"ArSee" wrote in message
...
Seems like someone is blocking things....

According to google groups, it seems like you've only just come into
existence to post here for the first time. I wonder why?

"ArSee" wrote in message
...
Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott
b.. Nick Minchin
c.. Sophie Mirabella
d.. Stephen Parry
e.. Eric Abetz
f.. Michael Johnson
g.. Tony Smith
h.. Judith Adams
i.. David Bushby
j.. Mathias Cormann
k.. Mitch Fifield
l.. Brett Mason
They cant agree either.
Youre not up to their class, and neither am I

What a ridiculous statement. The only difference between politicians and
the general public is that politicians have managed to get elected. And
given the stupidity of some of them, that isn't difficult if the party
machine is behind them.

"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:39:42 +0000, ArSee wrote:

A real scientist, not one with shares.

I'm sure you know who said it.



if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not a
word that is used in the world of science. One thousand people could
support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify it and
completely destroy it.

correcto.

Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2 in
the
atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin.

The point is whether that additional (and very rapidly) CO2 is the
tipping point to a greenhouse effect.

I'm sure some figures I've seen, state that the "greenhouse effect" has a
350 ppm window, after which (if this is correct)
The effect does not "runaway" at all.
Its stays a constant and increasing CO2 (of which man made CO2 is minor in
the creation of CO2 as nature does it much better) does not affect increased
temperature any more. So we could say we are at the highest point at the
moment.
But I stand to be corrected if anyone can do that without being pointed and
trying to discredit information I have found.

The figures I've read lately, appear we allready have that point.
But going on everything some sticklers here need to convince them, I havent
t he scientific sources. These are details
which are being bandied.
The term blinded by science seems to come to mind.
I think we have been, and the pidgeons are coming home to roost.

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
. au...
"ArSee" wrote in message
...
Seems like someone is blocking things....

According to google groups, it seems like you've only just come into
existence to post here for the first time. I wonder why?
Some one was blocking my other email posts.

ArSee wrote:
A real scientist, not one with shares.

I'm sure you know who said it.


I don't.




if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not
a word that is used in the world of science.

This is a grand sweeping generalisation which a moment of thought will tell
you isn't true. There are huge slabs of science where there is no
controversy or where there is controversy about 1% at the leading edge and
consensus on the remaining 99%. When preparations were in progress to
launch orbiting spacecraft where were the contrarians who said "no, no your
equations are all wrong you cannot launch it that way"? Issues like orbital
mechanics have been settled for a long time and we have tested the theory so
many times with the same results that nobody really expects to ever get any
other outcome. Logically it is possible for falsification to come out of
the blue. Practically it is so unlikely that it doesn't exist.

Even when there is a major shift it often modifies the existing body of
knowledge rather than discarding it. Einstein didn't destroy Newton's ideas
he showed that they were not quite right in extreme situations.


One thousand people
could support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify
it and completely destroy it.


Quite so in theory. But how often does this actually happen? The classic
paradigm shift is a rare bird indeed. All science is subject to
falsification by new data. This doesn't mean that is likely. It doesn't
mean therefore science is all wrong or that we can never know anything about
the world. Joe Blow typing from his blog is entitled to express an opinion
on climate change. It doesn't mean that the opinion of is automatically as
good as any other opinion that might be found - say amongst the authors of
the IPCC reports.


Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2
in the atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin.

I cannot find that figure so I would be obliged if you would give me a cite
for it. Even if it is true what is your interpretation of the statistic?
Are you assuming that it cannot be significant? How do know?

Here is what the IPCC said on the matter:

"In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to be the
dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st century."
which I found he

http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...ar/wg1/125.htm

Another
recent report has indicated that this ratio of natural to
anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same for over 15 years.


What report is that? I would like to read it.

So, you could take every one off this planet, and every trace of
them ever being here, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
by only 17 ppm, which considering there is currently 388 ppm, is
bugger all.

