Post by bringyagrogalong Post by fasgnadh Post by Tomasso Post by Addinall Post by Krudd the Dud Post by bringyagrogalong
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Anyone with half the normal intelligence could do better than that.
And you are attempting to because you qualify! B^D
Post by Krudd the Dud
Tony Abbott is ~not~ a climate change skeptic;
Do you mean today at 9:00 pm? B^D
"Climate Change is Crap" - Tony Abbott. December 02, 2009
B^D Not a climate change sceptic!? B^D
Perhaps he has been getting conflicting, and sometimes unreliable
Here's a couple of interesting datasets. I included ALL that I could
find that met
criteria. The criteria for the Antarctic was easy, include ALL
stations. Examine raw data.
Australia was quite simple. Include ALL stations that have a 100 year
are not a capital city. I wanted to look at data that was largely
UHI effect seen in the major cities. You and I go back a few years,
and we know each others
backgound in math, stats and science in general. Do these data sets
'global' warming is running away? I just can't see it in the data.
It isn't there.
I'd be willing to doff me lid at Tomato, for he is better than I. The
two of us had a crack
at the data some six years ago from memory. I think the data we used
'bubble' analysis might have been 'corrected' in retrospect. Not by
him. The suppliers of the data.
Even then we both saw no 'disaster' (correct me if I am wrong Tom).
Christ! What have we got here?
A couple of thinking sceptics, quite distinct from
Minchin, Abbott, Barnaby Joyce, and the Usenet morons
CRUD, and Dr Sir John Winsome Coward.
Tweedledum and Tweedledumber ROFL
Oh, I don't think so.
Both pretty bright fellas.
So is Prof Ian Plimer who makes a good case for historic
climate change, (Part of the reason why Abbott's stupidty
"Climate Change is Crap" is such crap!) based on the geological
record, not 'climate 'models' (which have to be orders of
magnitude more complex than the ones which model an economy..
and we all saw how fucking accurate they are when the G.E.C. burst
on us unannounced.
The thing I hate most about this argument is the fixed positions
and the dominance in the debate of total thickies..
I have lost friends on the greenie save the earth side for
saying that I found Al Gore unimpressive, and now the current stupidity
is to dismiss all the science supporting global warming because
of some emails from one reseacher. VERY LITTLE OF THIS ARGUMENT
IS GOOD SCIENCE. And in a choice between Kevin Rudd and Al Gore
on once side and Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt on the other I prefer
to slit my own throat and bleed to death.
So you pair of idiots believe that your "research" is right while
research by the world's scientists is wrong.
Well, I had a look at the datasets. I think that's how science is done.
At least consider the evidence.
It wouldn't be the first time one man was right and the entire
community of the learned had their heads stuck up their arses, Galileao.
I ripped into Abbott because he's a fucking thug and a hypocrital,
back flipping opportunist on climate change. Not becausue I think
the global warming argument is settled.
I thing the sea temps are critical, and the Goddard/NASA sattelite
data does indicate some slight warming.
It's the *models* which suggest panic, and that's not enough to convince
me that the matter is an open and shut case! .. but it is enough for me
to think we should be doing everything sensible to prepare for climate
change, even if it's driven by solar activity.
Then there is the question of the anthropogenic causes, how significant
are they, what proportion of atmospheric CO2 is produced by humans .. 4%?
But I think it essential that we develop GLOBAL responses to a wide
range of issues, so, the more Copenhagens, the better we will get at it.
> Ever thought to wonder why the world's governments are attending the
> Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference?
Becasue when each of their respective governments (including the
previous Howard one) asked their chief scientific advisors they all said
follow the precautionary principle... the indications are that slow
warming is occurring, we could be contributing to it, but there
is no certainty. Thus they are all trying to make some changes to
the way energy is produced, without fucking their economies. Tough job.
And they can't be CERTAIN their assessment of the threat is right!
Which is why sceptics are fine by me.. they just have to convince
enough people through the evidence.. first the scientific community,
then the general public. My mind is still open.
Till then it's slight speed ahead.. the most rational course.
But as with the Ozone depletion, united action can solve complex
problems. It's a new paradigm for humanity.. global governance
is in it's infancy and faces considerable hostility.
