Discussion:
Where is that maggot of the year Tim Flannery
(too old to reply)
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-11 19:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW claim
- it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those slimy
Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how unusual!).
We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with the rest of
them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood relief had lice
like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like Beattie to waste it on
(now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven, Greens-powered, squandering
and incompetent Labor madness needs to be eliminated at all levels.
Hopefully next set of elections will do it, but in the meantime the
bastards should be put to work cleaning up the bloody mess they've made
at all levels. Today's disaster is Labor/Greens flood damage.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Gillard = Rudd in a frock
2011-01-11 19:46:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:37:49 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW claim
- it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those slimy
Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how unusual!).
We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with the rest of
them.
Maybe you should string up that lying fat bastard wogboy, SerGay, as
well?
--
"One thing is sure - there will be no Gillard era. This is not a
20-year stretch. Civilised people's hands are already over their faces
every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no
influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there."

Bob Ellis (ALP speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv

"Gillard is part of a Melbourne-based gang Ellis dubs the "Mouse Pack",
which includes Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson.

"They twitch their whiskers and come out in favour of the Afghan war
without studying the problem or noting that an army intelligence
officer [independent MP Andrew Wilkie] holds the balance of power,"
Ellis says."

More Bob Ellis (ALP Speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-11 19:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillard = Rudd in a frock
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:37:49 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW claim
- it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those slimy
Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how unusual!).
We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with the rest of
them.
Maybe you should string up that lying fat bastard wogboy, SerGay, as
well?
He might have to wait till last. Not just in keeping with his status,
but we may need to grease the ropes by dragging them through his hair.
Who's first is the more difficult choice. Probably still Gillard, if we
can find her through the increasing count of dead bodies she's trying to
hide behind. Fair dinkum, this Labor govt is nothing short of criminal.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
olde.sault
2011-01-11 21:04:38 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 12, 6:37 am, Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW claim
- it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those slimy
Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how unusual!).
We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with the rest of
them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood relief had lice
like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like Beattie to waste it on
(now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven, Greens-powered, squandering
and incompetent Labor madness needs to be eliminated at all levels.
Hopefully next set of elections will do it, but in the meantime the
bastards should be put to work cleaning up the bloody mess they've made
at all levels. Today's disaster is Labor/Greens flood damage.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...
Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000
Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010
** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Anyone that goes for making such predictions has to be 'touched' in
the head.

And, if it has any political or financial implications should have
been viewed with doubt from the very beginning. Unfortunately, there
are more leftie-brained than sensible people in all walks of life -
problem comes when we elect them to govern.

OS
Swampfox
2011-01-11 21:20:29 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 12, 6:37 am, Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those
slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how
unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with
the rest of them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood
relief had lice like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like
Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven,
Greens-powered, squandering and incompetent Labor madness needs to
be eliminated at all levels. Hopefully next set of elections will do
it, but in the meantime the bastards should be put to work cleaning
up the bloody mess they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is
Labor/Greens flood damage.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...
Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000
Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010
** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Anyone that goes for making such predictions has to be 'touched' in
the head.
And, if it has any political or financial implications should have
been viewed with doubt from the very beginning. Unfortunately, there
are more leftie-brained than sensible people in all walks of life -
problem comes when we elect them to govern.
OS
That mentality was very popular in Germany circa 1935 when Hitler was
elected with an 88% majority by the "sensible" Germans.
Left and right philosphies both have their place, sensible people take and
use the best aspects of both and discard the worst.
Swampfox
2011-01-11 21:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those
slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how
unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with
the rest of them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood
relief had lice like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like
Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven,
Greens-powered, squandering and incompetent Labor madness needs to be
eliminated at all levels. Hopefully next set of elections will do it,
but in the meantime the bastards should be put to work cleaning up
the bloody mess they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is
Labor/Greens flood damage.
Are you for real?
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella what do you
suggest that anyone in government could have done to prevent it or mitigate
the damage?
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of glacial
ice over the last century, or roughly since we started burning fossil fuels
and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make the facts
any less relevant.
olde.sault
2011-01-11 21:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those
slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how
unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with
the rest of them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood
relief had lice like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like
Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven,
Greens-powered, squandering and incompetent Labor madness needs to be
eliminated at all levels. Hopefully next set of elections will do it,
but in the meantime the bastards should be put to work cleaning up
the bloody mess they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is
Labor/Greens flood damage.
Are you for real?
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella what do you
suggest that anyone in government could have done to prevent it or mitigate
the damage?
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of glacial
ice over the last century, or roughly since we started burning fossil fuels
and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make the facts
any less relevant.
Very relevant if he was named Australian of the Year--

Who were the nuts who shoved him up that ladder?