Is that your conclusion? How do you know that?


An ETS will not help this situation, nor anything that man can do,
what we need is the courage and sense to do nothing.


Are you CERTAIN that this is a risk that it is sensible to take? Above you
tell us how doubtful science is but you are personally convinced it is all
wrong so it is OK to gamble with the livelihood of our children and theirs.
I am glad I don't have your kind of confidence.

David

Well at least theyre not as stupid as some who regard scientist as being
infallable.

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"ArSee" wrote in message
...
Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott
b.. Nick Minchin
c.. Sophie Mirabella
d.. Stephen Parry
e.. Eric Abetz
f.. Michael Johnson
g.. Tony Smith
h.. Judith Adams
i.. David Bushby
j.. Mathias Cormann
k.. Mitch Fifield
l.. Brett Mason
They cant agree either.
Youre not up to their class, and neither am I

What a ridiculous statement. The only difference between politicians and
the general public is that politicians have managed to get elected. And
given the stupidity of some of them, that isn't difficult if the party
machine is behind them.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
ArSee wrote:
A real scientist, not one with shares.

I'm sure you know who said it.


I don't.




if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is not
a word that is used in the world of science.

This is a grand sweeping generalisation which a moment of thought will
tell you isn't true. There are huge slabs of science where there is no
controversy or where there is controversy about 1% at the leading edge and
consensus on the remaining 99%. When preparations were in progress to
launch orbiting spacecraft where were the contrarians who said "no, no
your equations are all wrong you cannot launch it that way"? Issues like
orbital mechanics have been settled for a long time and we have tested the
theory so many times with the same results that nobody really expects to
ever get any other outcome. Logically it is possible for falsification to
come out of the blue. Practically it is so unlikely that it doesn't
exist.

Even when there is a major shift it often modifies the existing body of
knowledge rather than discarding it. Einstein didn't destroy Newton's
ideas he showed that they were not quite right in extreme situations.


One thousand people
could support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify
it and completely destroy it.


Quite so in theory. But how often does this actually happen? The classic
paradigm shift is a rare bird indeed. All science is subject to
falsification by new data. This doesn't mean that is likely. It doesn't
mean therefore science is all wrong or that we can never know anything
about the world. Joe Blow typing from his blog is entitled to express an
opinion on climate change. It doesn't mean that the opinion of is
automatically as good as any other opinion that might be found - say
amongst the authors of the IPCC reports.


Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2
in the atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin.

I cannot find that figure so I would be obliged if you would give me a
cite for it. Even if it is true what is your interpretation of the
statistic? Are you assuming that it cannot be significant? How do know?

Here is what the IPCC said on the matter:

"In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to be
the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the 21st
century."
which I found he

http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...ar/wg1/125.htm

Another
recent report has indicated that this ratio of natural to
anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same for over 15 years.


What report is that? I would like to read it.
I hope this can take you there. Im a little busy at the moment.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ant-over-time/

So, you could take every one off this planet, and every trace of
them ever being here, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
by only 17 ppm, which considering there is currently 388 ppm, is
bugger all.

Is that your conclusion? How do you know that?

Not mine at all.
Unfortunately the fors and againts are arguing as loudly as you and me.
And the problem is simply put, if sceintists cant agree, who the hell are
you and me to try and solve this problem.
All I can do is quote and hope there's honesty in all of this....
My attitude is this, it appears the place is hotting up.
This does not mean the should rob people blind for something that is
theoretical at the best at the moment.
Theyre calling for the scientist FROM the ECU who wrote these emails to be
sacked.
What does that tell you?



An ETS will not help this situation, nor anything that man can do,
what we need is the courage and sense to do nothing.