The alternative to contention for resources (War over oil and water) is
co-operative solutions, and the mere agreement between China and the USA
on united action on climate change is easily worth a spare
Trillion, let alone the Billions proposed. I expect to see China being
the new driver of Solar panel and electric vehicle technology..
hopefully integrated mass transport and less cars, which are already
dysfunctional in large urban environments. All of these benefits are
incidental to the 'Reduce emissions' debate, but they represent my
interest.. I will be happy if Climate change concerns are the driver..
it seems fear is all that can motivate some people...
Meanwhile the tories are squabbling over the crumbs of defeat.
There are larger issues than who wins the next election is Australia.
Our footprint on the planet is too heavy.
We have already fished the richest ocean fishery, the Grand Banks, to
death, endless growth is destroying forests and rivers and sending
countless species extinct.. there are too many of us consuming too
many resources and we will need another four planets if the Chinese and
Iindians all adopt our middle class lifestyle of endless fucking
I for one am prepared to do without multiple TVs cars iPods and plastic
shit if we can get a river or two to run clean and free.
Perhaps you should forward your bullshit so they can call the whole
thing off. ROFL
What Mark presented isn't Bullshit.. it's BOM and polar region data.
The BOM's own analysis of the entire national dataset is however,
The dataset Tom and I had a look at some years ago was one of the
My recent work has been on BoM raw data, and I did it without Tom.
He's too busy.
Post by bringyagrogalong Post by fasgnadh
"Mean maximum temperature has increased over most
of Australia since 1950"
I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl
insults at each other over the data, and the conclusions.
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
Is it just me, or...is fasgnadh, of all people, deferring to Addinall?
hmmm! Let me read his post again.
Yep! It's a grovel alright!
It's almost like he's desperately seeking approval. He appears to
think that airhead Addinall is superior in intellect to him which
probably explains why he's sitting on the fence over AGW. Take it from
me fasgnadh you shit all over him in the smarts department.
The fact is, Addinall has got a closed mind on the issue. Open up any
of his posts and not one of them supports the notion of AGW, in fact
they all rubbish it.
And as far as Addinall being a "pretty bright fella" is concerned, he
seriously suggests that Australia buy Russian Sukhoi fighters. LOL.
He obviously doesn't have any conception or understanding of our
international relationships, commitments and treaty obligations?
Point me to a treaty where it says we MUST buy American rubbish
at a greatly inflated pice. What would the ISDN be?
Anyway, even though the toy F-35A has flown a whole two times now, is
three years behind schedule, $20 BILLION dollars over budget and is
being ignored in droves by anyone wanting a strike fighter, the
of Australia still seems impressed with LM presentation slides.
"Russia's Radical Sukhoi S-37 Fighter Plane Goes Up Against Our F-22
Page_white_text an academic article by Barry (Occams), published on 10
tagged as russian, fighter, aircraft, s37, f35, f22, and asia
How the hell do they do it?
A crumbling economy, corruption, failed institutions and still the
Russians can produce an amazing fighter aircraft like this.
I don’t know if it really is better than our F22, but it certainly
appears to be competitive, and that is one hell of an achievement when
you think of the size, funding, history and culture of the military
industrial complex of the USA.
There really can only be one answer. Russian military aircraft
research is highly capable and efficient. Apparently they do have some
production problems but can still undercut the USA on price.
These aircraft are selling like hot cakes in Asia, and our allies who
are waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter are getting nervous.
And it costs less!
quote from the above ref:
“I don’t want to get into the numbers because they were given to me in
confidence but the price the Russians are estimating for their fifth
generation fighter is substantially less than the Joint Strike Fighter
(F-35) and substantially less than F-22,” US aviation expert Reuben
Johnson told a Washington forum last week on "challenges to the Asian
air power balance
Meanwhile the USA is banning export of its best aircraft."
And we could build them here, under license, giving us a brand new
aerospace industry worth billions of dollars. And have soveriegn
control over the use, maintenance and repair of our air fleet.
"US upsets F-35 partners by withholding source code
Thu, Nov 26, 2009
WASHINGTON - In a move that has sparked bitterness among supposed
collaborators, the United States is to keep to itself sensitive
software code that controls Lockheed Martin's new radar-evading F-35
fighter despite requests from partner countries.
Access to the technology had been publicly sought by key ally Britain,
which had threatened to scrub plans to buy as many as 138 F-35s if it
was unable to maintain and upgrade its fleet without US involvement.