OS
Swampfox
2011-01-11 22:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by olde.sault
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those
slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how
unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with
the rest of them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood
relief had lice like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like
Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven,
Greens-powered, squandering and incompetent Labor madness needs to
be eliminated at all levels. Hopefully next set of elections will
do it, but in the meantime the bastards should be put to work
cleaning up the bloody mess they've made at all levels. Today's
disaster is Labor/Greens flood damage.
Are you for real?
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella
what do you suggest that anyone in government could have done to
prevent it or mitigate the damage?
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of
glacial ice over the last century, or roughly since we started
burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make the
facts any less relevant.
Very relevant if he was named Australian of the Year--
Who were the nuts who shoved him up that ladder?
OS
Who cares who's named Australian of the year, at least it made a change from
the usual procession of cricketers, popular singers and tennis players.
Flannery is one man with one man's opinion, no more or less.
As a matter of interest how do you explain the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of
glacial ice over the last century?
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 00:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those
slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how
unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with
the rest of them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood
relief had lice like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like
Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven,
Greens-powered, squandering and incompetent Labor madness needs to be
eliminated at all levels. Hopefully next set of elections will do it,
but in the meantime the bastards should be put to work cleaning up
the bloody mess they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is
Labor/Greens flood damage.
Are you for real?
Am I for real? Is *he* for real? He should be turning in his Australian
of the Year for dissemination of his disinformation, which couldn't have
been more wrong.
Post by Swampfox
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella what do you
suggest that anyone in government could have done to prevent it or mitigate
the damage?
More dams in the right places would have mitigated the damage. But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it wasn't going
to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of glacial
ice over the last century, or roughly since we started burning fossil fuels
and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle of
"droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has seen for
centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE Qld and take a
look for yourself.
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make the facts
any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's opinion. How
many times have the ALP cited his "learned" prophecies, in the pursuit
of their insane AGW tax drive? How many times have their ABC had him on
to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end. At the
very least he should be decanonized from his role as high priest of the
AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title of "Australian of the
Year". <vomit>
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-12 00:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those
slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how
unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with
the rest of them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood
relief had lice like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like
Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven,
Greens-powered, squandering and incompetent Labor madness needs to
be eliminated at all levels. Hopefully next set of elections will
do it, but in the meantime the bastards should be put to work
cleaning up the bloody mess they've made at all levels. Today's
disaster is Labor/Greens flood damage.
Are you for real?
Am I for real? Is *he* for real? He should be turning in his
Australian of the Year for dissemination of his disinformation, which
couldn't have been more wrong.
But who gives a toss?
As far as I'm aware Australia governments have taken little or no action as
a result of anything that Flannery's said.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella
what do you suggest that anyone in government could have done to
prevent it or mitigate the damage?
More dams in the right places would have mitigated the damage.
You're kidding, right?
The cost of building dams of the number and volume requred to have any
mitigating effect on the scale of the current disaster would bankrupt the
country for a thousand years.
Get real.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it wasn't
going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of
glacial ice over the last century, or roughly since we started
burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle of
"droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has seen for
centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE Qld and take a
look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible explanation for
the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice in the last century?
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick your finger
out the window and check the weather?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make the
facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's opinion. How
many times have the ALP cited his "learned" prophecies, in the pursuit
of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end. At
the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high priest
of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title of
"Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, was also
given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in Australia last year.
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 02:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those
slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how
unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with
the rest of them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood
relief had lice like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like
Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven,
Greens-powered, squandering and incompetent Labor madness needs to
be eliminated at all levels. Hopefully next set of elections will
do it, but in the meantime the bastards should be put to work
cleaning up the bloody mess they've made at all levels. Today's
disaster is Labor/Greens flood damage.
Are you for real?
Am I for real? Is *he* for real? He should be turning in his
Australian of the Year for dissemination of his disinformation, which
couldn't have been more wrong.
But who gives a toss?
As far as I'm aware Australia governments have taken little or no action as
a result of anything that Flannery's said.
Are you for real? They've had him up on their pedestal as their AGW
poster boy to justify their great big new tax.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella
what do you suggest that anyone in government could have done to
prevent it or mitigate the damage?
More dams in the right places would have mitigated the damage.
You're kidding, right?
The cost of building dams of the number and volume requred to have any
mitigating effect on the scale of the current disaster would bankrupt the
country for a thousand years.
Get real.
I'd like to see some real cost projections (I know youse guys hate
having to produce numbers) instead of unsubstantiated hyperbole. From
what I understand there are numerous strategic spots which could have
been dammed, which could have significantly mitigated the damage. And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it wasn't
going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of
glacial ice over the last century, or roughly since we started
burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle of
"droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has seen for
centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE Qld and take a
look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible explanation for
the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice in the last century?
No more than explanations for the previous countless shrinkages can be
accounted for, in times before the A in AGW were around. It is the "A" I
see as implausible, given the established cycles that began long before
"A" appeared on the scene and appear to be continuing without regard to
A being here or not. A plausible explanation for the attribution to A is
what is still required here.
Post by Swampfox
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick your finger
out the window and check the weather?
What a strange and silly question.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make the
facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's opinion. How
many times have the ALP cited his "learned" prophecies, in the pursuit
of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
It's very hard to tell what will happen there. Right up to election we
were promised that "Oy rool out a carbon tax" then the next week there
was to be a committee to decide on whether we should have a carbon tax,
membership open only to those who believe we _should_ have a carbon tax.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end. At
the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high priest
of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title of
"Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, was also
given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in Australia last year.
And my my, weren't the receptions poles apart from "their" ABC.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-12 03:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by
those slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of
crisis - how unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to
hang along with the rest of them. Imagine the money that could
have gone into flood relief had lice like Flannery not helped
convince simpletons like Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped)
desal plant. This AGW-driven, Greens-powered, squandering and
incompetent Labor madness needs to be eliminated at all levels.
Hopefully next set of elections will do it, but in the meantime
the bastards should be put to work cleaning up the bloody mess
they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is Labor/Greens
flood damage.
Are you for real?
Am I for real? Is *he* for real? He should be turning in his
Australian of the Year for dissemination of his disinformation,
which couldn't have been more wrong.
But who gives a toss?
As far as I'm aware Australia governments have taken little or no
action as a result of anything that Flannery's said.
Are you for real? They've had him up on their pedestal as their AGW
poster boy to justify their great big new tax.
But what has been done.
That is, what actions has any government in Australia taken as a direct
result of what Flanney's said?
Oh, that's right, none.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella
what do you suggest that anyone in government could have done to
prevent it or mitigate the damage?
More dams in the right places would have mitigated the damage.
You're kidding, right?
The cost of building dams of the number and volume requred to have
any mitigating effect on the scale of the current disaster would
bankrupt the country for a thousand years.
Get real.
I'd like to see some real cost projections (I know youse guys hate
having to produce numbers) instead of unsubstantiated hyperbole. From
what I understand there are numerous strategic spots which could have
been dammed, which could have significantly mitigated the damage.
What lunatic gave you to understand that?
And more's to the point, why in fuck did you believe them?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar
gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland floods, and
how big would they need to be?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it wasn't
going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of
glacial ice over the last century, or roughly since we started
burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle of
"droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has seen
for centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE Qld and
take a look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible
explanation for the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice in
the last century?
No more than explanations for the previous countless shrinkages can be
accounted for, in times before the A in AGW were around. It is the
"A" I see as implausible, given the established cycles that began
long before "A" appeared on the scene and appear to be continuing
without regard to A being here or not. A plausible explanation for
the attribution to A is what is still required here.
You still haven't provided a plausible explanation, unless of course you
subscribe to the idea that the current warming of the earth is part of a
natural cycle.
The fault in that reasoning is that the current rate of glacial recession
cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of warming
Loss of glacial ice has been up to 23% in the last century, which based on
all the geological evidence that we currently have at hand is unprecedented
in the earth's history, previous periods of warming to a similar degree
occured over many millenia.
Don't worry, nothing's gonna get done about it so we can all relax.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick your
finger out the window and check the weather?
What a strange and silly question.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make
the facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's opinion.
How many times have the ALP cited his "learned" prophecies, in the
pursuit of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
It's very hard to tell what will happen there. Right up to election we
were promised that "Oy rool out a carbon tax" then the next week there
was to be a committee to decide on whether we should have a carbon
tax, membership open only to those who believe we _should_ have a
carbon tax.
And the last time I checked there wasn't a carbon tax.
Whether AGW is reality or not it makes perfect sense to me that we should be
trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels as a matter of urgency, they are
finite and will become very expensive in the coming decades.
Business as usual won't cut the mustard when oil is three or four hundred
dollars a barrell, and coal powered transport went out with button up boots,
forget nuclear for all but base load power generation which still leaves a
massive vehicle fleet.
We already import more oil than we produce.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end. At
the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high priest
of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title of
"Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, was
also given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in Australia
last year.
And my my, weren't the receptions poles apart from "their" ABC.
I don't know what you mean, I saw Monckton interviewed on the ABC, it was
fair and balanced.
They were more polite to him than I would have been, he's a blabbering, self
interested ignoramus.
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 04:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW
claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by
those slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of
crisis - how unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to
hang along with the rest of them. Imagine the money that could
have gone into flood relief had lice like Flannery not helped
convince simpletons like Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped)
desal plant. This AGW-driven, Greens-powered, squandering and
incompetent Labor madness needs to be eliminated at all levels.
Hopefully next set of elections will do it, but in the meantime
the bastards should be put to work cleaning up the bloody mess
they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is Labor/Greens
flood damage.
Are you for real?
Am I for real? Is *he* for real? He should be turning in his
Australian of the Year for dissemination of his disinformation,
which couldn't have been more wrong.
But who gives a toss?
As far as I'm aware Australia governments have taken little or no
action as a result of anything that Flannery's said.
Are you for real? They've had him up on their pedestal as their AGW
poster boy to justify their great big new tax.
But what has been done.
That is, what actions has any government in Australia taken as a direct
result of what Flanney's said?
Oh, that's right, none.
Since he's not in parliament I'd imagine that what he says rates in the
same way as what the IPCC says, with the guvmint. Naturally Rudd's
decisions must have been influenced by neither. <knocks down flying pig
with pig swatter>
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella
what do you suggest that anyone in government could have done to
prevent it or mitigate the damage?
More dams in the right places would have mitigated the damage.
You're kidding, right?
The cost of building dams of the number and volume requred to have
any mitigating effect on the scale of the current disaster would
bankrupt the country for a thousand years.
Get real.
I'd like to see some real cost projections (I know youse guys hate
having to produce numbers) instead of unsubstantiated hyperbole. From
what I understand there are numerous strategic spots which could have
been dammed, which could have significantly mitigated the damage.
What lunatic gave you to understand that?
And more's to the point, why in fuck did you believe them?
I'd heard something on radio in the car this morning - don't know *who*
it was, but seem to recall something to do with Qld infrastructure/ govt
dept. Whatever lunatic it was, he seems to be a better qualified lunatic
than you to have been invited to speak on radio about it as some sort of
authority. In answer to your "more to the point", that's why I tend to
believe it *more* than some unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring
"bankrupt" and "a thousand years"..
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland floods, and
how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard and hope
to hear speak again. I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt eagerly
awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge pumps and
natural flood waters. LOL
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it wasn't
going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage of
glacial ice over the last century, or roughly since we started
burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle of
"droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has seen
for centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE Qld and
take a look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible
explanation for the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice in
the last century?
No more than explanations for the previous countless shrinkages can be
accounted for, in times before the A in AGW were around. It is the
"A" I see as implausible, given the established cycles that began
long before "A" appeared on the scene and appear to be continuing
without regard to A being here or not. A plausible explanation for
the attribution to A is what is still required here.
You still haven't provided a plausible explanation, unless of course you
subscribe to the idea that the current warming of the earth is part of a
natural cycle.
I subscribe to exactly that. And you're wrong that I have to provide a
plausible alternative to AGW in order to challenge it. Anybody proposing
it is not part of natural variations will have to provide proof that it
is actually a departure. Possible mechanisms remain only possibilities
until it can be proven.
Post by Swampfox
The fault in that reasoning is that the current rate of glacial recession
cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of warming
What is the natural rate of warming and where do you get your warming
rate data from over the Earth's geological history? You would need to
know that to compare glacial recession rates based on it.
Post by Swampfox
Loss of glacial ice has been up to 23% in the last century, which based on
all the geological evidence that we currently have at hand is unprecedented
in the earth's history, previous periods of warming to a similar degree
occured over many millenia.
Don't worry, nothing's gonna get done about it so we can all relax.
Nothing *can* be done about it, but that doesn't mean relax - not until
the AGW boogeyman is put to bed. This is part of the practical issue -
all this focus on a non-existent cause to an uncontrollable phenomenon,
which could have been put into preventative/ damage control measures,
for a foreseeable well documented event with a well established track
record. But Labor prefers to invest in gimmicks to placate the fairies
at the bottom of the garden.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick your
finger out the window and check the weather?
What a strange and silly question.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make
the facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's opinion.
How many times have the ALP cited his "learned" prophecies, in the
pursuit of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
It's very hard to tell what will happen there. Right up to election we
were promised that "Oy rool out a carbon tax" then the next week there
was to be a committee to decide on whether we should have a carbon
tax, membership open only to those who believe we _should_ have a
carbon tax.
And the last time I checked there wasn't a carbon tax.
Whether AGW is reality or not it makes perfect sense to me that we should be
trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels as a matter of urgency, they are
finite and will become very expensive in the coming decades.
I couldn't agree more. But this has nothing to do with a tax that
pretends to save us from frying the planet. Hell, the rain will put it
out anyway.
Post by Swampfox
Business as usual won't cut the mustard when oil is three or four hundred
dollars a barrell, and coal powered transport went out with button up boots,
forget nuclear for all but base load power generation which still leaves a
massive vehicle fleet.
We already import more oil than we produce.
We have lots of coal reserves too and there is no valid reason for
scrapping best practices coal-fired power stations. There is no
justification for coal to get phased out at all... unless you believe
the AGW line. There are some good lines of R&D for looking at future
alternatives, but as with the floods situation, how about directing the
money to viable and realistic things, not placating Gaia.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end. At
the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high priest
of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title of
"Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, was