Are you CERTAIN that this is a risk that it is sensible to take? Above
you tell us how doubtful science is but you are personally convinced it is
all wrong so it is OK to gamble with the livelihood of our children and
theirs. I am glad I don't have your kind of confidence.
David I'm not gambling. I'm saying that the taxes will do nothing.
You and others are being stooged.
Someone has to see it for what it is.
Distastefull as the apparent situation is, it looks like the majority of
sceintists arent skeptics but are even now painfully aware of tainted
research What about the Doctor who falsified DNA research in Korea?
It goes on to make headlines, then fizzles when found out.
I say we cant do much about the climate change.
Weather control isnt scientists's strongest point.

When I searched and opened this "hacked " email from the research institute
I found this first of
Web page

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

"When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.

Tom Wigley"

"Jonno" wrote in message
...

"SG1" wrote in message
...

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
The Chicken Little Award, a dubious achievement award given by the
National Anxiety Center to people and organizations that they
consider to be engaged in deliberately false, media-driven scare
campaigns regarding environmental matters.

http://www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm

This site is only for those who care about truth.

I wonder if that is true. They start out with a reference to the
mythological and mystical doom that awaits us in 2012. This gets people
thinking about myths and media driven rubbish. This has nothing to do
with climate change but it is a good debating trick. The trick is
called guilt by association. It goes: A is rubbish, assume B is like A,
therefore B is rubbish.

They then go on to bring out the old climate change is caused by the sun
canard. Specifically in this case it is the sunspot cycle. While it is
thought that solar forcing is a component of climate change it is not
the only factor. Something has caused a cycle of ice ages and warmer
periods over millions of years - the sun. However the claim that the
current cycle of warming is entirely due to the sun has been roundly
debunked. The fact that they quote this Marusek as gospel and fail to
even mention there is a good case against him, much less explain the
case against his view, tells me that the author is not even handed and
looking for truth but pushing an agenda.


If it is or not, I dont know eather, but keep searching. This is my
input.

Well I suggest that you keep looking. So far all you are finding are
sites (such as the above and junkscience.com) run by contrarians and
lobbyists. Why won't you read anything by actual climate scientists?

David

Read the emails hitting the news.
Youre not up to date re these emails David?
Se here. The rpevious address has changed. I'm wondering why.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_top5_read

How about this.Inhofe Comments on Obama Copenhagen AnnouncementWashington,
D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of theSenate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, today commented on thenews that President
Obama will travel to Copenhagen, Denmark for the UnitedNations Climate
Conference."I suspect President Obama is making the trip to Copenhagen in
order to'save' the climate conference," Sen. Inhofe said. "Yet no amount of
loftyrhetoric or promises of future commitments can save it. This is due in
largepart to the fact cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate is dying on
thevine, and, as important, recent revelations of leading climate
scientistswho appear to have manufactured the climate
'consensus'-revelations thatcast doubt over the entire global warming
enterprise."Moreover, it's clear that China, India, and the developing
world, whichwill soon be responsible for the vast bulk of greenhouse gas
emissions, willnot accept mandatory cuts in emissions-despite entreaties
from PresidentObama. The U.S. Senate has made clear on numerous occasions
that unilateral action by the United States is unacceptable, because it will
harm oureconomy and have virtually no effect on climate change."

ArSee wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
ArSee wrote:
A real scientist, not one with shares.

I'm sure you know who said it.


I don't.




if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is
not a word that is used in the world of science.

This is a grand sweeping generalisation which a moment of thought
will tell you isn't true. There are huge slabs of science where
there is no controversy or where there is controversy about 1% at
the leading edge and consensus on the remaining 99%. When
preparations were in progress to launch orbiting spacecraft where
were the contrarians who said "no, no your equations are all wrong
you cannot launch it that way"? Issues like orbital mechanics have
been settled for a long time and we have tested the theory so many
times with the same results that nobody really expects to ever get
any other outcome. Logically it is possible for falsification to
come out of the blue. Practically it is so unlikely that it doesn't
exist. Even when there is a major shift it often modifies the existing
body
of knowledge rather than discarding it. Einstein didn't destroy
Newton's ideas he showed that they were not quite right in extreme
situations. One thousand people
could support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify
it and completely destroy it.


