best
explanation for the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have
demonstrated that you have not read the IPCC reports. You have also
failed to answer any of my questions WRT this issue. Your analogy,
like all your previous analogies, is utterly bereft of logic. If you
feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need to show where and how the
report is faulty. A good place for you to start, is to read the
damned report.

This

cannot be 100% proven as fact,

**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person
can assume that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC
AR4, we have:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate
of CO2 rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000
years. * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature
rise has been closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to
account for the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

but I doubt any normal adult fully

believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.

**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been
paid off, that there are vested interests and that corruption is
rife in the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The
BoM, The Australian Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal
Swedish Academy of Science and a host of other reputable
organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated requests, to
provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
claims.

As they say: "Put up or shut up."

If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present
it.

As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild
claims.



I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness
(as told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim
of lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot
ever see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

**********. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I
accept that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note
that you have failed to present a single shred of scientific
evidence to support your wild claims.

Now who is being an idiot?

The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations,
or the one who believes the ******** promulgated by Alan Jones,
George Pell and Tony Abbott?



I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile
hi-fi business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown
about by some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much
harder to sell such stuff to the gullible.

**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.



There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away

**I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.



as Phil would say. **** Off.

**An expected response from a person who has no answers.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au


Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing
that, go away.

**Inability to provide even a tiny shred of supporting evidence is duly
noted.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Sep 28, 2:42*pm, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming .

They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - *to trot
this rubbish out.

IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us !

**Substituting lies and complete bull**** for a rational argument does not
enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions
and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.


I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bull**** rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bull**** and veering
into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!


Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He
will receive one.


No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,
putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him, so you are sucking up to him, and gently
trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care. You know that I and some
others already have studied the matter,and those behind it, and have
made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others. I guess its
also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so, know that I
generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince ****wits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bull****, or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult
member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".



I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.



Still waiting for some answers from you.......

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

You got plenty

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:24:35 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png
from:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Ahem...
http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.

Yep. Track volcanoes.
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html

Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide
for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination. We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring
albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.

There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.

What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558