also given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in Australia
last year.
And my my, weren't the receptions poles apart from "their" ABC.
I don't know what you mean, I saw Monckton interviewed on the ABC, it was
fair and balanced.
They were more polite to him than I would have been, he's a blabbering, self
interested ignoramus.
I guess you would see it that way and me quite the opposite, when the
commentary was safely removed from the face-to-face stuff.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-12 05:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit
AGW claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden
by those slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of
crisis - how unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to
hang along with the rest of them. Imagine the money that could
have gone into flood relief had lice like Flannery not helped
convince simpletons like Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped)
desal plant. This AGW-driven, Greens-powered, squandering and
incompetent Labor madness needs to be eliminated at all levels.
Hopefully next set of elections will do it, but in the meantime
the bastards should be put to work cleaning up the bloody mess
they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is Labor/Greens
flood damage.
Are you for real?
Am I for real? Is *he* for real? He should be turning in his
Australian of the Year for dissemination of his disinformation,
which couldn't have been more wrong.
But who gives a toss?
As far as I'm aware Australia governments have taken little or no
action as a result of anything that Flannery's said.
Are you for real? They've had him up on their pedestal as their AGW
poster boy to justify their great big new tax.
But what has been done.
That is, what actions has any government in Australia taken as a
direct result of what Flanney's said?
Oh, that's right, none.
Since he's not in parliament I'd imagine that what he says rates in
the same way as what the IPCC says, with the guvmint. Naturally Rudd's
decisions must have been influenced by neither. <knocks down flying
pig with pig swatter>
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory emissions
targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and rebates for solar had
been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella
what do you suggest that anyone in government could have done to
prevent it or mitigate the damage?
More dams in the right places would have mitigated the damage.
You're kidding, right?
The cost of building dams of the number and volume requred to have
any mitigating effect on the scale of the current disaster would
bankrupt the country for a thousand years.
Get real.
I'd like to see some real cost projections (I know youse guys hate
having to produce numbers) instead of unsubstantiated hyperbole.
From what I understand there are numerous strategic spots which
could have been dammed, which could have significantly mitigated
the damage.
What lunatic gave you to understand that?
And more's to the point, why in fuck did you believe them?
I'd heard something on radio in the car this morning - don't know
*who* it was, but seem to recall something to do with Qld
infrastructure/ govt dept. Whatever lunatic it was, he seems to be a
better qualified lunatic than you to have been invited to speak on
radio about it as some sort of authority.
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless hours giving
media interviews.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you believe it
then?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard and hope
to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt eagerly
awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge pumps and
natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's farm as a
dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it wasn't
going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage
of glacial ice over the last century, or roughly since we started
burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle
of "droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has
seen for centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE
Qld and take a look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible
explanation for the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice in
the last century?
No more than explanations for the previous countless shrinkages can
be accounted for, in times before the A in AGW were around. It is
the "A" I see as implausible, given the established cycles that
began long before "A" appeared on the scene and appear to be
continuing without regard to A being here or not. A plausible
explanation for the attribution to A is what is still required here.
You still haven't provided a plausible explanation, unless of course
you subscribe to the idea that the current warming of the earth is
part of a natural cycle.
I subscribe to exactly that. And you're wrong that I have to provide a
plausible alternative to AGW in order to challenge it. Anybody
proposing it is not part of natural variations will have to provide
proof that it is actually a departure. Possible mechanisms remain
only possibilities until it can be proven.
It's been proven, you just don't want to hear it.
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or NASA and would
rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of hysterical luddites and
Barney Joyce that's your call, but you then run the risk of being identified
with them.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
The fault in that reasoning is that the current rate of glacial
recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of warming
What is the natural rate of warming and where do you get your warming
rate data from over the Earth's geological history? You would need to
know that to compare glacial recession rates based on it.
Past rates of warming (and cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence
with a high degree of certainty.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Loss of glacial ice has been up to 23% in the last century, which
based on all the geological evidence that we currently have at hand
is unprecedented in the earth's history, previous periods of warming
to a similar degree occured over many millenia.
Don't worry, nothing's gonna get done about it so we can all relax.
Nothing *can* be done about it, but that doesn't mean relax - not
until the AGW boogeyman is put to bed. This is part of the practical
issue - all this focus on a non-existent cause to an uncontrollable
phenomenon, which could have been put into preventative/ damage
control measures, for a foreseeable well documented event with a well
established track record. But Labor prefers to invest in gimmicks to
placate the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Labor is irrelevant.
After the GFC shock has subsided the world will again turn to Carbon
pollution, if we are smart we'll get a seat on the train before it leaves
the station.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick your
finger out the window and check the weather?
What a strange and silly question.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make
the facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's opinion.
How many times have the ALP cited his "learned" prophecies, in the
pursuit of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
It's very hard to tell what will happen there. Right up to election
we were promised that "Oy rool out a carbon tax" then the next week
there was to be a committee to decide on whether we should have a
carbon tax, membership open only to those who believe we _should_
have a carbon tax.
And the last time I checked there wasn't a carbon tax.
Whether AGW is reality or not it makes perfect sense to me that we
should be trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels as a matter of
urgency, they are finite and will become very expensive in the
coming decades.
I couldn't agree more. But this has nothing to do with a tax that
pretends to save us from frying the planet. Hell, the rain will put it
out anyway.
Post by Swampfox
Business as usual won't cut the mustard when oil is three or four
hundred dollars a barrell, and coal powered transport went out with
button up boots, forget nuclear for all but base load power
generation which still leaves a massive vehicle fleet.
We already import more oil than we produce.
We have lots of coal reserves too and there is no valid reason for
scrapping best practices coal-fired power stations. There is no
justification for coal to get phased out at all... unless you believe
the AGW line. There are some good lines of R&D for looking at future
alternatives, but as with the floods situation, how about directing
the money to viable and realistic things, not placating Gaia.
Carbon capture and storage is a pipe dream, the proponents of which are
milking more money from the system than the greenies, coal will be burnt
into the foreseeable future but it will eventually be phased out.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end.
At the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high
priest of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title
of "Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley,
was also given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in
Australia last year.
And my my, weren't the receptions poles apart from "their" ABC.
I don't know what you mean, I saw Monckton interviewed on the ABC,
it was fair and balanced.
They were more polite to him than I would have been, he's a
blabbering, self interested ignoramus.
I guess you would see it that way and me quite the opposite, when the
commentary was safely removed from the face-to-face stuff.
His best efforts were to cite the work of obscure and largely irrelevant
scientists, one of the best known of whom is Ian Plimer, an Australian
Geologist who earns about $400,000 PA from his mining interests.
You expect me to take this jabberwocky seriously?
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 07:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit
AGW claim - it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden
by those slimy Green parasites (also not to be found in time of
crisis - how unusual!). We need a special rope just for him, to
hang along with the rest of them. Imagine the money that could
have gone into flood relief had lice like Flannery not helped
convince simpletons like Beattie to waste it on (now scrapped)
desal plant. This AGW-driven, Greens-powered, squandering and
incompetent Labor madness needs to be eliminated at all levels.
Hopefully next set of elections will do it, but in the meantime
the bastards should be put to work cleaning up the bloody mess
they've made at all levels. Today's disaster is Labor/Greens
flood damage.
Are you for real?
Am I for real? Is *he* for real? He should be turning in his
Australian of the Year for dissemination of his disinformation,
which couldn't have been more wrong.
But who gives a toss?
As far as I'm aware Australia governments have taken little or no
action as a result of anything that Flannery's said.
Are you for real? They've had him up on their pedestal as their AGW
poster boy to justify their great big new tax.
But what has been done.
That is, what actions has any government in Australia taken as a
direct result of what Flanney's said?
Oh, that's right, none.
Since he's not in parliament I'd imagine that what he says rates in
the same way as what the IPCC says, with the guvmint. Naturally Rudd's
decisions must have been influenced by neither. <knocks down flying
pig with pig swatter>
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a bit
handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his first hero
act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory emissions
targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and rebates for solar had
been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him Australian of
the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their insane spending and
policies. And why has Gillard wanting to form her "Now we rool in a
carbon tax" committee? Is it so nothing can happen?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Queensland is under water, short of erecting a gigantic umbrella
what do you suggest that anyone in government could have done to
prevent it or mitigate the damage?
More dams in the right places would have mitigated the damage.
You're kidding, right?
The cost of building dams of the number and volume requred to have
any mitigating effect on the scale of the current disaster would
bankrupt the country for a thousand years.
Get real.
I'd like to see some real cost projections (I know youse guys hate
having to produce numbers) instead of unsubstantiated hyperbole.
From what I understand there are numerous strategic spots which
could have been dammed, which could have significantly mitigated
the damage.
What lunatic gave you to understand that?
And more's to the point, why in fuck did you believe them?
I'd heard something on radio in the car this morning - don't know
*who* it was, but seem to recall something to do with Qld
infrastructure/ govt dept. Whatever lunatic it was, he seems to be a
better qualified lunatic than you to have been invited to speak on
radio about it as some sort of authority.
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless hours giving
media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to always
forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate scientist in those
countless interviews, but was extremely quick to point it out
(repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the "other side". No surprises
there though - after all, it *is* their ABC.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you believe it
then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And not
really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one radio jock
can instill such obvious fear and panic into the leftards.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard and hope
to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and harping for
names & cites) I heard it in the background when driving. No I didn't
get a name or a cite. Whatever station it was was getting a string of
people on to say what it was like up there and what was happening.
That's all I can give you. Write that down to avoid asking it again.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt eagerly
awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge pumps and
natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's farm as a
dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen. Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd need to see
numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything but a guess.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it wasn't
going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid shrinkage
of glacial ice over the last century, or roughly since we started
burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a massive scale?
Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle
of "droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has
seen for centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE
Qld and take a look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible
explanation for the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice in
the last century?
No more than explanations for the previous countless shrinkages can
be accounted for, in times before the A in AGW were around. It is
the "A" I see as implausible, given the established cycles that
began long before "A" appeared on the scene and appear to be
continuing without regard to A being here or not. A plausible
explanation for the attribution to A is what is still required here.
You still haven't provided a plausible explanation, unless of course
you subscribe to the idea that the current warming of the earth is
part of a natural cycle.
I subscribe to exactly that. And you're wrong that I have to provide a
plausible alternative to AGW in order to challenge it. Anybody
proposing it is not part of natural variations will have to provide
proof that it is actually a departure. Possible mechanisms remain
only possibilities until it can be proven.
It's been proven, you just don't want to hear it.
Oh, you mean it's been translated into proper theory which can correctly
predict not only past temperatures but future ones too? I'd love to see
it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again) computer models which
consistently get it wrong. But DO show me your proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or NASA and would
rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of hysterical luddites and
Barney Joyce that's your call, but you then run the risk of being identified
with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as opposed to
what made the records the way they are. The AGW computer models sure
can't explain them - present, past or future.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
The fault in that reasoning is that the current rate of glacial
recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of warming
What is the natural rate of warming and where do you get your warming
rate data from over the Earth's geological history? You would need to
know that to compare glacial recession rates based on it.
Past rates of warming (and cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence
with a high degree of certainty.
Let's see some data. But it must, of course be on a comparable temporal
basis. I'd like to know what the decadal and yearly rates of temperature
change were between 1 million BC and 1 million - 150 years BC. I presume
that is the sort of basis on which you are calculating your "current" rate?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Loss of glacial ice has been up to 23% in the last century, which
based on all the geological evidence that we currently have at hand
is unprecedented in the earth's history, previous periods of warming
to a similar degree occured over many millenia.
Don't worry, nothing's gonna get done about it so we can all relax.
Nothing *can* be done about it, but that doesn't mean relax - not
until the AGW boogeyman is put to bed. This is part of the practical
issue - all this focus on a non-existent cause to an uncontrollable
phenomenon, which could have been put into preventative/ damage
control measures, for a foreseeable well documented event with a well
established track record. But Labor prefers to invest in gimmicks to
placate the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Labor is irrelevant.
After the GFC shock has subsided the world will again turn to Carbon
pollution, if we are smart we'll get a seat on the train before it leaves
the station.
Let's hope your crystal ball prediction is as way off as AGW in its
temperature predictions. A world sucked in by a global socialist tax
scheme will only end up a wasteful world, not a productive one. The rich
will get poorer and the poor will stay poor and the rich won't be able
to prop up the poor.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick your
finger out the window and check the weather?
What a strange and silly question.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't make
the facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's opinion.
How many times have the ALP cited his "learned" prophecies, in the
pursuit of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
It's very hard to tell what will happen there. Right up to election
we were promised that "Oy rool out a carbon tax" then the next week
there was to be a committee to decide on whether we should have a
carbon tax, membership open only to those who believe we _should_
have a carbon tax.
And the last time I checked there wasn't a carbon tax.
Whether AGW is reality or not it makes perfect sense to me that we
should be trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels as a matter of
urgency, they are finite and will become very expensive in the
coming decades.
I couldn't agree more. But this has nothing to do with a tax that
pretends to save us from frying the planet. Hell, the rain will put it
out anyway.
Post by Swampfox
Business as usual won't cut the mustard when oil is three or four
hundred dollars a barrell, and coal powered transport went out with
button up boots, forget nuclear for all but base load power
generation which still leaves a massive vehicle fleet.
We already import more oil than we produce.
We have lots of coal reserves too and there is no valid reason for
scrapping best practices coal-fired power stations. There is no
justification for coal to get phased out at all... unless you believe
the AGW line. There are some good lines of R&D for looking at future
alternatives, but as with the floods situation, how about directing
the money to viable and realistic things, not placating Gaia.
Carbon capture and storage is a pipe dream, the proponents of which are
milking more money from the system than the greenies,
I agree. I've always seen it as farcical but only seriously when I heard
Rudd mention it. It is also only of relevance if you are of the AGW
faith. Best practices as it stands minimizes particulate pollution - a
proven environmental problem.
Post by Swampfox
coal will be burnt
into the foreseeable future but it will eventually be phased out.
That suits me if it's done in a measured, balanced and sane manner. For
instance, had Labor stayed in Victoria we'd be looking down the barrel
of having a major power plant closed down with no properly planned
replacement. Fortunately the Libs shafted the Greens right out and put
paid to their insane plan.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end.
At the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high
priest of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title
of "Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley,
was also given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in
Australia last year.
And my my, weren't the receptions poles apart from "their" ABC.
I don't know what you mean, I saw Monckton interviewed on the ABC,
it was fair and balanced.
They were more polite to him than I would have been, he's a
blabbering, self interested ignoramus.
I guess you would see it that way and me quite the opposite, when the
commentary was safely removed from the face-to-face stuff.
His best efforts were to cite the work of obscure and largely irrelevant
scientists, one of the best known of whom is Ian Plimer, an Australian
Geologist who earns about $400,000 PA from his mining interests.
You expect me to take this jabberwocky seriously?
Have you read Plimer's book? And Flannery's Weather Fakers? I know which
draws on real science better. As for Monckton, he does not profess to be
a climate expert but is far from an ignoramus, we need more watchdogs
who are not "in the club" to keep this AGW politics under the microscope
and, indeed the scientists who have huge vested interests in its pursuit
- Mann, CRU etc. There has never been more money tied up in an area of
(or masquerading as) science and the stakes are way too high to let an
elitist cabal end up holding all the cards. Like him or not, we need
more outspoken critics of this very dodgy "science".
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-12 11:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote:
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a bit
handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his first hero
act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him Australian of
the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their insane spending and
policies. And why has Gillard wanting to form her "Now we rool in a
carbon tax" committee? Is it so nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?