Quite so in theory. But how often does this actually happen? The
classic paradigm shift is a rare bird indeed. All science is
subject to falsification by new data. This doesn't mean that is
likely. It doesn't mean therefore science is all wrong or that we
can never know anything about the world. Joe Blow typing from his
blog is entitled to express an opinion on climate change. It
doesn't mean that the opinion of is automatically as good as any
other opinion that might be found - say amongst the authors of the
IPCC reports.
Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2
in the atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin.

I cannot find that figure so I would be obliged if you would give me
a cite for it. Even if it is true what is your interpretation of the
statistic? Are you assuming that it cannot be significant? How do
know? Here is what the IPCC said on the matter:

"In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to
be the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the
21st century."
which I found he

http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...ar/wg1/125.htm

Another
recent report has indicated that this ratio of natural to
anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same for over 15 years.


What report is that? I would like to read it.
I hope this can take you there. Im a little busy at the moment.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ant-over-time/

So, you could take every one off this planet, and every trace of
them ever being here, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
by only 17 ppm, which considering there is currently 388 ppm, is
bugger all.

Is that your conclusion? How do you know that?

Not mine at all.
Unfortunately the fors and againts are arguing as loudly as you and
me. And the problem is simply put, if sceintists cant agree, who the
hell are you and me to try and solve this problem.

I am getting tired of your style. Each time address one of your points and
I show you are not talking sense you ignore that and start on something
else. Most of what you are pushing is just FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt)

All I can do is quote and hope there's honesty in all of this....
My attitude is this, it appears the place is hotting up.
This does not mean the should rob people blind for something that is
theoretical at the best at the moment.
Theyre calling for the scientist FROM the ECU who wrote these emails
to be sacked.
What does that tell you?

Nothing relevant to whether climate change is happening and man made, just
FUD




An ETS will not help this situation, nor anything that man can do,
what we need is the courage and sense to do nothing.


Are you CERTAIN that this is a risk that it is sensible to take? Above
you tell us how doubtful science is but you are personally
convinced it is all wrong so it is OK to gamble with the livelihood
of our children and theirs. I am glad I don't have your kind of
confidence.
David I'm not gambling. I'm saying that the taxes will do nothing.
You and others are being stooged.

You ARE gambling. Doing nothing is gambling that the problem will just go
away. Moreover you are not even gambling with your own stake at the table
but that of our descendants.

I have said nothing at all about taxation although it seems to exercise your
mind a lot. If you cannot unlink the two questions, is climate change real
and man-made (a scientific one) with, what to do about it (a political one)
you are not going to make any progress. It looks to me that the main reason
you say climate change isn't happening is that you don't like the proposed
remedy. They are two different issues that must be decided separately.


Someone has to see it for what it is.
Distastefull as the apparent situation is, it looks like the majority
of sceintists arent skeptics but are even now painfully aware of
tainted research

Another sweeping statement. Show your evidence that "a majority of
scientists are sceptical" or admit this is just more FUD


What about the Doctor who falsified DNA research in
Korea?

What about him? This has nothing to do with climate change you are just
trying to blacken scientists in general. More FUD

It goes on to make headlines, then fizzles when found out.
I say we cant do much about the climate change.
Weather control isnt scientists's strongest point.

If you don't know the difference between climate and weather I am wasting my
time trying to educate you.

Unless you come up with much more substance I am not going to spend any more
time on this.

David

Unless you come up with much more substance I am not going to spend any
more time on this.

David

"We will not be able to be educated until we want to be."
Any psychiatrist will tell you that.
I had already come to that conclusion as you had previously.
And here am I trying to educate you.
Time will tell.

Time to put your arguments on hold unless you can come up with real data..
I ignore your points because its already clear to me that you are not
willing to concede about other possibilities.
Re : consensus is not a word that is used in the world of science.
That shows me you need proof not concensus in science. That no one has
to agree with as its proven.