No other nation will get the so-called source code, the key to the
plane's electronic brains, Mr Jon Schreiber, the Pentagon official
heading the programme's international affairs, said. He admitted this
had displeased the eight nations co-financing F-35 development:
Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark
And the only two countries still supporting the toy are Australia and
Turkey. Turkey are getting thier's for free. Get what you pay for.
Whereas we are going to start paying some $250 million per airframe
for an aircraft that can hardly fly, let alone fight. Back to
"[...] the US is to set up a "reprogramming facility", probably at
Florida's Eglin Air Force Base, to further develop F-35-related
software and distribute upgrades. Software changes will be integrated
"and new operational flight programmes... disseminated to everybody
who's flying the jet," said Mr Schreiber."
"Britain had threatened to bail out in 2006 if the US withheld such
things as the software code. In May 2006, then President George W.
Bush and then Premier Tony Blair announced "the UK will have the
ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the
Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty
over the aircraft"."
They changed thier minds, two years down the track. The Poms aren't
going to buy it and they were the largest non USSA investor in the
toy. Face it, it's not ever going to be built and deployed. It's a
failure before it flies.
Just this week....
"QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV
By Colin Clark Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 11:17 am
Posted in Air, Land, Naval, Policy, Rumors
UPDATED: JSF Cut About 100 Planes, One Year Added to Schedule
Word on Capitol Hill is that the Quadrennial Defense Review should
result in the demise of two Navy carrier groups and the Marines’
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. On top of that, the Joint Strike
Fighter program is likely to lose a so-far uncertain number of
planes and the Air Force looks to lose two air wings.
Folks on the Hill are watching the carrier cuts particularly
closely. They were willing to accept the temporary loss of one car
rier but two groups may just be too much for lawmakers to swallow
though it would conveniently answer the hot debate about whether the
Navy faces a fighter gap.
“Even if they cut two carrier strike groups (which will be an uphill
battle for DOD), they still face a significant USN fighter gap,”
said a congressional aide following this. “The Navy seems to rec
ognize this, but everything we’ve heard thus far from OSD seems to
indicate that they’d rather try funny math then address a clear gap.”
The 2010 defense authorization report noted carefully that Congress
was willing to accept the “temporary reduction in minimum num
ber of operational aircraft carriers” from 11 to 10 until CVN 78
is commissioned in 2015. The report also noted that “the Navy has
made a long-term commitment to field 11 aircraft carriers out
fitted with 10 carrier air wings composed of 44 strike-fighters
in each wing.” Congress, the report’s authors said, is “very con
cerned” about “current and forecasted shortfalls in the strike-
fighter inventory.” Given the totemic nature of carriers for the
Navy and the numbers of jobs and the money at stake for members of
Congress, a battle royal over plans to permanently reduce the fleet
by two carrier groups seems assured.
On the Joint Strike Fighter, one congressional aide said a cut to
the F-35’s overall numbers would not be surprising given the
program’s rising costs and the tightened budget situation the
country faces for 2011. And now we have some detail about just how
big those cuts may be, Our colleagues at Inside Defense are report
ing that a draft Pentagon directive would result in extending,
“development by at least a year, reduce production by approxi
mately 100 aircraft and require the addition of billions of dol
lars to the effort through 2015.” "
The USSA is going broke. The F-35 is unaffordable and unwanted. It
is less capable than the Su-30MKI, the Su-35, the Su-37, the Su-34,
the Eurofighter. If one gets built that can ACTUALLY fly properly, it
just MIGHT keep up with a Rafale, but not with a Gripen NG. The F-15
is now the F-15SE aimed at the USAF shortfall, the A-10 fleet are
being upgraded to provide CAS. The F-18 E/F/G are undergoing
modernization design....The F-35 is dead as dead can be. That will
make Australia the only country in the region (sans NZ) that doesn't
have an Air Force. I don't think that this is a good idea. The USSA
are clearly not in a position to come storming into the Pacific to
help Australia, so I think it is time we helped ourselves.
Post by bringyagrogalong
So if you don't mind, I'll treat his equally half-baked pronouncements
on climate warming with the same derision.
Now don't wait up all night hoping for a response from Addinall, check
again in the morning.
"I'll leave it to those who enjoy such things to hurl insults at each
other over the data, and the conclusions".
Thin ice, v-e-r-y thin ice.