<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to always
forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate scientist in
those countless interviews, but was extremely quick to point it out
(repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the "other side". No
surprises there though - after all, it *is* their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo and a former
staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a Phd in political science.
Who are we to believe eh?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you
believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And not
really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one radio jock
can instill such obvious fear and panic into the leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard and
hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and harping for
names & cites) I heard it in the background when driving. No I didn't
get a name or a cite. Whatever station it was was getting a string of
people on to say what it was like up there and what was happening.
That's all I can give you. Write that down to avoid asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't even know
what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge
pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's farm
as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd need to
see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about the capital
cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it
wasn't going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid
shrinkage of glacial ice over the last century, or roughly
since we started burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a
massive scale? Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle
of "droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has
seen for centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE
Qld and take a look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible
explanation for the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice
in the last century?
No more than explanations for the previous countless shrinkages
can be accounted for, in times before the A in AGW were around.
It is the "A" I see as implausible, given the established cycles
that began long before "A" appeared on the scene and appear to be
continuing without regard to A being here or not. A plausible
explanation for the attribution to A is what is still required here.
You still haven't provided a plausible explanation, unless of
course you subscribe to the idea that the current warming of the
earth is part of a natural cycle.
I subscribe to exactly that. And you're wrong that I have to
provide a plausible alternative to AGW in order to challenge it.
Anybody proposing it is not part of natural variations will have to
provide proof that it is actually a departure. Possible mechanisms
remain only possibilities until it can be proven.
It's been proven, you just don't want to hear it.
Oh, you mean it's been translated into proper theory which can
correctly predict not only past temperatures but future ones too?
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures but future
ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me your
proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial prostitutes and
apologists for mutinationals.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or NASA
and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you then
run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as opposed to
what made the records the way they are. The AGW computer models sure
can't explain them - present, past or future.
And you understand these models?
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
The fault in that reasoning is that the current rate of glacial
recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of warming
What is the natural rate of warming and where do you get your
warming rate data from over the Earth's geological history? You
would need to know that to compare glacial recession rates based on
it.
Past rates of warming (and cooling) can be deduced from geological
evidence with a high degree of certainty.
Let's see some data. But it must, of course be on a comparable
temporal basis. I'd like to know what the decadal and yearly rates of
temperature change were between 1 million BC and 1 million - 150
years BC. I presume that is the sort of basis on which you are
calculating your "current" rate?
I think that either of us attempting to engage in scientific debate would be
a little pretentious don't you?
I rely on majority scientific consensus to form my opinion which is all any
layman can reasonably do.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Loss of glacial ice has been up to 23% in the last century, which
based on all the geological evidence that we currently have at hand
is unprecedented in the earth's history, previous periods of
warming to a similar degree occured over many millenia.
Don't worry, nothing's gonna get done about it so we can all relax.
Nothing *can* be done about it, but that doesn't mean relax - not
until the AGW boogeyman is put to bed. This is part of the practical
issue - all this focus on a non-existent cause to an uncontrollable
phenomenon, which could have been put into preventative/ damage
control measures, for a foreseeable well documented event with a
well established track record. But Labor prefers to invest in
gimmicks to placate the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Labor is irrelevant.
After the GFC shock has subsided the world will again turn to Carbon
pollution, if we are smart we'll get a seat on the train before it
leaves the station.
Let's hope your crystal ball prediction is as way off as AGW in its
temperature predictions. A world sucked in by a global socialist tax
scheme will only end up a wasteful world, not a productive one. The
rich will get poorer and the poor will stay poor and the rich won't
be able
to prop up the poor.
Let's not get into a debate about the relative economic strengths and
weaknesses of right/left politics.
Dogma serves no useful purpose and both ends of the spectrum have less than
perfect records.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick
your finger out the window and check the weather?
What a strange and silly question.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't
make the facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's
opinion. How many times have the ALP cited his "learned"
prophecies, in the pursuit of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
It's very hard to tell what will happen there. Right up to
election we were promised that "Oy rool out a carbon tax" then
the next week there was to be a committee to decide on whether we
should have a carbon tax, membership open only to those who
believe we _should_ have a carbon tax.
And the last time I checked there wasn't a carbon tax.
Whether AGW is reality or not it makes perfect sense to me that we
should be trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels as a matter
of urgency, they are finite and will become very expensive in the
coming decades.
I couldn't agree more. But this has nothing to do with a tax that
pretends to save us from frying the planet. Hell, the rain will put
it out anyway.
Post by Swampfox
Business as usual won't cut the mustard when oil is three or four
hundred dollars a barrell, and coal powered transport went out with
button up boots, forget nuclear for all but base load power
generation which still leaves a massive vehicle fleet.
We already import more oil than we produce.
We have lots of coal reserves too and there is no valid reason for
scrapping best practices coal-fired power stations. There is no
justification for coal to get phased out at all... unless you
believe the AGW line. There are some good lines of R&D for looking
at future alternatives, but as with the floods situation, how about
directing the money to viable and realistic things, not placating
Gaia.
Carbon capture and storage is a pipe dream, the proponents of which
are milking more money from the system than the greenies,
I agree. I've always seen it as farcical but only seriously when I
heard Rudd mention it. It is also only of relevance if you are of the
AGW
faith. Best practices as it stands minimizes particulate pollution - a
proven environmental problem.
Post by Swampfox
coal will be burnt
into the foreseeable future but it will eventually be phased out.
That suits me if it's done in a measured, balanced and sane manner.
For instance, had Labor stayed in Victoria we'd be looking down the
barrel
of having a major power plant closed down with no properly planned
replacement. Fortunately the Libs shafted the Greens right out and put
paid to their insane plan.
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of government but
I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end.
At the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high
priest of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title
of "Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley,
was also given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in
Australia last year.
And my my, weren't the receptions poles apart from "their" ABC.
I don't know what you mean, I saw Monckton interviewed on the ABC,
it was fair and balanced.
They were more polite to him than I would have been, he's a
blabbering, self interested ignoramus.
I guess you would see it that way and me quite the opposite, when
the commentary was safely removed from the face-to-face stuff.
His best efforts were to cite the work of obscure and largely
irrelevant scientists, one of the best known of whom is Ian Plimer,
an Australian Geologist who earns about $400,000 PA from his mining
interests.
You expect me to take this jabberwocky seriously?
Have you read Plimer's book? And Flannery's Weather Fakers? I know
which draws on real science better. As for Monckton, he does not
profess to be
a climate expert but is far from an ignoramus, we need more watchdogs
who are not "in the club" to keep this AGW politics under the
microscope and, indeed the scientists who have huge vested interests
in its pursuit - Mann, CRU etc. There has never been more money tied
up in an area of (or masquerading as) science and the stakes are way
too high to let an elitist cabal end up holding all the cards. Like
him or not, we need
more outspoken critics of this very dodgy "science".
bringyagrogalong
2011-01-12 12:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And not
really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one radio jock
can instill such obvious fear and panic into the leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
LOL

But probably lost on Oy rool.

====

"Mr Abbott said after the 1974 floods in Brisbane the Wivenhoe dam was
constructed "and there have been no serious floods in Brisbane since".
http://tinyurl.com/5wt8rgb

Check this out Tony...
http://tinyurl.com/4vhuouo

What an ocean-going fuckwit. ROTFLMAO
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 13:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a bit
handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his first hero
act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million bandied
about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him Australian of
the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their insane spending and
policies. And why has Gillard wanting to form her "Now we rool in a
carbon tax" committee? Is it so nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to always
forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate scientist in
those countless interviews, but was extremely quick to point it out
(repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the "other side". No
surprises there though - after all, it *is* their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo and a former
staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a Phd in political science.
Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer. He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to draw
attention only to the bits you want the audience to know about. I know
who I believe.

You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is to put a
theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean producing a "better"
alternative theory. In fact, only the one theory is put under the
microscope and the whole idea is to try to shoot holes in it. This is
where people like Monckton are of great value. They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even knowing the
subject detail. For instance, it was a team of statisticians (not
climate scientists) who revealed the bogus methods of Michael (Piltdown)
Mann, father of Mannmade global warming, breaking his now infamous
hockeystick. Such experts from outside the field can be invaluable.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you
believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And not
really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one radio jock
can instill such obvious fear and panic into the leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever he's
mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an invading tribe
coming.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard and
hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and harping for
names & cites) I heard it in the background when driving. No I didn't
get a name or a cite. Whatever station it was was getting a string of
people on to say what it was like up there and what was happening.
That's all I can give you. Write that down to avoid asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't even know
what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with someone else
in the car trying to figure out a location. If you wish to accuse me of
lying without basis, that's your choice and a good reflection of your
own measure.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge
pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's farm
as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for your Vic
desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd need to
see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about the capital
cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be paid off
over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water rates/prices. You
just want to look at some sort of number which ignores the debt. No
wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
But
according to the advice of their disciple, St. Flannery, it
wasn't going to rain again.
Post by Swampfox
By the way, how do you account for the worlwide, rapid
shrinkage of glacial ice over the last century, or roughly
since we started burning fossil fuels and clearing land on a
massive scale? Coincidence?
Irrelevant. Do you think this mythical AGW has stopped the cycle
of "droughts and flooding rains" that this "wide brown land" has
seen for centuries? Doesn't look like it, does it? Go up to SE
Qld and take a look for yourself.
You call it mythical and yet you can't provide any plausible
explanation for the rapid and worldwide shrinkage of glacial ice
in the last century?
No more than explanations for the previous countless shrinkages
can be accounted for, in times before the A in AGW were around.
It is the "A" I see as implausible, given the established cycles
that began long before "A" appeared on the scene and appear to be
continuing without regard to A being here or not. A plausible
explanation for the attribution to A is what is still required here.
You still haven't provided a plausible explanation, unless of
course you subscribe to the idea that the current warming of the
earth is part of a natural cycle.
I subscribe to exactly that. And you're wrong that I have to
provide a plausible alternative to AGW in order to challenge it.
Anybody proposing it is not part of natural variations will have to
provide proof that it is actually a departure. Possible mechanisms
remain only possibilities until it can be proven.
It's been proven, you just don't want to hear it.
Oh, you mean it's been translated into proper theory which can
correctly predict not only past temperatures but future ones too?
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures but future
ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed theory,
since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction capability. At
least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a broken theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me your
proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial prostitutes and
apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that AGW
should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific method (i.e. REAL
science) and be declared proven by popular vote from a select audience
of believers in the faith. That's politics I'm afraid, not science.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or NASA
and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you then
run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as opposed to
what made the records the way they are. The AGW computer models sure
can't explain them - present, past or future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt of
computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about you?
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in physics and
thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers I've read. How about
you? What qualifies you to comment on the veracity of this AGW
theory-like suggestion?

Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an expert in
a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions drawn. Indeed, it
is sometimes better that you are disinterested. I once did some
statistical analysis for a psychology department on their experimental
design, the data they had produced, their analysis of same and the
conclusions drawn. I knew nothing of the subject matter but was able to
assess their study from a pure statistical stand. If you had done
anything serious in the world of scientific R&D you would know this.
What are your qualifications/background again?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
The fault in that reasoning is that the current rate of glacial
recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of warming
What is the natural rate of warming and where do you get your
warming rate data from over the Earth's geological history? You
would need to know that to compare glacial recession rates based on
it.
Past rates of warming (and cooling) can be deduced from geological
evidence with a high degree of certainty.
Let's see some data. But it must, of course be on a comparable
temporal basis. I'd like to know what the decadal and yearly rates of
temperature change were between 1 million BC and 1 million - 150
years BC. I presume that is the sort of basis on which you are
calculating your "current" rate?
I think that either of us attempting to engage in scientific debate would be
a little pretentious don't you?
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts with
opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific debate starts
with opinions and ends with opinions.

But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to lend any
credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming (and cooling) can
be deduced from geological evidence with a high degree of certainty."
Upon this rests your claim that "the current rate of glacial recession
cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of warming". It would only be
possible to know the "natural cycle of warming" if the entire spectrum
of warming was known on a comparable temporal basis over the entire
geological history of the planet. The whole of your main claim (AGW)
rests upon this not only being true, but having been actually calculated
across the geological time frame on a (what?) decadal basis. Even
centennial will do. Do you have a cite for this data?
Post by Swampfox
I rely on majority scientific consensus to form my opinion which is all any
layman can reasonably do.
Naturally, you are entitled to base your faith in a (as reported)
consensus. Being of a scientific background, I naturally tend to
question the "science" and am left with quite a different impression to
the "consensus" as reported by Rudd, Wong, the IPCC and the enviropress.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Loss of glacial ice has been up to 23% in the last century, which
based on all the geological evidence that we currently have at hand
is unprecedented in the earth's history, previous periods of
warming to a similar degree occured over many millenia.
Don't worry, nothing's gonna get done about it so we can all relax.
Nothing *can* be done about it, but that doesn't mean relax - not
until the AGW boogeyman is put to bed. This is part of the practical
issue - all this focus on a non-existent cause to an uncontrollable
phenomenon, which could have been put into preventative/ damage
control measures, for a foreseeable well documented event with a
well established track record. But Labor prefers to invest in
gimmicks to placate the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Labor is irrelevant.
After the GFC shock has subsided the world will again turn to Carbon
pollution, if we are smart we'll get a seat on the train before it
leaves the station.
Let's hope your crystal ball prediction is as way off as AGW in its
temperature predictions. A world sucked in by a global socialist tax
scheme will only end up a wasteful world, not a productive one. The
rich will get poorer and the poor will stay poor and the rich won't
be able
to prop up the poor.
Let's not get into a debate about the relative economic strengths and
weaknesses of right/left politics.
Dogma serves no useful purpose and both ends of the spectrum have less than
perfect records.
Agree.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
On what science do you base your opinion, or do you just stick
your finger out the window and check the weather?
What a strange and silly question.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Flannery might be an alarmist but one man's opinion doesn't
make the facts any less relevant.
The facts are very relevant in the face of this lunatic's
opinion. How many times have the ALP cited his "learned"
prophecies, in the pursuit of their insane AGW tax drive?
Which hadn't eventuated the last time I checked.
It's very hard to tell what will happen there. Right up to
election we were promised that "Oy rool out a carbon tax" then
the next week there was to be a committee to decide on whether we
should have a carbon tax, membership open only to those who
believe we _should_ have a carbon tax.
And the last time I checked there wasn't a carbon tax.
Whether AGW is reality or not it makes perfect sense to me that we
should be trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels as a matter
of urgency, they are finite and will become very expensive in the
coming decades.
I couldn't agree more. But this has nothing to do with a tax that
pretends to save us from frying the planet. Hell, the rain will put
it out anyway.
Post by Swampfox
Business as usual won't cut the mustard when oil is three or four
hundred dollars a barrell, and coal powered transport went out with
button up boots, forget nuclear for all but base load power
generation which still leaves a massive vehicle fleet.
We already import more oil than we produce.
We have lots of coal reserves too and there is no valid reason for
scrapping best practices coal-fired power stations. There is no
justification for coal to get phased out at all... unless you
believe the AGW line. There are some good lines of R&D for looking
at future alternatives, but as with the floods situation, how about
directing the money to viable and realistic things, not placating
Gaia.
Carbon capture and storage is a pipe dream, the proponents of which
are milking more money from the system than the greenies,
I agree. I've always seen it as farcical but only seriously when I
heard Rudd mention it. It is also only of relevance if you are of the
AGW
faith. Best practices as it stands minimizes particulate pollution - a
proven environmental problem.
Post by Swampfox
coal will be burnt
into the foreseeable future but it will eventually be phased out.
That suits me if it's done in a measured, balanced and sane manner.
For instance, had Labor stayed in Victoria we'd be looking down the
barrel
of having a major power plant closed down with no properly planned
replacement. Fortunately the Libs shafted the Greens right out and put
paid to their insane plan.
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of government but
I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
How many times have their ABC had him
on to preach at us about the drought-without-end, which did end.
At the very least he should be decanonized from his role as high
priest of the AGW cult, by stripping him of his ill gotten title
of "Australian of the Year". <vomit>
He can say what he likes, it's a free country.
Christopher Monckton, the redoubtable 3rd Viscount of Brenchley,
was also given plenty of air time on the ABC when he was in
Australia last year.
And my my, weren't the receptions poles apart from "their" ABC.
I don't know what you mean, I saw Monckton interviewed on the ABC,
it was fair and balanced.
They were more polite to him than I would have been, he's a
blabbering, self interested ignoramus.
I guess you would see it that way and me quite the opposite, when
the commentary was safely removed from the face-to-face stuff.
His best efforts were to cite the work of obscure and largely
irrelevant scientists, one of the best known of whom is Ian Plimer,
an Australian Geologist who earns about $400,000 PA from his mining
interests.
You expect me to take this jabberwocky seriously?
Have you read Plimer's book? And Flannery's Weather Fakers? I know
which draws on real science better. As for Monckton, he does not
profess to be
a climate expert but is far from an ignoramus, we need more watchdogs
who are not "in the club" to keep this AGW politics under the
microscope and, indeed the scientists who have huge vested interests
in its pursuit - Mann, CRU etc. There has never been more money tied
up in an area of (or masquerading as) science and the stakes are way
too high to let an elitist cabal end up holding all the cards. Like
him or not, we need
more outspoken critics of this very dodgy "science".
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-13 01:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a bit
handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his first
hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to support global
warming but in the same breath you are willing to accept figures being
"bandied about" and take as gospel the thoughts of someone you heard on
radio who's name you can't recall.
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after signing Kyoto
so as far as I'm aware the only costs were administrative which would have
been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him Australian
of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their insane
spending and policies. And why has Gillard wanting to form her "Now
we rool in a carbon tax" committee? Is it so nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely quick to
point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the "other
side". No surprises there though - after all, it *is* their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo and
a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a Phd in
political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to draw
attention only to the bits you want the audience to know about. I know
who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is to put
a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean producing a "better"
alternative theory. In fact, only the one theory is put under the
microscope and the whole idea is to try to shoot holes in it. This is
where people like Monckton are of great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you would find
his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable, same goes for Plimer.
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be coloured.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even knowing
the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of statisticians (not
climate scientists) who revealed the bogus methods of Michael
(Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global warming, breaking his now
infamous hockeystick. Such experts from outside the field can be
invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert, he has no scientific training
whatsoever.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you
believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And
not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one
radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into the
leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever he's
mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an invading
tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him while
others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude from our
political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard and
hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and harping
for names & cites) I heard it in the background when driving. No I
didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it was was getting a
string of people on to say what it was like up there and what was
happening. That's all I can give you. Write that down to avoid
asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't
even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with someone else
in the car trying to figure out a location. If you wish to accuse me
of lying without basis, that's your choice and a good reflection of
your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge
pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's farm
as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for your Vic
desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will cost $3 Bil
give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around $1.5 Bil.
"Governments are always wary of the bottom line and when it comes to major
projects it is important to do the maths. While the State Government has
kept quiet on the estimated cost of a new dam, it has been suggested that a
dam on the Mitchell River would cost $1.35 billion. The Government's
Wonthaggi desalination plant has a price tag of $3.1 billion."
- so says Simon Ramsay, head of the Victorian Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention anti Labor, so
we can assume that his figures overestimate the desal and underestimate the
cost of a dam if they are in any way inaccurate or massaged, note the word
"suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd need to
see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about the
capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be paid off
over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water rates/prices. You
just want to look at some sort of number which ignores the debt. No
wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the same price as
the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price" meaning capital
expenditure, debt to government is directly proportional to capital outlay.
I will concede that ongoing costs of the desal plant opposed to a comparably
sized dam will be greater, but even if we were to allow for those increased
costs it wouldn't equate to a factor of 6.
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.


<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures but
future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed theory,
since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of accurately
predicting the future?
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some 30 years
ago and well before that, the current majority scientific opinion is based
on the weight of probability, which is perfectly reasonable.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a broken
theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me your
proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that AGW
should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific method (i.e.
REAL science) and be declared proven by popular vote from a select
audience of believers in the faith. That's politics I'm afraid, not
science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National Academy of
Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The European Academy of
Sciences and Arts, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences, and countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill informed
scientists, more interested in research grants, politics and popular opinion
than hard science?
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide which thinks
that AGW is bunkum?
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or NASA
and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you then
run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as opposed
to what made the records the way they are. The AGW computer models
sure can't explain them - present, past or future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt of
computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in physics
and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers I've read. How
about you? What qualifies you to comment on the veracity of this AGW
theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an expert
in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions drawn.
Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are disinterested. I once did
some statistical analysis for a psychology department on their
experimental design, the data they had produced, their analysis of
same and the conclusions drawn. I knew nothing of the subject matter
but was able to assess their study from a pure statistical stand. If
you had done anything serious in the world of scientific R&D you
would know this. What are your qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical engineering
briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans fundamentally
change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, which is what we've done
particularly since the industrial revolution and subsequent population
explosion, then there will be consequences.
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret those
consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't one of them and
I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.


<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts with
opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific debate starts
with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to lend any
credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming (and cooling)
can be deduced from geological evidence with a high degree of
certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the current rate of
glacial recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of
warming". It would only be possible to know the "natural cycle of
warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was known on a comparable
temporal basis over the entire geological history of the planet. The
whole of your main claim (AGW) rests upon this not only being true,
but having been actually calculated across the geological time frame
on a (what?) decadal basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a
cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to someone
else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take it from me
that it's true.

<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and achieve nothing
except increased influence for the police union.

<snip>
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-13 03:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a bit
handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his first
hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to support global
warming but in the same breath you are willing to accept figures being
"bandied about" and take as gospel the thoughts of someone you heard on
radio who's name you can't recall.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand the difference
between science and political debate. It's the reason you continually
use the appeal to authority argument in a scientific context, where it
carries no weight. Admittedly, AGW is *not* science but if you want to
pretend it is and try to debate it as if it really is a science, then
you need to stick to scientific debate. This means quantifiable stuff,
not opinions and fanciful claims of unprecedented warming rates etc.

But OK, on the non-scientific front, "How much did Kyoto cost us?" I'll
throw it to you - how much? Come up with one of your solid cited figures
you are advocating and I'll check it over. I believe $40 million until
shown a better figure.
Post by Swampfox
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after signing Kyoto
so as far as I'm aware the only costs were administrative which would have
been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him Australian
of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their insane
spending and policies. And why has Gillard wanting to form her "Now
we rool in a carbon tax" committee? Is it so nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely quick to
point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the "other
side". No surprises there though - after all, it *is* their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo and
a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a Phd in
political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Have you read his book or are you just "me tooing" with the AGW
reviewers who can it (and may or may not have read it).
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to draw
attention only to the bits you want the audience to know about. I know
who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is to put
a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean producing a "better"
alternative theory. In fact, only the one theory is put under the
microscope and the whole idea is to try to shoot holes in it. This is
where people like Monckton are of great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you would find
his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable, same goes for Plimer.
In what ways? Plimer in particular.
Post by Swampfox
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be coloured.
I can certainly say the same (rather more) of Mann and Jones et al. It's
not just their CVs but their exposed shameful falsification of data
(extremely naughty in the world of science). I think I'd put more faith
in "coloured judgement" than blatant fraudsters.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even knowing
the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of statisticians (not
climate scientists) who revealed the bogus methods of Michael
(Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global warming, breaking his now
infamous hockeystick. Such experts from outside the field can be
invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert,
In what?
Post by Swampfox
he has no scientific training whatsoever.
I also had no training in psychology whatsoever when I undertook the
statistical analysis of a psychology department's major study. I'd never
done experiments with lab rats or people, but was able to critique their
experimental design and analysis methods. The department were very happy
with the results. If you had experience across the scientific world, you
would know that it is often the case that people with expertise in
another field are often better at certain aspects than those in the
parent field. The example I've given is such a case - inexact scientific
fields like psychology don't tend to be so strong on things like
statistical significance and its implications right back to experimental
design. I don't doubt that an expert statistician could do a better job
than me on those aspects of my work, but would have no idea of the
actual science behind the work.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you
believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And
not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one
radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into the
leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever he's
mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an invading
tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him while
others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude from our
political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Sounds like he should become a politician. A bit like Monckton - not
formally qualified for the job, but would do a hell of a job nonetheless.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard and
hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and harping
for names & cites) I heard it in the background when driving. No I
didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it was was getting a
string of people on to say what it was like up there and what was
happening. That's all I can give you. Write that down to avoid
asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't
even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with someone else
in the car trying to figure out a location. If you wish to accuse me
of lying without basis, that's your choice and a good reflection of
your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
OK, just edging towards it.
Post by Swampfox
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Well, if I hear something I believe comes from an objective source (like
an innocuous infrastructure department spokesperson, say) I tend to have
no reason to automatically *dis*believe it. You OTOH, it seems, will
immediately disbelieve it if it's not what you like to hear, then start
demanding cites, qualifications, clean CVs etc. etc. before you'll even
consider thinking about it. I think I know where the paranoia sits.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge
pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's farm
as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for your Vic
desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will cost $3 Bil
give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around $1.5 Bil.
"Governments are always wary of the bottom line and when it comes to major
projects it is important to do the maths. While the State Government has
kept quiet on the estimated cost of a new dam, it has been suggested that a
dam on the Mitchell River would cost $1.35 billion. The Government's
Wonthaggi desalination plant has a price tag of $3.1 billion."
- so says Simon Ramsay, head of the Victorian Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention anti Labor, so
we can assume that his figures overestimate the desal and underestimate the
cost of a dam if they are in any way inaccurate or massaged, note the word
"suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
OK, that sounds reasonable. Luckily I'm not a paranoid leftie-style
arguer who would demand to know whose payroll Simon is *really* on, what
his qualification in desalination and hydrological engineering are and
how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject in the
last 12 months, eh?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd need to
see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about the
capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be paid off
over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water rates/prices. You
just want to look at some sort of number which ignores the debt. No
wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Only if those price increases have been accounted for in the claimed
"cost" of the desal plant.
Post by Swampfox
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the same price as
the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price" meaning capital
expenditure, debt to government is directly proportional to capital outlay.
I will concede that ongoing costs of the desal plant opposed to a comparably
sized dam will be greater, but even if we were to allow for those increased
costs it wouldn't equate to a factor of 6.
You seem very sure of this. Show me some actual numbers.
Post by Swampfox
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.
Speaking of inaccurate, you have just admitted that ongoing costs have
not been factored into your "cost". Cost needs to be presented in terms
of the life of the project, not just initial outlay. Your costing is
starting to look as bogus as the NBN.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures but
future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed theory,
since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of accurately
predicting the future?
No. And since AGW can't do it either, it can not be considered in the
realms of a scientific theory. Clearly you will have to go and learn
something of the scientific method to understand why this is.
Post by Swampfox
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some 30 years
ago and well before that, the current majority scientific opinion is based
on the weight of probability, which is perfectly reasonable.
Are we now talking GW or AGW? It's all to easy to confuse the two, even
deliberately when trying to cloud the argument.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a broken
theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me your
proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that AGW
should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific method (i.e.
REAL science) and be declared proven by popular vote from a select
audience of believers in the faith. That's politics I'm afraid, not
science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National Academy of
Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The European Academy of
Sciences and Arts, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences, and countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill informed
scientists, more interested in research grants, politics and popular opinion
than hard science?
No. But I do know of the cliques and cultures that exist within such
organizations, having worked in several. The view of the "frontman" will
often reflect that of "the club", which in turn may be a minority line.
The statement from the frontman might not even reflect the true view of
the organization, but funding will depend upon it sounding "right". My
old university has gone pro-AGW but I still have contact with many of
its fellows, who either believe it, don't believe it or don't believe it
even warrants an opinion. Yet *the University* believes in AGW! SO to
attach these organizations to all the scientists within in just a
nonsense. And who said anything about "Sloppy and ill informed". Most of
the studies associated with climate have nothing to do with the A in
AGW. Climate-related sciences have been around long before the invention
of Mannmade global warming.
Post by Swampfox
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide which thinks
that AGW is bunkum?
I can't recall one mentioned in the enviro-dominated media. That's not
to say they don't exist of course. As I said, the "party line" from such
organizations means little. So do these cherry-picked results from
reviews of "all the world scientists" and the like. I tend to listen to
individuals. Since you seem to have no shortage of references to
believer organizations, you might be interested in some from the other side.
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

But you would do well to remember that all of the above refers to belief
or otherwise in a proposed phenomenon - AGW. In order to assess it as
science it has to be framed as a testable hypothesis in accordance with
the scientific method. All your ifs & buts aren't going to change that.
The scientific method is set in stone - and for very good reason, no
more emphasized than in the case of the AGW proposal trying to palm
itself off as science. It is NOT!
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or NASA
and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you then
run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as opposed
to what made the records the way they are. The AGW computer models
sure can't explain them - present, past or future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt of
computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
If you've done even some basic computer programming you can get some
quite revealing insight into how it is done AND about the people who do
it, just by digging into some source code. Example:
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
- Briffa of CRU notoriety.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in physics
and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers I've read. How
about you? What qualifies you to comment on the veracity of this AGW
theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an expert
in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions drawn.
Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are disinterested. I once did
some statistical analysis for a psychology department on their
experimental design, the data they had produced, their analysis of
same and the conclusions drawn. I knew nothing of the subject matter
but was able to assess their study from a pure statistical stand. If
you had done anything serious in the world of scientific R&D you
would know this. What are your qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical engineering
briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans fundamentally
change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, which is what we've done
particularly since the industrial revolution and subsequent population
explosion, then there will be consequences.
All you have to do is prove that. Seems like even the AGW "geniuses"
can't do that though. Thus far, it appears that adding CO2 in small
proportions to what is "naturally" there can not be seen to have any
demonstrable effects. Just BTW, I happen to be against atmospheric
pollutants but the clean combustion of hydrocarbons releases CO2, which
is not a pollutant, just as the H2O released is not a pollutant - even
though it also is a GHG.
Post by Swampfox
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret those
consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't one of them and
I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.
I don't claim to be. What bothers me are those who *do* claim to be able
to but can't even get their billion dollar models to predict future
temperatures or even correctly calculate the past record - in hindsight!
If they can't work out what the temperature's going to be, how in hell
can they predict its consequences. Only unqualified maggots like Tim (it
ain't gonna rain no more) Flannery would have the audacity to try that on.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts with
opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific debate starts
with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to lend any
credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming (and cooling)
can be deduced from geological evidence with a high degree of
certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the current rate of
glacial recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of
warming". It would only be possible to know the "natural cycle of
warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was known on a comparable
temporal basis over the entire geological history of the planet. The
whole of your main claim (AGW) rests upon this not only being true,
but having been actually calculated across the geological time frame
on a (what?) decadal basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a
cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to someone
else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take it from me
that it's true.
OK, what were the temperature rates they quoted on the radio for the
geological history of the Earth? Just one will do.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and achieve nothing
except increased influence for the police union.
Crime is getting out of hand here and we need a bit of the iron fist as
opposed to the no charges, no sentences policies of Nixon/Hulls. At some
stage, reality bites - even for the latte leftie. I guess you'd rather
see the money put into a backup desal plant without a proper costing basis.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-13 06:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a
bit handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his
first hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to
support global warming but in the same breath you are willing to
accept figures being "bandied about" and take as gospel the thoughts
of someone you heard on radio who's name you can't recall.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand the difference
between science and political debate. It's the reason you continually
use the appeal to authority argument in a scientific context, where it
carries no weight. Admittedly, AGW is *not* science but if you want to
pretend it is and try to debate it as if it really is a science, then
you need to stick to scientific debate. This means quantifiable stuff,
not opinions and fanciful claims of unprecedented warming rates etc.
But OK, on the non-scientific front, "How much did Kyoto cost us?"
I'll throw it to you - how much? Come up with one of your solid cited
figures you are advocating and I'll check it over. I believe $40
million until shown a better figure.
Post by Swampfox
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after signing
Kyoto so as far as I'm aware the only costs were administrative
which would have been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him
Australian of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their
insane spending and policies. And why has Gillard wanting to form
her "Now we rool in a carbon tax" committee? Is it so nothing can
happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely quick
to point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the
"other side". No surprises there though - after all, it *is*
their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo and
a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a Phd in
political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Have you read his book or are you just "me tooing" with the AGW
reviewers who can it (and may or may not have read it).
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to
draw attention only to the bits you want the audience to know
about. I know who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is to
put a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean producing a
"better" alternative theory. In fact, only the one theory is put
under the microscope and the whole idea is to try to shoot holes in
it. This is where people like Monckton are of great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you
would find his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable, same
goes for Plimer.
In what ways? Plimer in particular.
Post by Swampfox
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be coloured.
I can certainly say the same (rather more) of Mann and Jones et al.
It's not just their CVs but their exposed shameful falsification of
data (extremely naughty in the world of science). I think I'd put
more faith
in "coloured judgement" than blatant fraudsters.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even knowing
the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of statisticians
(not climate scientists) who revealed the bogus methods of Michael
(Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global warming, breaking his now
infamous hockeystick. Such experts from outside the field can be
invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert,
In what?
Post by Swampfox
he has no scientific training whatsoever.
I also had no training in psychology whatsoever when I undertook the
statistical analysis of a psychology department's major study. I'd
never done experiments with lab rats or people, but was able to
critique their experimental design and analysis methods. The
department were very happy with the results. If you had experience
across the scientific world, you would know that it is often the case
that people with expertise in
another field are often better at certain aspects than those in the
parent field. The example I've given is such a case - inexact
scientific fields like psychology don't tend to be so strong on
things like statistical significance and its implications right back
to experimental design. I don't doubt that an expert statistician
could do a better job than me on those aspects of my work, but would
have no idea of the
actual science behind the work.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you
believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And
not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one
radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into the
leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever
he's mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an
invading tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him
while others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude
from our political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Sounds like he should become a politician. A bit like Monckton - not
formally qualified for the job, but would do a hell of a job
nonetheless.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard
and hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and harping
for names & cites) I heard it in the background when driving. No I
didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it was was getting a
string of people on to say what it was like up there and what was
happening. That's all I can give you. Write that down to avoid
asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't
even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with someone
else in the car trying to figure out a location. If you wish to
accuse me of lying without basis, that's your choice and a good
reflection of your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
OK, just edging towards it.
Post by Swampfox
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Well, if I hear something I believe comes from an objective source (like
an innocuous infrastructure department spokesperson, say) I tend to have
no reason to automatically *dis*believe it. You OTOH, it seems, will
immediately disbelieve it if it's not what you like to hear, then
start demanding cites, qualifications, clean CVs etc. etc. before
you'll even consider thinking about it. I think I know where the
paranoia sits.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge
pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's
farm as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for your
Vic desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will cost
$3 Bil give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around $1.5 Bil.
"Governments are always wary of the bottom line and when it comes to
major projects it is important to do the maths. While the State
Government has kept quiet on the estimated cost of a new dam, it has
been suggested that a dam on the Mitchell River would cost $1.35
billion. The Government's Wonthaggi desalination plant has a price
tag of $3.1 billion." - so says Simon Ramsay, head of the Victorian
Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention anti
Labor, so we can assume that his figures overestimate the desal and
underestimate the cost of a dam if they are in any way inaccurate or
massaged, note the word "suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
OK, that sounds reasonable. Luckily I'm not a paranoid leftie-style
arguer who would demand to know whose payroll Simon is *really* on,
what his qualification in desalination and hydrological engineering
are and
how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject in the
last 12 months, eh?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd need
to see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything but a
guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about
the capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be paid
off over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water
rates/prices. You just want to look at some sort of number which
ignores the debt. No wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Only if those price increases have been accounted for in the claimed
"cost" of the desal plant.
Post by Swampfox
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the same
price as the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price" meaning
capital expenditure, debt to government is directly proportional to
capital outlay. I will concede that ongoing costs of the desal plant
opposed to a comparably sized dam will be greater, but even if we
were to allow for those increased costs it wouldn't equate to a
factor of 6.
You seem very sure of this. Show me some actual numbers.
Post by Swampfox
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.
Speaking of inaccurate, you have just admitted that ongoing costs have
not been factored into your "cost". Cost needs to be presented in terms
of the life of the project, not just initial outlay. Your costing is
starting to look as bogus as the NBN.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures but
future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed theory,
since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of
accurately predicting the future?
No. And since AGW can't do it either, it can not be considered in the
realms of a scientific theory. Clearly you will have to go and learn
something of the scientific method to understand why this is.
Post by Swampfox
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some 30
years ago and well before that, the current majority scientific
opinion is based on the weight of probability, which is perfectly
reasonable.
Are we now talking GW or AGW? It's all to easy to confuse the two,
even deliberately when trying to cloud the argument.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a broken
theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me
your proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that AGW
should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific method (i.e.
REAL science) and be declared proven by popular vote from a select
audience of believers in the faith. That's politics I'm afraid, not
science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The European
Academy of Sciences and Arts, the International Council of Academies
of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill
informed scientists, more interested in research grants, politics
and popular opinion than hard science?
No. But I do know of the cliques and cultures that exist within such
organizations, having worked in several. The view of the "frontman"
will often reflect that of "the club", which in turn may be a
minority line.
The statement from the frontman might not even reflect the true view of
the organization, but funding will depend upon it sounding "right". My
old university has gone pro-AGW but I still have contact with many of
its fellows, who either believe it, don't believe it or don't believe
it even warrants an opinion. Yet *the University* believes in AGW! SO
to attach these organizations to all the scientists within in just a
nonsense. And who said anything about "Sloppy and ill informed". Most
of the studies associated with climate have nothing to do with the A
in
AGW. Climate-related sciences have been around long before the
invention
of Mannmade global warming.
Post by Swampfox
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide which
thinks that AGW is bunkum?
I can't recall one mentioned in the enviro-dominated media. That's not
to say they don't exist of course. As I said, the "party line" from
such organizations means little. So do these cherry-picked results
from
reviews of "all the world scientists" and the like. I tend to listen
to individuals. Since you seem to have no shortage of references to
believer organizations, you might be interested in some from the
other side. 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of
"Man-Made" Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
But you would do well to remember that all of the above refers to belief
or otherwise in a proposed phenomenon - AGW. In order to assess it as
science it has to be framed as a testable hypothesis in accordance with
the scientific method. All your ifs & buts aren't going to change that.
The scientific method is set in stone - and for very good reason, no
more emphasized than in the case of the AGW proposal trying to palm
itself off as science. It is NOT!
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or
NASA and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you
then run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as opposed
to what made the records the way they are. The AGW computer models
sure can't explain them - present, past or future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt of
computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
If you've done even some basic computer programming you can get some
quite revealing insight into how it is done AND about the people who do
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from
hugershoff ; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
- Briffa of CRU notoriety.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in physics
and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers I've read.
How about you? What qualifies you to comment on the veracity of
this AGW theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an
expert in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions
drawn. Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are disinterested. I
once did some statistical analysis for a psychology department on
their experimental design, the data they had produced, their
analysis of same and the conclusions drawn. I knew nothing of the
subject matter but was able to assess their study from a pure
statistical stand. If you had done anything serious in the world of
scientific R&D you would know this. What are your
qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical
engineering briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans
fundamentally change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere,
which is what we've done particularly since the industrial
revolution and subsequent population explosion, then there will be
consequences.
All you have to do is prove that. Seems like even the AGW "geniuses"
can't do that though. Thus far, it appears that adding CO2 in small
proportions to what is "naturally" there can not be seen to have any
demonstrable effects. Just BTW, I happen to be against atmospheric
pollutants but the clean combustion of hydrocarbons releases CO2, which
is not a pollutant, just as the H2O released is not a pollutant - even
though it also is a GHG.
Post by Swampfox
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret
those consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't
one of them and I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.
I don't claim to be. What bothers me are those who *do* claim to be able
to but can't even get their billion dollar models to predict future
temperatures or even correctly calculate the past record - in
hindsight!
If they can't work out what the temperature's going to be, how in hell
can they predict its consequences. Only unqualified maggots like Tim
(it ain't gonna rain no more) Flannery would have the audacity to try
that on.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts with
opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific debate
starts with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to lend
any credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming (and
cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence with a high degree
of certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the current rate of
glacial recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of
warming". It would only be possible to know the "natural cycle of
warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was known on a comparable
temporal basis over the entire geological history of the planet. The
whole of your main claim (AGW) rests upon this not only being true,
but having been actually calculated across the geological time frame
on a (what?) decadal basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a
cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to
someone else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take it
from me that it's true.
OK, what were the temperature rates they quoted on the radio for the
geological history of the Earth? Just one will do.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and achieve
nothing except increased influence for the police union.
Crime is getting out of hand here and we need a bit of the iron fist
as opposed to the no charges, no sentences policies of Nixon/Hulls.
At some stage, reality bites - even for the latte leftie. I guess
you'd rather
see the money put into a backup desal plant without a proper costing basis.
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
As far as spending some cash in Victoria goes some interpreters at my
daughter's school would be a good place to start, she's teaching kids who
don't speak a word of English with pictures and hand and facial gestures.
I don't know what part of Victoria you live in but it's been pretty quiet
around here lately, more than enough cops, and why the fuck is Baillieu
abolishing suspended sentences and building more colleges for crims?
I'll wait and see about him but it's not a promising start.
.
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-13 07:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
As far as spending some cash in Victoria goes some interpreters at my
daughter's school would be a good place to start, she's teaching kids who
don't speak a word of English with pictures and hand and facial gestures.
No doubt a good place to spend some money too.
Post by Swampfox
I don't know what part of Victoria you live in but it's been pretty quiet
around here lately, more than enough cops, and why the fuck is Baillieu
abolishing suspended sentences and building more colleges for crims?
I'll wait and see about him but it's not a promising start.
I presume you don't get into the city much at night or have cause to use
the busier suburban trains (day OR night). You might form a different
opinion. It looks like it's ripe for the zero tolerance that cleaned up
New York.

Suspended sentences were getting abused by the court system. They were
designed for quite specific circumstances but were being bandied around
as "get out of jail free" cards. My own take on this is that because
Brumby/Hulls didn't want to spend any money on law & order (not just
cops but jails as well), preferring beer & skittles, our jails were
overflowing so the word went out to the judiciary to make the sentences
non-custodial. The easiest available loophole was the suspended
sentence, used as a matter of course rather than for the special
circumstances it was designed for. The need for more jails naturally
follows the abolition of this much abused loophole. Real punishments for
real crims. A very promising start IMO.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-13 07:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
As far as spending some cash in Victoria goes some interpreters at my
daughter's school would be a good place to start, she's teaching
kids who don't speak a word of English with pictures and hand and
facial gestures.
No doubt a good place to spend some money too.
Post by Swampfox
I don't know what part of Victoria you live in but it's been pretty
quiet around here lately, more than enough cops, and why the fuck is
Baillieu abolishing suspended sentences and building more colleges
for crims? I'll wait and see about him but it's not a promising
start.
I presume you don't get into the city much at night or have cause to
use the busier suburban trains (day OR night). You might form a
different opinion. It looks like it's ripe for the zero tolerance
that cleaned up New York.
Suspended sentences were getting abused by the court system. They were
designed for quite specific circumstances but were being bandied
around as "get out of jail free" cards. My own take on this is that
because Brumby/Hulls didn't want to spend any money on law & order
(not just cops but jails as well), preferring beer & skittles, our
jails were overflowing so the word went out to the judiciary to make
the sentences non-custodial. The easiest available loophole was the
suspended sentence, used as a matter of course rather than for the
special circumstances it was designed for. The need for more jails
naturally follows the abolition of this much abused loophole. Real
punishments for real crims. A very promising start IMO.
OK.
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-13 13:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a
bit handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his
first hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to
support global warming but in the same breath you are willing to
accept figures being "bandied about" and take as gospel the thoughts
of someone you heard on radio who's name you can't recall.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand the difference
between science and political debate. It's the reason you continually
use the appeal to authority argument in a scientific context, where it
carries no weight. Admittedly, AGW is *not* science but if you want to
pretend it is and try to debate it as if it really is a science, then
you need to stick to scientific debate. This means quantifiable stuff,
not opinions and fanciful claims of unprecedented warming rates etc.
But OK, on the non-scientific front, "How much did Kyoto cost us?"
I'll throw it to you - how much? Come up with one of your solid cited
figures you are advocating and I'll check it over. I believe $40
million until shown a better figure.
Post by Swampfox
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after signing
Kyoto so as far as I'm aware the only costs were administrative
which would have been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him
Australian of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their
insane spending and policies. And why has Gillard wanting to form
her "Now we rool in a carbon tax" committee? Is it so nothing can
happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely quick
to point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the
"other side". No surprises there though - after all, it *is*
their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo and
a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a Phd in
political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Have you read his book or are you just "me tooing" with the AGW
reviewers who can it (and may or may not have read it).
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to
draw attention only to the bits you want the audience to know
about. I know who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is to
put a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean producing a
"better" alternative theory. In fact, only the one theory is put
under the microscope and the whole idea is to try to shoot holes in
it. This is where people like Monckton are of great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you
would find his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable, same
goes for Plimer.
In what ways? Plimer in particular.
Post by Swampfox
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be coloured.
I can certainly say the same (rather more) of Mann and Jones et al.
It's not just their CVs but their exposed shameful falsification of
data (extremely naughty in the world of science). I think I'd put
more faith
in "coloured judgement" than blatant fraudsters.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even knowing
the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of statisticians
(not climate scientists) who revealed the bogus methods of Michael
(Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global warming, breaking his now
infamous hockeystick. Such experts from outside the field can be
invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert,
In what?
Post by Swampfox
he has no scientific training whatsoever.
I also had no training in psychology whatsoever when I undertook the
statistical analysis of a psychology department's major study. I'd
never done experiments with lab rats or people, but was able to
critique their experimental design and analysis methods. The
department were very happy with the results. If you had experience
across the scientific world, you would know that it is often the case
that people with expertise in
another field are often better at certain aspects than those in the
parent field. The example I've given is such a case - inexact
scientific fields like psychology don't tend to be so strong on
things like statistical significance and its implications right back
to experimental design. I don't doubt that an expert statistician
could do a better job than me on those aspects of my work, but would
have no idea of the
actual science behind the work.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would you
believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it. And
not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how one
radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into the
leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever
he's mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an
invading tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him
while others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude
from our political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Sounds like he should become a politician. A bit like Monckton - not
formally qualified for the job, but would do a hell of a job
nonetheless.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard
and hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and harping
for names & cites) I heard it in the background when driving. No I
didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it was was getting a
string of people on to say what it was like up there and what was
happening. That's all I can give you. Write that down to avoid
asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't
even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with someone
else in the car trying to figure out a location. If you wish to
accuse me of lying without basis, that's your choice and a good
reflection of your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
OK, just edging towards it.
Post by Swampfox
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Well, if I hear something I believe comes from an objective source (like
an innocuous infrastructure department spokesperson, say) I tend to have
no reason to automatically *dis*believe it. You OTOH, it seems, will
immediately disbelieve it if it's not what you like to hear, then
start demanding cites, qualifications, clean CVs etc. etc. before
you'll even consider thinking about it. I think I know where the
paranoia sits.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via bilge
pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's
farm as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for your
Vic desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will cost
$3 Bil give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around $1.5 Bil.
"Governments are always wary of the bottom line and when it comes to
major projects it is important to do the maths. While the State
Government has kept quiet on the estimated cost of a new dam, it has
been suggested that a dam on the Mitchell River would cost $1.35
billion. The Government's Wonthaggi desalination plant has a price
tag of $3.1 billion." - so says Simon Ramsay, head of the Victorian
Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention anti
Labor, so we can assume that his figures overestimate the desal and
underestimate the cost of a dam if they are in any way inaccurate or
massaged, note the word "suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
OK, that sounds reasonable. Luckily I'm not a paranoid leftie-style
arguer who would demand to know whose payroll Simon is *really* on,
what his qualification in desalination and hydrological engineering
are and
how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject in the
last 12 months, eh?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd need
to see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything but a
guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about
the capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be paid
off over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water
rates/prices. You just want to look at some sort of number which
ignores the debt. No wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Only if those price increases have been accounted for in the claimed
"cost" of the desal plant.
Post by Swampfox
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the same
price as the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price" meaning
capital expenditure, debt to government is directly proportional to
capital outlay. I will concede that ongoing costs of the desal plant
opposed to a comparably sized dam will be greater, but even if we
were to allow for those increased costs it wouldn't equate to a
factor of 6.
You seem very sure of this. Show me some actual numbers.
Post by Swampfox
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.
Speaking of inaccurate, you have just admitted that ongoing costs have
not been factored into your "cost". Cost needs to be presented in terms
of the life of the project, not just initial outlay. Your costing is
starting to look as bogus as the NBN.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures but
future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed theory,
since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of
accurately predicting the future?
No. And since AGW can't do it either, it can not be considered in the
realms of a scientific theory. Clearly you will have to go and learn
something of the scientific method to understand why this is.
Post by Swampfox
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some 30
years ago and well before that, the current majority scientific
opinion is based on the weight of probability, which is perfectly
reasonable.
Are we now talking GW or AGW? It's all to easy to confuse the two,
even deliberately when trying to cloud the argument.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a broken
theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me
your proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that AGW
should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific method (i.e.
REAL science) and be declared proven by popular vote from a select
audience of believers in the faith. That's politics I'm afraid, not
science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The European
Academy of Sciences and Arts, the International Council of Academies
of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill
informed scientists, more interested in research grants, politics
and popular opinion than hard science?
No. But I do know of the cliques and cultures that exist within such
organizations, having worked in several. The view of the "frontman"
will often reflect that of "the club", which in turn may be a
minority line.
The statement from the frontman might not even reflect the true view of
the organization, but funding will depend upon it sounding "right". My
old university has gone pro-AGW but I still have contact with many of
its fellows, who either believe it, don't believe it or don't believe
it even warrants an opinion. Yet *the University* believes in AGW! SO
to attach these organizations to all the scientists within in just a
nonsense. And who said anything about "Sloppy and ill informed". Most
of the studies associated with climate have nothing to do with the A
in
AGW. Climate-related sciences have been around long before the invention
of Mannmade global warming.
Post by Swampfox
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide which
thinks that AGW is bunkum?
I can't recall one mentioned in the enviro-dominated media. That's not
to say they don't exist of course. As I said, the "party line" from
such organizations means little. So do these cherry-picked results
from
reviews of "all the world scientists" and the like. I tend to listen
to individuals. Since you seem to have no shortage of references to
believer organizations, you might be interested in some from the
other side. 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of
"Man-Made" Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
But you would do well to remember that all of the above refers to belief
or otherwise in a proposed phenomenon - AGW. In order to assess it as
science it has to be framed as a testable hypothesis in accordance with
the scientific method. All your ifs & buts aren't going to change that.
The scientific method is set in stone - and for very good reason, no
more emphasized than in the case of the AGW proposal trying to palm
itself off as science. It is NOT!
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or
NASA and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you
then run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as opposed
to what made the records the way they are. The AGW computer models
sure can't explain them - present, past or future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt of
computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
If you've done even some basic computer programming you can get some
quite revealing insight into how it is done AND about the people who do
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from
hugershoff ; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
- Briffa of CRU notoriety.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in physics
and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers I've read.
How about you? What qualifies you to comment on the veracity of
this AGW theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an
expert in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions
drawn. Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are disinterested. I
once did some statistical analysis for a psychology department on
their experimental design, the data they had produced, their
analysis of same and the conclusions drawn. I knew nothing of the
subject matter but was able to assess their study from a pure
statistical stand. If you had done anything serious in the world of
scientific R&D you would know this. What are your
qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical
engineering briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans
fundamentally change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere,
which is what we've done particularly since the industrial
revolution and subsequent population explosion, then there will be
consequences.
All you have to do is prove that. Seems like even the AGW "geniuses"
can't do that though. Thus far, it appears that adding CO2 in small
proportions to what is "naturally" there can not be seen to have any
demonstrable effects. Just BTW, I happen to be against atmospheric
pollutants but the clean combustion of hydrocarbons releases CO2, which
is not a pollutant, just as the H2O released is not a pollutant - even
though it also is a GHG.
Post by Swampfox
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret
those consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't
one of them and I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.
I don't claim to be. What bothers me are those who *do* claim to be able
to but can't even get their billion dollar models to predict future
temperatures or even correctly calculate the past record - in
hindsight!
If they can't work out what the temperature's going to be, how in hell
can they predict its consequences. Only unqualified maggots like Tim
(it ain't gonna rain no more) Flannery would have the audacity to try
that on.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts with
opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific debate
starts with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to lend
any credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming (and
cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence with a high degree
of certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the current rate of
glacial recession cannot be attributed to a natural cycle of
warming". It would only be possible to know the "natural cycle of
warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was known on a comparable
temporal basis over the entire geological history of the planet. The
whole of your main claim (AGW) rests upon this not only being true,
but having been actually calculated across the geological time frame
on a (what?) decadal basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a
cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to
someone else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take it
from me that it's true.
OK, what were the temperature rates they quoted on the radio for the
geological history of the Earth? Just one will do.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and achieve
nothing except increased influence for the police union.
Crime is getting out of hand here and we need a bit of the iron fist
as opposed to the no charges, no sentences policies of Nixon/Hulls.
At some stage, reality bites - even for the latte leftie. I guess
you'd rather
see the money put into a backup desal plant without a proper costing basis.
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
Au contraire. It's just beginning to get interesting. Your enthusiasm
appears to have dampened quite suddenly for some reason. As soon as you
provide those decadal or centennial temperature rate changes across
geological history, we can just about tie it up.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-14 06:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a
bit handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his
first hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to
support global warming but in the same breath you are willing to
accept figures being "bandied about" and take as gospel the
thoughts of someone you heard on radio who's name you can't recall.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand the difference
between science and political debate. It's the reason you
continually use the appeal to authority argument in a scientific
context, where it carries no weight. Admittedly, AGW is *not*
science but if you want to pretend it is and try to debate it as if
it really is a science, then you need to stick to scientific
debate. This means quantifiable stuff, not opinions and fanciful
claims of unprecedented warming rates etc.
But OK, on the non-scientific front, "How much did Kyoto cost us?"
I'll throw it to you - how much? Come up with one of your solid
cited figures you are advocating and I'll check it over. I believe
$40 million until shown a better figure.
Post by Swampfox
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after
signing Kyoto so as far as I'm aware the only costs were
administrative which would have been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him
Australian of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their
insane spending and policies. And why has Gillard wanting to
form her "Now we rool in a carbon tax" committee? Is it so
nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely quick
to point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the
"other side". No surprises there though - after all, it *is*
their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo
and a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a
Phd in political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Have you read his book or are you just "me tooing" with the AGW
reviewers who can it (and may or may not have read it).
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to
draw attention only to the bits you want the audience to know
about. I know who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is to
put a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean producing a
"better" alternative theory. In fact, only the one theory is put
under the microscope and the whole idea is to try to shoot holes
in it. This is where people like Monckton are of great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you
would find his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable, same
goes for Plimer.
In what ways? Plimer in particular.
Post by Swampfox
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be
coloured.
I can certainly say the same (rather more) of Mann and Jones et al.
It's not just their CVs but their exposed shameful falsification of
data (extremely naughty in the world of science). I think I'd put
more faith
in "coloured judgement" than blatant fraudsters.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even
knowing the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of
statisticians (not climate scientists) who revealed the bogus
methods of Michael (Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global
warming, breaking his now infamous hockeystick. Such experts from
outside the field can be invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert,
In what?
Post by Swampfox
he has no scientific training whatsoever.
I also had no training in psychology whatsoever when I undertook the
statistical analysis of a psychology department's major study. I'd
never done experiments with lab rats or people, but was able to
critique their experimental design and analysis methods. The
department were very happy with the results. If you had experience
across the scientific world, you would know that it is often the
case that people with expertise in
another field are often better at certain aspects than those in the
parent field. The example I've given is such a case - inexact
scientific fields like psychology don't tend to be so strong on
things like statistical significance and its implications right back
to experimental design. I don't doubt that an expert statistician
could do a better job than me on those aspects of my work, but would
have no idea of the
actual science behind the work.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would
you believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it.
And not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how
one radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into the
leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever
he's mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an
invading tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him
while others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude
from our political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Sounds like he should become a politician. A bit like Monckton - not
formally qualified for the job, but would do a hell of a job
nonetheless.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and
similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard
and hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and
harping for names & cites) I heard it in the background when
driving. No I didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it
was was getting a string of people on to say what it was like
up there and what was happening. That's all I can give you.
Write that down to avoid asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't
even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with someone
else in the car trying to figure out a location. If you wish to
accuse me of lying without basis, that's your choice and a good
reflection of your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
OK, just edging towards it.
Post by Swampfox
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Well, if I hear something I believe comes from an objective source (like
an innocuous infrastructure department spokesperson, say) I tend to have
no reason to automatically *dis*believe it. You OTOH, it seems, will
immediately disbelieve it if it's not what you like to hear, then
start demanding cites, qualifications, clean CVs etc. etc. before
you'll even consider thinking about it. I think I know where the
paranoia sits.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via
bilge pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's
farm as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for your
Vic desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will cost
$3 Bil give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around $1.5 Bil.
"Governments are always wary of the bottom line and when it comes
to major projects it is important to do the maths. While the State
Government has kept quiet on the estimated cost of a new dam, it
has been suggested that a dam on the Mitchell River would cost
$1.35 billion. The Government's Wonthaggi desalination plant has a
price tag of $3.1 billion." - so says Simon Ramsay, head of the
Victorian Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention anti
Labor, so we can assume that his figures overestimate the desal and
underestimate the cost of a dam if they are in any way inaccurate
or massaged, note the word "suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
OK, that sounds reasonable. Luckily I'm not a paranoid leftie-style
arguer who would demand to know whose payroll Simon is *really* on,
what his qualification in desalination and hydrological engineering
are and
how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject in the
last 12 months, eh?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd
need to see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything
but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about
the capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be paid
off over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water
rates/prices. You just want to look at some sort of number which
ignores the debt. No wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Only if those price increases have been accounted for in the claimed
"cost" of the desal plant.
Post by Swampfox
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the same
price as the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price" meaning
capital expenditure, debt to government is directly proportional to
capital outlay. I will concede that ongoing costs of the desal
plant opposed to a comparably sized dam will be greater, but even
if we were to allow for those increased costs it wouldn't equate
to a factor of 6.
You seem very sure of this. Show me some actual numbers.
Post by Swampfox
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.
Speaking of inaccurate, you have just admitted that ongoing costs
have not been factored into your "cost". Cost needs to be presented
in terms
of the life of the project, not just initial outlay. Your costing is
starting to look as bogus as the NBN.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures
but future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed
theory, since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction
capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of
accurately predicting the future?
No. And since AGW can't do it either, it can not be considered in
the realms of a scientific theory. Clearly you will have to go and
learn something of the scientific method to understand why this is.
Post by Swampfox
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some
30 years ago and well before that, the current majority scientific
opinion is based on the weight of probability, which is perfectly
reasonable.
Are we now talking GW or AGW? It's all to easy to confuse the two,
even deliberately when trying to cloud the argument.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a
broken theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me
your proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that AGW
should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific method
(i.e. REAL science) and be declared proven by popular vote from a
select audience of believers in the faith. That's politics I'm
afraid, not science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The
European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and
countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill
informed scientists, more interested in research grants, politics
and popular opinion than hard science?
No. But I do know of the cliques and cultures that exist within such
organizations, having worked in several. The view of the "frontman"
will often reflect that of "the club", which in turn may be a
minority line.
The statement from the frontman might not even reflect the true view of
the organization, but funding will depend upon it sounding "right".
My old university has gone pro-AGW but I still have contact with
many of its fellows, who either believe it, don't believe it or
don't believe it even warrants an opinion. Yet *the University*
believes in AGW! SO to attach these organizations to all the
scientists within in just a nonsense. And who said anything about
"Sloppy and ill informed". Most of the studies associated with
climate have nothing to do with the A in
AGW. Climate-related sciences have been around long before the invention
of Mannmade global warming.
Post by Swampfox
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide which
thinks that AGW is bunkum?
I can't recall one mentioned in the enviro-dominated media. That's
not to say they don't exist of course. As I said, the "party line"
from such organizations means little. So do these cherry-picked
results from
reviews of "all the world scientists" and the like. I tend to listen
to individuals. Since you seem to have no shortage of references to
believer organizations, you might be interested in some from the
other side. 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of
"Man-Made" Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
But you would do well to remember that all of the above refers to belief
or otherwise in a proposed phenomenon - AGW. In order to assess it
as science it has to be framed as a testable hypothesis in
accordance with
the scientific method. All your ifs & buts aren't going to change that.
The scientific method is set in stone - and for very good reason, no
more emphasized than in the case of the AGW proposal trying to palm
itself off as science. It is NOT!
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or
NASA and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you
then run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as
opposed to what made the records the way they are. The AGW
computer models sure can't explain them - present, past or
future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt of
computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
If you've done even some basic computer programming you can get some
quite revealing insight into how it is done AND about the people who do
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from
hugershoff ; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992
portion ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and
just the ; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
- Briffa of CRU notoriety.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in
physics and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers
I've read. How about you? What qualifies you to comment on the
veracity of this AGW theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an
expert in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions
drawn. Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are disinterested.
I once did some statistical analysis for a psychology department
on their experimental design, the data they had produced, their
analysis of same and the conclusions drawn. I knew nothing of the
subject matter but was able to assess their study from a pure
statistical stand. If you had done anything serious in the world
of scientific R&D you would know this. What are your
qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical
engineering briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans
fundamentally change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere,
which is what we've done particularly since the industrial
revolution and subsequent population explosion, then there will be
consequences.
All you have to do is prove that. Seems like even the AGW "geniuses"
can't do that though. Thus far, it appears that adding CO2 in small
proportions to what is "naturally" there can not be seen to have any
demonstrable effects. Just BTW, I happen to be against atmospheric
pollutants but the clean combustion of hydrocarbons releases CO2, which
is not a pollutant, just as the H2O released is not a pollutant -
even though it also is a GHG.
Post by Swampfox
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret
those consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't
one of them and I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.
I don't claim to be. What bothers me are those who *do* claim to be able
to but can't even get their billion dollar models to predict future
temperatures or even correctly calculate the past record - in hindsight!
If they can't work out what the temperature's going to be, how in
hell can they predict its consequences. Only unqualified maggots
like Tim (it ain't gonna rain no more) Flannery would have the
audacity to try that on.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts
with opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific
debate starts with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to lend
any credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming (and
cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence with a high
degree of certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the
current rate of glacial recession cannot be attributed to a
natural cycle of warming". It would only be possible to know the
"natural cycle of warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was
known on a comparable temporal basis over the entire geological
history of the planet. The whole of your main claim (AGW) rests
upon this not only being true, but having been actually
calculated across the geological time frame on a (what?) decadal
basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to
someone else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take it
from me that it's true.
OK, what were the temperature rates they quoted on the radio for the
geological history of the Earth? Just one will do.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and achieve
nothing except increased influence for the police union.
Crime is getting out of hand here and we need a bit of the iron fist
as opposed to the no charges, no sentences policies of Nixon/Hulls.
At some stage, reality bites - even for the latte leftie. I guess
you'd rather
see the money put into a backup desal plant without a proper costing basis.
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
Au contraire. It's just beginning to get interesting. Your enthusiasm
appears to have dampened quite suddenly for some reason. As soon as
you provide those decadal or centennial temperature rate changes
across geological history, we can just about tie it up.
There's no point, it's going in circles and we all know where that ends up.
By the way I drink my coffee short black, latte is for pussies..
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-14 08:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just a
bit handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As his
first hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to
support global warming but in the same breath you are willing to
accept figures being "bandied about" and take as gospel the
thoughts of someone you heard on radio who's name you can't recall.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand the difference
between science and political debate. It's the reason you
continually use the appeal to authority argument in a scientific
context, where it carries no weight. Admittedly, AGW is *not*
science but if you want to pretend it is and try to debate it as if
it really is a science, then you need to stick to scientific
debate. This means quantifiable stuff, not opinions and fanciful
claims of unprecedented warming rates etc.
But OK, on the non-scientific front, "How much did Kyoto cost us?"
I'll throw it to you - how much? Come up with one of your solid
cited figures you are advocating and I'll check it over. I believe
$40 million until shown a better figure.
Post by Swampfox
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after
signing Kyoto so as far as I'm aware the only costs were
administrative which would have been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved and
rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him
Australian of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate their
insane spending and policies. And why has Gillard wanting to
form her "Now we rool in a carbon tax" committee? Is it so
nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent countless
hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely quick
to point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared from the
"other side". No surprises there though - after all, it *is*
their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo
and a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a
Phd in political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Have you read his book or are you just "me tooing" with the AGW
reviewers who can it (and may or may not have read it).
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to
draw attention only to the bits you want the audience to know
about. I know who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is to
put a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean producing a
"better" alternative theory. In fact, only the one theory is put
under the microscope and the whole idea is to try to shoot holes
in it. This is where people like Monckton are of great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you
would find his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable, same
goes for Plimer.
In what ways? Plimer in particular.
Post by Swampfox
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be coloured.
I can certainly say the same (rather more) of Mann and Jones et al.
It's not just their CVs but their exposed shameful falsification of
data (extremely naughty in the world of science). I think I'd put
more faith
in "coloured judgement" than blatant fraudsters.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even
knowing the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of
statisticians (not climate scientists) who revealed the bogus
methods of Michael (Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global
warming, breaking his now infamous hockeystick. Such experts from
outside the field can be invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert,
In what?
Post by Swampfox
he has no scientific training whatsoever.
I also had no training in psychology whatsoever when I undertook the
statistical analysis of a psychology department's major study. I'd
never done experiments with lab rats or people, but was able to
critique their experimental design and analysis methods. The
department were very happy with the results. If you had experience
across the scientific world, you would know that it is often the
case that people with expertise in
another field are often better at certain aspects than those in the
parent field. The example I've given is such a case - inexact
scientific fields like psychology don't tend to be so strong on
things like statistical significance and its implications right back
to experimental design. I don't doubt that an expert statistician
could do a better job than me on those aspects of my work, but would
have no idea of the
actual science behind the work.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a thousand
years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would
you believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it.
And not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how
one radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into the
leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever
he's mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an
invading tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him
while others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude
from our political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Sounds like he should become a politician. A bit like Monckton - not
formally qualified for the job, but would do a hell of a job nonetheless.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and
similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil, that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the Queensland
floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I heard
and hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and
harping for names & cites) I heard it in the background when
driving. No I didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it
was was getting a string of people on to say what it was like
up there and what was happening. That's all I can give you.
Write that down to avoid asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and don't
even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with someone
else in the car trying to figure out a location. If you wish to
accuse me of lying without basis, that's your choice and a good
reflection of your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
OK, just edging towards it.
Post by Swampfox
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Well, if I hear something I believe comes from an objective source (like
an innocuous infrastructure department spokesperson, say) I tend to have
no reason to automatically *dis*believe it. You OTOH, it seems, will
immediately disbelieve it if it's not what you like to hear, then
start demanding cites, qualifications, clean CVs etc. etc. before
you'll even consider thinking about it. I think I know where the
paranoia sits.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no doubt
eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water output, via
bilge pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my Uncle's
farm as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for your
Vic desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will cost
$3 Bil give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around $1.5 Bil.
"Governments are always wary of the bottom line and when it comes
to major projects it is important to do the maths. While the State
Government has kept quiet on the estimated cost of a new dam, it
has been suggested that a dam on the Mitchell River would cost
$1.35 billion. The Government's Wonthaggi desalination plant has a
price tag of $3.1 billion." - so says Simon Ramsay, head of the
Victorian Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention anti
Labor, so we can assume that his figures overestimate the desal and
underestimate the cost of a dam if they are in any way inaccurate
or massaged, note the word "suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
OK, that sounds reasonable. Luckily I'm not a paranoid leftie-style
arguer who would demand to know whose payroll Simon is *really* on,
what his qualification in desalination and hydrological engineering
are and
how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject in the
last 12 months, eh?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd
need to see numbers before I'd consider your figure as anything
but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking about
the capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be paid
off over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water
rates/prices. You just want to look at some sort of number which
ignores the debt. No wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Only if those price increases have been accounted for in the claimed
"cost" of the desal plant.
Post by Swampfox
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the same
price as the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price" meaning
capital expenditure, debt to government is directly proportional to
capital outlay. I will concede that ongoing costs of the desal
plant opposed to a comparably sized dam will be greater, but even
if we were to allow for those increased costs it wouldn't equate
to a factor of 6.
You seem very sure of this. Show me some actual numbers.
Post by Swampfox
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.
Speaking of inaccurate, you have just admitted that ongoing costs
have not been factored into your "cost". Cost needs to be presented
in terms
of the life of the project, not just initial outlay. Your costing is
starting to look as bogus as the NBN.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures
but future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed
theory, since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction
capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of
accurately predicting the future?
No. And since AGW can't do it either, it can not be considered in
the realms of a scientific theory. Clearly you will have to go and
learn something of the scientific method to understand why this is.
Post by Swampfox
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some
30 years ago and well before that, the current majority scientific
opinion is based on the weight of probability, which is perfectly
reasonable.
Are we now talking GW or AGW? It's all to easy to confuse the two,
even deliberately when trying to cloud the argument.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a
broken theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show me
your proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that AGW
should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific method
(i.e. REAL science) and be declared proven by popular vote from a
select audience of believers in the faith. That's politics I'm
afraid, not science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The
European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and
countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill
informed scientists, more interested in research grants, politics
and popular opinion than hard science?
No. But I do know of the cliques and cultures that exist within such
organizations, having worked in several. The view of the "frontman"
will often reflect that of "the club", which in turn may be a
minority line.
The statement from the frontman might not even reflect the true view of
the organization, but funding will depend upon it sounding "right".
My old university has gone pro-AGW but I still have contact with
many of its fellows, who either believe it, don't believe it or
don't believe it even warrants an opinion. Yet *the University*
believes in AGW! SO to attach these organizations to all the
scientists within in just a nonsense. And who said anything about
"Sloppy and ill informed". Most of the studies associated with
climate have nothing to do with the A in
AGW. Climate-related sciences have been around long before the invention
of Mannmade global warming.
Post by Swampfox
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide which
thinks that AGW is bunkum?
I can't recall one mentioned in the enviro-dominated media. That's
not to say they don't exist of course. As I said, the "party line"
from such organizations means little. So do these cherry-picked
results from
reviews of "all the world scientists" and the like. I tend to listen
to individuals. Since you seem to have no shortage of references to
believer organizations, you might be interested in some from the
other side. 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of
"Man-Made" Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
But you would do well to remember that all of the above refers to belief
or otherwise in a proposed phenomenon - AGW. In order to assess it
as science it has to be framed as a testable hypothesis in
accordance with
the scientific method. All your ifs & buts aren't going to change that.
The scientific method is set in stone - and for very good reason, no
more emphasized than in the case of the AGW proposal trying to palm
itself off as science. It is NOT!
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or
NASA and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch of
hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call, but you
then run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as
opposed to what made the records the way they are. The AGW
computer models sure can't explain them - present, past or
future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt of
computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
If you've done even some basic computer programming you can get some
quite revealing insight into how it is done AND about the people who do
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from
hugershoff ; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992
portion ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and
just the ; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
- Briffa of CRU notoriety.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in
physics and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers
I've read. How about you? What qualifies you to comment on the
veracity of this AGW theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an
expert in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions
drawn. Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are disinterested.
I once did some statistical analysis for a psychology department
on their experimental design, the data they had produced, their
analysis of same and the conclusions drawn. I knew nothing of the
subject matter but was able to assess their study from a pure
statistical stand. If you had done anything serious in the world
of scientific R&D you would know this. What are your
qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical
engineering briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans
fundamentally change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere,
which is what we've done particularly since the industrial
revolution and subsequent population explosion, then there will be
consequences.
All you have to do is prove that. Seems like even the AGW "geniuses"
can't do that though. Thus far, it appears that adding CO2 in small
proportions to what is "naturally" there can not be seen to have any
demonstrable effects. Just BTW, I happen to be against atmospheric
pollutants but the clean combustion of hydrocarbons releases CO2, which
is not a pollutant, just as the H2O released is not a pollutant -
even though it also is a GHG.
Post by Swampfox
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret
those consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't
one of them and I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.
I don't claim to be. What bothers me are those who *do* claim to be able
to but can't even get their billion dollar models to predict future
temperatures or even correctly calculate the past record - in hindsight!
If they can't work out what the temperature's going to be, how in
hell can they predict its consequences. Only unqualified maggots
like Tim (it ain't gonna rain no more) Flannery would have the
audacity to try that on.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts
with opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific
debate starts with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to lend
any credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming (and
cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence with a high
degree of certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the
current rate of glacial recession cannot be attributed to a
natural cycle of warming". It would only be possible to know the
"natural cycle of warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was
known on a comparable temporal basis over the entire geological
history of the planet. The whole of your main claim (AGW) rests
upon this not only being true, but having been actually
calculated across the geological time frame on a (what?) decadal
basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to
someone else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take it
from me that it's true.
OK, what were the temperature rates they quoted on the radio for the
geological history of the Earth? Just one will do.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and achieve
nothing except increased influence for the police union.
Crime is getting out of hand here and we need a bit of the iron fist
as opposed to the no charges, no sentences policies of Nixon/Hulls.
At some stage, reality bites - even for the latte leftie. I guess
you'd rather
see the money put into a backup desal plant without a proper costing basis.
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
Au contraire. It's just beginning to get interesting. Your enthusiasm
appears to have dampened quite suddenly for some reason. As soon as
you provide those decadal or centennial temperature rate changes
across geological history, we can just about tie it up.
There's no point, it's going in circles and we all know where that ends up.
No, it had focused nicely down to a critical point. It had just got to
the stage where you were either going to provide your data to validate
your claim on unprecedented warming rate, or fail to be able to produce
said data and hence expose the claim as an unsubstantiated fabrication.
Seems a strange place to just up & leave a discussion.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Swampfox
2011-01-14 10:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just
a bit handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As
his first hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to
support global warming but in the same breath you are willing to
accept figures being "bandied about" and take as gospel the
thoughts of someone you heard on radio who's name you can't recall.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand the
difference between science and political debate. It's the reason
you continually use the appeal to authority argument in a
scientific context, where it carries no weight. Admittedly, AGW
is *not* science but if you want to pretend it is and try to
debate it as if it really is a science, then you need to stick to
scientific debate. This means quantifiable stuff, not opinions
and fanciful claims of unprecedented warming rates etc.
But OK, on the non-scientific front, "How much did Kyoto cost us?"
I'll throw it to you - how much? Come up with one of your solid
cited figures you are advocating and I'll check it over. I believe
$40 million until shown a better figure.
Post by Swampfox
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after
signing Kyoto so as far as I'm aware the only costs were
administrative which would have been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved
and rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him
Australian of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate
their insane spending and policies. And why has Gillard
wanting to form her "Now we rool in a carbon tax" committee?
Is it so nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent
countless hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely
quick to point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared
from the "other side". No surprises there though - after all,
it *is* their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo
and a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a
Phd in political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Have you read his book or are you just "me tooing" with the AGW
reviewers who can it (and may or may not have read it).
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to
draw attention only to the bits you want the audience to know
about. I know who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is
to put a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean
producing a "better" alternative theory. In fact, only the one
theory is put under the microscope and the whole idea is to try
to shoot holes in it. This is where people like Monckton are of
great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you
would find his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable,
same goes for Plimer.
In what ways? Plimer in particular.
Post by Swampfox
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be coloured.
I can certainly say the same (rather more) of Mann and Jones et
al. It's not just their CVs but their exposed shameful
falsification of data (extremely naughty in the world of
science). I think I'd put more faith
in "coloured judgement" than blatant fraudsters.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even
knowing the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of
statisticians (not climate scientists) who revealed the bogus
methods of Michael (Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global
warming, breaking his now infamous hockeystick. Such experts
from outside the field can be invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert,
In what?
Post by Swampfox
he has no scientific training whatsoever.
I also had no training in psychology whatsoever when I undertook
the statistical analysis of a psychology department's major
study. I'd never done experiments with lab rats or people, but
was able to critique their experimental design and analysis
methods. The department were very happy with the results. If you
had experience across the scientific world, you would know that
it is often the case that people with expertise in
another field are often better at certain aspects than those in
the parent field. The example I've given is such a case - inexact
scientific fields like psychology don't tend to be so strong on
things like statistical significance and its implications right
back to experimental design. I don't doubt that an expert
statistician could do a better job than me on those aspects of my
work, but would have no idea of the
actual science behind the work.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a
thousand years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would
you believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it.
And not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how
one radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into
the leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever
he's mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an
invading tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him
while others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude
from our political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Sounds like he should become a politician. A bit like Monckton -
not formally qualified for the job, but would do a hell of a job
nonetheless.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and
similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil,
that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the
Queensland floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I
heard and hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and
harping for names & cites) I heard it in the background when
driving. No I didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it
was was getting a string of people on to say what it was like
up there and what was happening. That's all I can give you.
Write that down to avoid asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and
don't even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with
someone else in the car trying to figure out a location. If you
wish to accuse me of lying without basis, that's your choice
and a good reflection of your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
OK, just edging towards it.
Post by Swampfox
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Well, if I hear something I believe comes from an objective source (like
an innocuous infrastructure department spokesperson, say) I tend to have
no reason to automatically *dis*believe it. You OTOH, it seems,
will immediately disbelieve it if it's not what you like to hear,
then start demanding cites, qualifications, clean CVs etc. etc.
before you'll even consider thinking about it. I think I know
where the paranoia sits.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no
doubt eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water
output, via bilge pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my
Uncle's farm as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for
your Vic desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will
cost $3 Bil give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around
$1.5 Bil. "Governments are always wary of the bottom line and
when it comes to major projects it is important to do the maths.
While the State Government has kept quiet on the estimated cost
of a new dam, it has been suggested that a dam on the Mitchell
River would cost $1.35 billion. The Government's Wonthaggi
desalination plant has a price tag of $3.1 billion." - so says
Simon Ramsay, head of the Victorian Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention
anti Labor, so we can assume that his figures overestimate the
desal and underestimate the cost of a dam if they are in any way
inaccurate or massaged, note the word "suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
OK, that sounds reasonable. Luckily I'm not a paranoid
leftie-style arguer who would demand to know whose payroll Simon
is *really* on, what his qualification in desalination and
hydrological engineering are and
how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject in
the last 12 months, eh?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd
need to see numbers before I'd consider your figure as
anything but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking
about the capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be
paid off over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water
rates/prices. You just want to look at some sort of number
which ignores the debt. No wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Only if those price increases have been accounted for in the
claimed "cost" of the desal plant.
Post by Swampfox
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the
same price as the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price"
meaning capital expenditure, debt to government is directly
proportional to capital outlay. I will concede that ongoing
costs of the desal plant opposed to a comparably sized dam will
be greater, but even if we were to allow for those increased
costs it wouldn't equate to a factor of 6.
You seem very sure of this. Show me some actual numbers.
Post by Swampfox
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.
Speaking of inaccurate, you have just admitted that ongoing costs
have not been factored into your "cost". Cost needs to be
presented in terms
of the life of the project, not just initial outlay. Your costing
is starting to look as bogus as the NBN.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures
but future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed
theory, since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction
capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of
accurately predicting the future?
No. And since AGW can't do it either, it can not be considered in
the realms of a scientific theory. Clearly you will have to go and
learn something of the scientific method to understand why this is.
Post by Swampfox
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some
30 years ago and well before that, the current majority
scientific opinion is based on the weight of probability, which
is perfectly reasonable.
Are we now talking GW or AGW? It's all to easy to confuse the two,
even deliberately when trying to cloud the argument.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a
broken theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show
me your proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that
AGW should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific
method (i.e. REAL science) and be declared proven by popular
vote from a select audience of believers in the faith. That's
politics I'm afraid, not science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The
European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and
countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill
informed scientists, more interested in research grants, politics
and popular opinion than hard science?
No. But I do know of the cliques and cultures that exist within
such organizations, having worked in several. The view of the
"frontman" will often reflect that of "the club", which in turn
may be a minority line.
The statement from the frontman might not even reflect the true view of
the organization, but funding will depend upon it sounding
"right". My old university has gone pro-AGW but I still have
contact with many of its fellows, who either believe it, don't
believe it or don't believe it even warrants an opinion. Yet *the
University* believes in AGW! SO to attach these organizations to
all the scientists within in just a nonsense. And who said
anything about "Sloppy and ill informed". Most of the studies
associated with climate have nothing to do with the A in
AGW. Climate-related sciences have been around long before the invention
of Mannmade global warming.
Post by Swampfox
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide
which thinks that AGW is bunkum?
I can't recall one mentioned in the enviro-dominated media. That's
not to say they don't exist of course. As I said, the "party line"
from such organizations means little. So do these cherry-picked
results from
reviews of "all the world scientists" and the like. I tend to
listen to individuals. Since you seem to have no shortage of
references to believer organizations, you might be interested in
some from the other side. 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting
Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
But you would do well to remember that all of the above refers to belief
or otherwise in a proposed phenomenon - AGW. In order to assess it
as science it has to be framed as a testable hypothesis in
accordance with
the scientific method. All your ifs & buts aren't going to change that.
The scientific method is set in stone - and for very good reason,
no more emphasized than in the case of the AGW proposal trying to
palm itself off as science. It is NOT!
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or
NASA and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch
of hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call,
but you then run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as
opposed to what made the records the way they are. The AGW
computer models sure can't explain them - present, past or
future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt
of computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about
you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
If you've done even some basic computer programming you can get
some quite revealing insight into how it is done AND about the
people who do
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from
hugershoff ; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992
portion ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and
just the ; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
- Briffa of CRU notoriety.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in
physics and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers
I've read. How about you? What qualifies you to comment on the
veracity of this AGW theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an
expert in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions
drawn. Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are
disinterested. I once did some statistical analysis for a
psychology department on their experimental design, the data
they had produced, their analysis of same and the conclusions
drawn. I knew nothing of the subject matter but was able to
assess their study from a pure statistical stand. If you had
done anything serious in the world of scientific R&D you would
know this. What are your qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical
engineering briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans
fundamentally change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere,
which is what we've done particularly since the industrial
revolution and subsequent population explosion, then there will
be consequences.
All you have to do is prove that. Seems like even the AGW
"geniuses" can't do that though. Thus far, it appears that adding
CO2 in small proportions to what is "naturally" there can not be
seen to have any demonstrable effects. Just BTW, I happen to be
against atmospheric pollutants but the clean combustion of
hydrocarbons releases CO2, which
is not a pollutant, just as the H2O released is not a pollutant -
even though it also is a GHG.
Post by Swampfox
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret
those consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't
one of them and I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.
I don't claim to be. What bothers me are those who *do* claim to be able
to but can't even get their billion dollar models to predict
future temperatures or even correctly calculate the past record -
in hindsight!
If they can't work out what the temperature's going to be, how in
hell can they predict its consequences. Only unqualified maggots
like Tim (it ain't gonna rain no more) Flannery would have the
audacity to try that on.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts
with opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific
debate starts with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to
lend any credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming
(and cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence with a
high degree of certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the
current rate of glacial recession cannot be attributed to a
natural cycle of warming". It would only be possible to know the
"natural cycle of warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was
known on a comparable temporal basis over the entire geological
history of the planet. The whole of your main claim (AGW) rests
upon this not only being true, but having been actually
calculated across the geological time frame on a (what?) decadal
basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to
someone else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take
it from me that it's true.
OK, what were the temperature rates they quoted on the radio for
the geological history of the Earth? Just one will do.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and
achieve nothing except increased influence for the police union.
Crime is getting out of hand here and we need a bit of the iron
fist as opposed to the no charges, no sentences policies of
Nixon/Hulls. At some stage, reality bites - even for the latte
leftie. I guess you'd rather
see the money put into a backup desal plant without a proper costing basis.
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
Au contraire. It's just beginning to get interesting. Your
enthusiasm appears to have dampened quite suddenly for some reason.
As soon as you provide those decadal or centennial temperature rate
changes across geological history, we can just about tie it up.
There's no point, it's going in circles and we all know where that ends up.
No, it had focused nicely down to a critical point. It had just got to
the stage where you were either going to provide your data to validate
your claim on unprecedented warming rate, or fail to be able to
produce said data and hence expose the claim as an unsubstantiated
fabrication. Seems a strange place to just up & leave a discussion.
Everything seems strange to you.
bringyagrogalong
2011-01-14 11:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
No, it had focused nicely down to a critical point. It had just got to
the stage where you were either going to provide your data to validate
your claim on unprecedented warming rate, or fail to be able to
produce said data and hence expose the claim as an unsubstantiated
fabrication. Seems a strange place to just up & leave a discussion.
Everything seems strange to you.
And no more so then with history.

This is what that Neanderthal said about the Battle of Moscow...

"Hitler moved into Moscow, kicking them out of their own seat of
government. Where were the mighty reds then? Running away!"

I know, it's difficult to believe that anyone, with even a modicum of
education, could be that pig-ignorant.

But here's the proof:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/msg/955a9e4e578b691f

=====

"Mr Abbott said after the 1974 floods in Brisbane the Wivenhoe dam
was 
constructed "and there have been no serious floods in Brisbane
since".

http://tinyurl.com/5wt8rgb

Check this out Tony, you bloody galah...
http://tinyurl.com/4vhuouo

What an ocean-going fuckwit.  ROTFLMAO
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-14 14:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What have been the net effect of Rudd's decisions?
Millions pissed away in record time, which might come in just
a bit handy for real issues of the day, like flood relief. As
his first hero act, how much did it cost *us* to sign Kyoto?
I dunno, you tell me.
I think it was kept under wraps (surprise!) I heard $40 million
bandied about, but don't recall cite or source. So let's call it that.
Let's not.
You seem to be a stickler for detail when it comes to data to
support global warming but in the same breath you are willing to
accept figures being "bandied about" and take as gospel the
thoughts of someone you heard on radio who's name you can't recall.
It seems that way to you because you don't understand the
difference between science and political debate. It's the reason
you continually use the appeal to authority argument in a
scientific context, where it carries no weight. Admittedly, AGW
is *not* science but if you want to pretend it is and try to
debate it as if it really is a science, then you need to stick to
scientific debate. This means quantifiable stuff, not opinions
and fanciful claims of unprecedented warming rates etc.
But OK, on the non-scientific front, "How much did Kyoto cost us?"
I'll throw it to you - how much? Come up with one of your solid
cited figures you are advocating and I'll check it over. I believe
$40 million until shown a better figure.
Post by Swampfox
I'm not sure that we modified our behaviour in any way after
signing Kyoto so as far as I'm aware the only costs were
administrative which would have been trivial.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Last I checked we had no ETS, no Carbon tax and no mandatory
emissions targets, the green loans scheme had been shelved
and rebates for solar had been scaled back.
That Flannery bloke must have had a huge influence, don't ya think?
They used him as poster boy for their propaganda spendathon. They needed
a personality or celebrity (a la Labor) so they made him
Australian of the Year. They used him alright to vindicate
their insane spending and policies. And why has Gillard
wanting to form her "Now we rool in a carbon tax" committee?
Is it so nothing can happen?
Now I've heard it all, are you piseed or something?
Don't like the answer to your question? Not surprised.
I don't care either way, rants often amuse me.
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Which must make Tim Flannery an authority, he's spent
countless hours giving media interviews.
He is, indeed, similarly an authority... in his own field of
expertise... which is bones incidentally. Tony Jones seemed to
always forget to mention that he was, in fact, NOT a climate
scientist in those countless interviews, but was extremely
quick to point it out (repeatedly) when somebody appeared
from the "other side". No surprises there though - after all,
it *is* their ABC.
Well Pilmer's field of expertise is rocks, Monckton is a journo
and a former staffer for a Tory think tank, Bjorn Lomborg has a
Phd in political science. Who are we to believe eh?
I like Plimer.
Surprise, surprise.
Have you read his book or are you just "me tooing" with the AGW
reviewers who can it (and may or may not have read it).
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
He is a respected geologist, which has much closer ties
to climate than bones. And he presents clear data as opposed to
Flannery's wishy washy chatter. In my experience, the former is
indicative of nothing to hide, while the latter is an attempt to
draw attention only to the bits you want the audience to know
about. I know who I believe.
You also fail to realize that part of the scientific method is
to put a theory up to scrutiny. Scrutiny does not mean
producing a "better" alternative theory. In fact, only the one
theory is put under the microscope and the whole idea is to try
to shoot holes in it. This is where people like Monckton are of
great value.
If you take any more than a cursory glance at Monckton's CV you
would find his attitude to the issue perfectly understandable,
same goes for Plimer.
In what ways? Plimer in particular.
Post by Swampfox
Let's just say that I suspect that their judgement could be coloured.
I can certainly say the same (rather more) of Mann and Jones et
al. It's not just their CVs but their exposed shameful
falsification of data (extremely naughty in the world of
science). I think I'd put more faith
in "coloured judgement" than blatant fraudsters.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
They can expose failing
(including fraud) by studying data and analysis without even
knowing the subject detail. For instance, it was a team of
statisticians (not climate scientists) who revealed the bogus
methods of Michael (Piltdown) Mann, father of Mannmade global
warming, breaking his now infamous hockeystick. Such experts
from outside the field can be invaluable.
Except that Monckton isn't an expert,
In what?
Post by Swampfox
he has no scientific training whatsoever.
I also had no training in psychology whatsoever when I undertook
the statistical analysis of a psychology department's major
study. I'd never done experiments with lab rats or people, but
was able to critique their experimental design and analysis
methods. The department were very happy with the results. If you
had experience across the scientific world, you would know that
it is often the case that people with expertise in
another field are often better at certain aspects than those in
the parent field. The example I've given is such a case - inexact
scientific fields like psychology don't tend to be so strong on
things like statistical significance and its implications right
back to experimental design. I don't doubt that an expert
statistician could do a better job than me on those aspects of my
work, but would have no idea of the
actual science behind the work.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
In answer to your "more to
the point", that's why I tend to believe it *more* than some
unsubstantiated hyperbole featuring "bankrupt" and "a
thousand years"..
What if I rang up Alan Jones and you heard it on radio, would
you believe it then?
I don't listen to Alan Jones, so I'm sure I wouldn't hear it.
And not really being familiar with him, I can't understand how
one radio jock can instill such obvious fear and panic into
the leftards.
Pity is a more accurate description as far as I'm concerned.
My mistake, I thought he'd be right up your alley, so to speak.
What is it that he says that gets the leftards so edgy? Whenever
he's mentioned they go off like panicked monkeys who smell an
invading tribe coming.
It's not what he says, it's what he is.
He's a liar, an opportunist and a fraud, some can see through him
while others can't.
That someone with so few scruples commands respect and servitude
from our political masters is a sad indictment on our country.
Sounds like he should become a politician. A bit like Monckton -
not formally qualified for the job, but would do a hell of a job
nonetheless.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
And
dams are a hell of a lot cheaper than desal plants and
similar gimmicks.
Ya reckon?
A single dam of any scale would cost at least $1.5Bil,
that's for one.
How many did you say we would need to mitigate the
Queensland floods, and how big would they need to be?
I didn't - I'd leave that to the experts like the one I
heard and hope to hear speak again.
Does this mythical expert have a name, or can you at least
cite a source?
I told you before (reread it to avoid confusion again and
harping for names & cites) I heard it in the background when
driving. No I didn't get a name or a cite. Whatever station it
was was getting a string of people on to say what it was like
up there and what was happening. That's all I can give you.
Write that down to avoid asking it again.
So you heard it in the background, didn't catch a name and
don't even know what radio station you were listening to.
Are you always that gullible or only when it suits you?
It's like I told you. I heard it in passing, talking with
someone else in the car trying to figure out a location. If you
wish to accuse me of lying without basis, that's your choice
and a good reflection of your own measure.
I've never accused you of lying, no need for the paranoia.
OK, just edging towards it.
Post by Swampfox
I've accused you of believing things simply because you want to.
Well, if I hear something I believe comes from an objective source (like
an innocuous infrastructure department spokesperson, say) I tend to have
no reason to automatically *dis*believe it. You OTOH, it seems,
will immediately disbelieve it if it's not what you like to hear,
then start demanding cites, qualifications, clean CVs etc. etc.
before you'll even consider thinking about it. I think I know
where the paranoia sits.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I know that we could have got about half a dozen
Victorian dams for the price of the desal plant, now no
doubt eagerly awaiting its next burst of fresh water
output, via bilge pumps and natural flood waters. LOL
Um, make that two dams, unless you count the one on my
Uncle's farm as a dam.
Are you always this prone to exaggeration?
Well, I heard half a dozen.
Not unless they're that small as to be insignificant.
You didn't hear it from that same bloke on the radio did you?
I heard it elsewhere, but I'd like to see a reliable cite for
your Vic desal plant at the cost of 2 dams. Got one?
Well I can't be bothered trawling web sites but the desal will
cost $3 Bil give or take, and a dam of similar capacity around
$1.5 Bil. "Governments are always wary of the bottom line and
when it comes to major projects it is important to do the maths.
While the State Government has kept quiet on the estimated cost
of a new dam, it has been suggested that a dam on the Mitchell
River would cost $1.35 billion. The Government's Wonthaggi
desalination plant has a price tag of $3.1 billion." - so says
Simon Ramsay, head of the Victorian Farmers' Federation.
Now Simon is obviously pro dam and anti desal, not to mention
anti Labor, so we can assume that his figures overestimate the
desal and underestimate the cost of a dam if they are in any way
inaccurate or massaged, note the word "suggested" in his article.
Good luck if you think you can build another Thomson dam for $500 Mil.
OK, that sounds reasonable. Luckily I'm not a paranoid
leftie-style arguer who would demand to know whose payroll Simon
is *really* on, what his qualification in desalination and
hydrological engineering are and
how many peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject in
the last 12 months, eh?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Did you factor in the astronomical rise in
water prices into the total cost of the Vic desal plant? I'd
need to see numbers before I'd consider your figure as
anything but a guess.
Water prices have got nothing to do with it, we're talking
about the capital cost of construction.
It wasn't a guess, look it up.
Ah, so you don't want to go into real cost which needs to be
paid off over, what? "a thousand years" via increased water
rates/prices. You just want to look at some sort of number
which ignores the debt. No wonder you want *me* to look it up.
Again, water prices to the end user are irrelevant.
Only if those price increases have been accounted for in the
claimed "cost" of the desal plant.
Post by Swampfox
Your initial statement was that we could build 6 dams for the
same price as the desal plant, "we" meaning government, "price"
meaning capital expenditure, debt to government is directly
proportional to capital outlay. I will concede that ongoing
costs of the desal plant opposed to a comparably sized dam will
be greater, but even if we were to allow for those increased
costs it wouldn't equate to a factor of 6.
You seem very sure of this. Show me some actual numbers.
Post by Swampfox
Your statement was plainly innaccurate.
Speaking of inaccurate, you have just admitted that ongoing costs
have not been factored into your "cost". Cost needs to be
presented in terms
of the life of the project, not just initial outlay. Your costing
is starting to look as bogus as the NBN.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Bzzzt.
If anything could correctly predict not only past temperatures
but future ones then it wouldn't be a theory.
Would it?
OK, so you admit that it is not a proven theory but a failed
theory, since it fails the fundamental requirement of prediction
capability.
Can you give me any example, just one will do, of any way of
accurately predicting the future?
No. And since AGW can't do it either, it can not be considered in
the realms of a scientific theory. Clearly you will have to go and
learn something of the scientific method to understand why this is.
Post by Swampfox
Global warming was being predicted when I was in high school some
30 years ago and well before that, the current majority
scientific opinion is based on the weight of probability, which
is perfectly reasonable.
Are we now talking GW or AGW? It's all to easy to confuse the two,
even deliberately when trying to cloud the argument.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
At least we've got that straight. Now, why even bother with a
broken theory?
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I'd
love to see it. All I've seen are three decades of (try again)
computer models which consistently get it wrong. But DO show
me your proof. The real
scientific world waits with baited breath.
The "real" scientific world?
As opposed to fruit loops, misfits, wannabees, industrial
prostitutes and apologists for mutinationals.
As opposed to those who, for some bizarre reason, believe that
AGW should be exempted from the scrutiny of the scientific
method (i.e. REAL science) and be declared proven by popular
vote from a select audience of believers in the faith. That's
politics I'm afraid, not science.
The CSIRO, BOM, NASA, The British Royal Society, the US National
Academy of Sciences, the Australian Academy of Science, The
European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, and
countless others.
In your opinion all these organisations consist of sloppy, ill
informed scientists, more interested in research grants, politics
and popular opinion than hard science?
No. But I do know of the cliques and cultures that exist within
such organizations, having worked in several. The view of the
"frontman" will often reflect that of "the club", which in turn
may be a minority line.
The statement from the frontman might not even reflect the true view of
the organization, but funding will depend upon it sounding
"right". My old university has gone pro-AGW but I still have
contact with many of its fellows, who either believe it, don't
believe it or don't believe it even warrants an opinion. Yet *the
University* believes in AGW! SO to attach these organizations to
all the scientists within in just a nonsense. And who said
anything about "Sloppy and ill informed". Most of the studies
associated with climate have nothing to do with the A in
AGW. Climate-related sciences have been around long before the invention
of Mannmade global warming.
Post by Swampfox
Can you cite one, just one, reputable organisation worldwide
which thinks that AGW is bunkum?
I can't recall one mentioned in the enviro-dominated media. That's
not to say they don't exist of course. As I said, the "party line"
from such organizations means little. So do these cherry-picked
results from
reviews of "all the world scientists" and the like. I tend to
listen to individuals. Since you seem to have no shortage of
references to believer organizations, you might be interested in
some from the other side. 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting
Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global
Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
But you would do well to remember that all of the above refers to belief
or otherwise in a proposed phenomenon - AGW. In order to assess it
as science it has to be framed as a testable hypothesis in
accordance with
the scientific method. All your ifs & buts aren't going to change that.
The scientific method is set in stone - and for very good reason,
no more emphasized than in the case of the AGW proposal trying to
palm itself off as science. It is NOT!
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
If you don't believe the CSIRO, the BOM, the Royal Society or
NASA and would rather believe an inbred pommie twit, a bunch
of hysterical luddites and Barney Joyce that's your call,
but you then run the risk of being identified with them.
I think you might be talking about temperature records, as
opposed to what made the records the way they are. The AGW
computer models sure can't explain them - present, past or
future.
And you understand these models?
Some aspects. I have actually been involved in the developmennt
of computer models, but nothing to do with climate. How about
you?
Nope.
I have no idea how the models are constructed or interpreted.
I leave that to people who do.
If you've done even some basic computer programming you can get
some quite revealing insight into how it is done AND about the
people who do
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from
hugershoff ; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992
portion ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and
just the ; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
- Briffa of CRU notoriety.
Post by Swampfox
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
What branch of science do you specialize in?
Not climate-related science, although a strong background in
physics and thermodynamics enables me to understand the papers
I've read. How about you? What qualifies you to comment on the
veracity of this AGW theory-like suggestion?
Again you miss the point re: scrutiny. You don't need to be an
expert in a field to scrutinize analysis of data and conclusions
drawn. Indeed, it is sometimes better that you are
disinterested. I once did some statistical analysis for a
psychology department on their experimental design, the data
they had produced, their analysis of same and the conclusions
drawn. I knew nothing of the subject matter but was able to
assess their study from a pure statistical stand. If you had
done anything serious in the world of scientific R&D you would
know this. What are your qualifications/background again?
I elected maths/science at high school and studied chemical
engineering briefly, so my science training is limited.
It doesn't take a genius however to realise that if we humans
fundamentally change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere,
which is what we've done particularly since the industrial
revolution and subsequent population explosion, then there will
be consequences.
All you have to do is prove that. Seems like even the AGW
"geniuses" can't do that though. Thus far, it appears that adding
CO2 in small proportions to what is "naturally" there can not be
seen to have any demonstrable effects. Just BTW, I happen to be
against atmospheric pollutants but the clean combustion of
hydrocarbons releases CO2, which
is not a pollutant, just as the H2O released is not a pollutant -
even though it also is a GHG.
Post by Swampfox
I leave it to the experts in the field to describe and interpret
those consequences, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley certainly isn't
one of them and I'm fairly certain that you aren't either.
I don't claim to be. What bothers me are those who *do* claim to be able
to but can't even get their billion dollar models to predict
future temperatures or even correctly calculate the past record -
in hindsight!
If they can't work out what the temperature's going to be, how in
hell can they predict its consequences. Only unqualified maggots
like Tim (it ain't gonna rain no more) Flannery would have the
audacity to try that on.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
I tend to like debate from the scientific POV, since it starts
with opinions and ends with rights and wrongs. Non-scientific
debate starts with opinions and ends with opinions.
But this totally avoids what I was asking of you in order to
lend any credibility to your claim that "Past rates of warming
(and cooling) can be deduced from geological evidence with a
high degree of certainty." Upon this rests your claim that "the
current rate of glacial recession cannot be attributed to a
natural cycle of warming". It would only be possible to know the
"natural cycle of warming" if the entire spectrum of warming was
known on a comparable temporal basis over the entire geological
history of the planet. The whole of your main claim (AGW) rests
upon this not only being true, but having been actually
calculated across the geological time frame on a (what?) decadal
basis. Even centennial will do. Do you have a cite for this data?
I heard it on the radio, in the background while I was talking to
someone else.
Not sure who said it or which radio station it was on, just take
it from me that it's true.
OK, what were the temperature rates they quoted on the radio for
the geological history of the Earth? Just one will do.
Post by Swampfox
<snip>
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Swampfox
I live in Victoria and was happy enough to see a change of
government but I'll reserve judgement for a while thanks.
What they'll save on the power plant they'll blow on prisons and cops.
Much needed IMHO but that's another story.
Not needed, populist nonsense that will cost a fortune and
achieve nothing except increased influence for the police union.
Crime is getting out of hand here and we need a bit of the iron
fist as opposed to the no charges, no sentences policies of
Nixon/Hulls. At some stage, reality bites - even for the latte
leftie. I guess you'd rather
see the money put into a backup desal plant without a proper costing basis.
Forget the AGW debate, it's going nowhere.
Au contraire. It's just beginning to get interesting. Your
enthusiasm appears to have dampened quite suddenly for some reason.
As soon as you provide those decadal or centennial temperature rate
changes across geological history, we can just about tie it up.
There's no point, it's going in circles and we all know where that ends up.
No, it had focused nicely down to a critical point. It had just got to
the stage where you were either going to provide your data to validate
your claim on unprecedented warming rate, or fail to be able to
produce said data and hence expose the claim as an unsubstantiated
fabrication. Seems a strange place to just up & leave a discussion.
Everything seems strange to you.
See reply in other thread. Thanks again for your (unintentional)
contribution in the support of dams.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
AStext
2011-01-12 05:00:48 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 12, 6:37 am, Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Parasitic predictor of the eternal drought - another bullshit AGW claim
- it may never rain again. He's probably being hidden by those slimy
Green parasites (also not to be found in time of crisis - how unusual!).
We need a special rope just for him, to hang along with the rest of
them. Imagine the money that could have gone into flood relief had lice
like Flannery not helped convince simpletons like Beattie to waste it on
(now scrapped) desal plant. This AGW-driven, Greens-powered, squandering
and incompetent Labor madness needs to be eliminated at all levels.
Hopefully next set of elections will do it, but in the meantime the
bastards should be put to work cleaning up the bloody mess they've made
at all levels. Today's disaster is Labor/Greens flood damage.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...
Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000
Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010
** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Here is is (unfortunately)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/flannery-responds/story-fn558imw-1225985892144
bringyagrogalong
2011-01-12 05:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Where is that maggot of the year Tim Flannery
This Tim Flannery...

"In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South
Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods.
Prior to this, he completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English
(1977) at La Trobe University[2] and a Master of Science degree in
Earth Science (1981) at Monash University. He has contributed to over
90 scientific papers.

"Flannery has held various academic positions throughout his career
including Professor at the University of Adelaide, director of the
South Australian Museum in Adelaide, Principal Research Scientist at
the Australian Museum, Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard
University in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,
and an adviser on environmental issues to the Australian Federal
Parliament".

Currently he's a professor at Macquarie University and is no doubt
still contributing to scientific papers.

err! What's your main claim to fame again? <derisory snort>

Well, apart from stating that you thought tampons are recycled. LOL

====

During the 13 years of the Hawke/Keating government there were 1,925
boat people arrivals.

During the 12 years of the Howard government there were 13,663 boat
people arrivals.

A massive 700% increase!

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm

It's unfathomable how the conservatives have managed to dupe
Australians into thinking that they are better at "border
protection".

Their lies and slavish media support notwithstanding.

Makes one wonder at how Coalition supporters 
can reconcile those
damning figures.

Short memories and just plain stupid I guess.
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 06:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by bringyagrogalong
Where is that maggot of the year Tim Flannery
This Tim Flannery...
"In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South
Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods.
Prior to this, he completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English
(1977) at La Trobe University[2] and a Master of Science degree in
Earth Science (1981) at Monash University. He has contributed to over
90 scientific papers.
"Flannery has held various academic positions throughout his career
including Professor at the University of Adelaide, director of the
South Australian Museum in Adelaide, Principal Research Scientist at
the Australian Museum, Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard
University in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,
and an adviser on environmental issues to the Australian Federal
Parliament".
Currently he's a professor at Macquarie University and is no doubt
still contributing to scientific papers.
err! What's your main claim to fame again? <derisory snort>
Well, apart from stating that you thought tampons are recycled. LOL
Well, that's one of your blatant lies, so I can presume that all of the
above is as well. For starters, I have not claimed that it will never
rain again in Australia, land of the eternal drought.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Now, it's back to bar charts for slower mongoloids for you.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Gillard = Rudd in a frock
2011-01-12 09:09:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:31:37 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
Where is that maggot of the year Tim Flannery
This Tim Flannery...
"In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South
Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods.
Prior to this, he completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English
(1977) at La Trobe University[2] and a Master of Science degree in
Earth Science (1981) at Monash University. He has contributed to over
90 scientific papers.
"Flannery has held various academic positions throughout his career
including Professor at the University of Adelaide, director of the
South Australian Museum in Adelaide, Principal Research Scientist at
the Australian Museum, Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard
University in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,
and an adviser on environmental issues to the Australian Federal
Parliament".
Currently he's a professor at Macquarie University and is no doubt
still contributing to scientific papers.
That is the maggot!
Post by bringyagrogalong
err! What's your main claim to fame again? <derisory snort>
So can we assume from your cocaine induced snort that you think you
have a claim to fame?

Being a fat greasy wog doesn't count, BTW.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Well, apart from stating that you thought tampons are recycled. LOL
Ah ha, but I didn't. And neither did anyone else.

This has been proven here, but being the uneducated fat slimy wog, you
just can't get the nuances of English past your snail like brain.
--
"One thing is sure - there will be no Gillard era. This is not a
20-year stretch. Civilised people's hands are already over their faces
every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no
influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there."

Bob Ellis (ALP speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv

"Gillard is part of a Melbourne-based gang Ellis dubs the "Mouse Pack",
which includes Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson.

"They twitch their whiskers and come out in favour of the Afghan war
without studying the problem or noting that an army intelligence
officer [independent MP Andrew Wilkie] holds the balance of power,"
Ellis says."

More Bob Ellis (ALP Speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 09:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillard = Rudd in a frock
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:31:37 -0800 (PST), bringyagrogalong
Post by bringyagrogalong
Where is that maggot of the year Tim Flannery
This Tim Flannery...
"In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South
Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods.
Prior to this, he completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English
(1977) at La Trobe University[2] and a Master of Science degree in
Earth Science (1981) at Monash University. He has contributed to over
90 scientific papers.
"Flannery has held various academic positions throughout his career
including Professor at the University of Adelaide, director of the
South Australian Museum in Adelaide, Principal Research Scientist at
the Australian Museum, Visiting Chair in Australian Studies at Harvard
University in the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,
and an adviser on environmental issues to the Australian Federal
Parliament".
Currently he's a professor at Macquarie University and is no doubt
still contributing to scientific papers.
That is the maggot!
Post by bringyagrogalong
err! What's your main claim to fame again? <derisory snort>
So can we assume from your cocaine induced snort that you think you
have a claim to fame?
Being a fat greasy wog doesn't count, BTW.
Post by bringyagrogalong
Well, apart from stating that you thought tampons are recycled. LOL
Ah ha, but I didn't. And neither did anyone else.
This has been proven here, but being the uneducated fat slimy wog, you
just can't get the nuances of English past your snail like brain.
Nice new sig! And I see you've even used a compliant Usenet sig
delimiter! <derisory smirk>
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Gillard = Rudd in a frock
2011-01-12 09:24:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:21:59 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Oy rool out a carbon tax
Post by Gillard = Rudd in a frock
This has been proven here, but being the uneducated fat slimy wog, you
just can't get the nuances of English past your snail like brain.
Nice new sig! And I see you've even used a compliant Usenet sig
delimiter! <derisory smirk>
Yep, too much for wog boy to understand! <rolls eyes in pity>
--
"One thing is sure - there will be no Gillard era. This is not a
20-year stretch. Civilised people's hands are already over their faces
every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no
influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there."

Bob Ellis (ALP speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv

"Gillard is part of a Melbourne-based gang Ellis dubs the "Mouse Pack",
which includes Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson.

"They twitch their whiskers and come out in favour of the Afghan war
without studying the problem or noting that an army intelligence
officer [independent MP Andrew Wilkie] holds the balance of power,"
Ellis says."

More Bob Ellis (ALP Speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv
jg
2011-01-12 07:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Oy rool out a carbon tax wrote:
..........
- it may never rain again.........
What a very strange thing to say. Rain always falls somewhere in the
world, global warming might or is seeing more lively weather patterns
with different wet and dry areas. Of course certain areas might be left
high and dry, as say the Simpson desert is now. You'd be fkn hopeful
building a dam anywhere in the South West quarter of Australia now.
Oy rool out a carbon tax
2011-01-12 08:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by jg
..........
- it may never rain again.........
What a very strange thing to say. Rain always falls somewhere in the
world, global warming might or is seeing more lively weather patterns
with different wet and dry areas. Of course certain areas might be left
high and dry, as say the Simpson desert is now. You'd be fkn hopeful
building a dam anywhere in the South West quarter of Australia now.
I think he meant in Australia. But here's an equally "strange thing to
say" a bit closer to home:
Tim Flannery predicted in 2007 that Brisbane could run out of water by
year’s end. Said the Flanster: "Even a year ago this would have been
unthinkable. I think it’s the most extreme and the most dangerous
situation arising from climate change facing any country in the world
right now." And this fuckwit is often the invited expert on AGW. I guess
it all fits together.
--
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention (nearest hundred):

Jan 2005 __________ 1000
Jul 2005 ________ 800
Jan 2006 _________ 900
Jul 2006 ______ 600
Jan 2007 _____ 500
Jul 2007 ____ 400
Jan 2008 ____ 400
Jul 2008 ___ 300
Jan 2009 ___ 300 -> Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________ 1000
Jan 2010 _________________ 1700
Jul 2010 ______________________________ 2000

Boat watch alert: 4 boats arrive in last 2 days - 7/11/2010
- more than 6000 people arrive in 2010 and 121 boats
- 35 boats arrive since the 21/8/2010 election - more than 1700 people
- 100 illegals in 3 boats over 2 days transferred to Christmas Is. -
29/11/2010

** - more than 27 people die as a direct result of Rudd/Gillard open
borders policy - 15/12/2010 **
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...