As far as blackening scientists, there are some that need blackening, as
shown by their actions, both in the past and at present.
You appear to me to be less open to argument than myself.
Sweeping statements by me?
No, interesting statements by some others if you had carefully read what
I wrote.
Weather, Climate, are inter related. I use both.
Whilst climate is on your agenda, the data appears to have been
falsefied to suit politicians.
Re Taxes. I dont care to help those who use them unwisely.
They govenments go to great lenghts to prevent people not paying them
then spend like they can do anything they like. Even on unproven science.
End of rant.
I will not discuss this any further with you.

"ArSee" wrote in message
...
Well at least theyre not as stupid as some who regard scientist as being
infallable.

Or even as stupid as someone who assumes that all scientists are fallible?

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"ArSee" wrote in message
...
Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott
b.. Nick Minchin
c.. Sophie Mirabella
d.. Stephen Parry
e.. Eric Abetz
f.. Michael Johnson
g.. Tony Smith
h.. Judith Adams
i.. David Bushby
j.. Mathias Cormann
k.. Mitch Fifield
l.. Brett Mason
They cant agree either.
Youre not up to their class, and neither am I

What a ridiculous statement. The only difference between politicians and
the general public is that politicians have managed to get elected. And
given the stupidity of some of them, that isn't difficult if the party
machine is behind them.

On 28/11/2009 9:03 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
Well at least theyre not as stupid as some who regard scientist as being
infallable.

Or even as stupid as someone who assumes that all scientists are fallible?

"FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott
b.. Nick Minchin
c.. Sophie Mirabella
d.. Stephen Parry
e.. Eric Abetz
f.. Michael Johnson
g.. Tony Smith
h.. Judith Adams
i.. David Bushby
j.. Mathias Cormann
k.. Mitch Fifield
l.. Brett Mason
They cant agree either.
Youre not up to their class, and neither am I

What a ridiculous statement. The only difference between politicians and
the general public is that politicians have managed to get elected. And
given the stupidity of some of them, that isn't difficult if the party
machine is behind them.





At least they have someone behind them.
The party machine principle is one I disprove of too.
As far as having a legal background, there is profound evidence that
this creates mischief, in that they know how to avoid legal issues by
creation of issues that skirt what the law was meant to do in the first
place.
These people who I support in this one issue are at least willing to
stick their neck out, knowing what repercussions there would/could be.
Whether relating to political repercussions or not, I would say yes,
most likely. But the issue on the table is the one I'm concerned with.
One step at a time.

We can't trust scientists?
Scientific facts are assumptions that pass the scientific method that
later get disproven when new evidence is found.
And truth is absolute reality in harmony with all other truths in existence.
Scientists put forward theories which can be tested and hence proved,
disproved or revised. Any true scientist is open to their work being
challenged. This is called 'scientific method'.
It is dangerous to assume that you ever have all the answers, whatever
your position on evolution / the big bang / whatever.
We tend to slant science and situations to past history and test is
against what is happening now, or project it into the future.
This does not always work So we have theories.
We are still testing the theory of relativity. It appears to fit.

On 28/11/2009 9:03 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
...
Well at least theyre not as stupid as some who regard scientist as being
infallable.

Or even as stupid as someone who assumes that all scientists are fallible?

"FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Resignations
a.. Tony Abbott
b.. Nick Minchin
c.. Sophie Mirabella
d.. Stephen Parry
e.. Eric Abetz
f.. Michael Johnson
g.. Tony Smith
h.. Judith Adams
i.. David Bushby
j.. Mathias Cormann
k.. Mitch Fifield
l.. Brett Mason
They cant agree either.
Youre not up to their class, and neither am I

What a ridiculous statement. The only difference between politicians and
the general public is that politicians have managed to get elected. And
given the stupidity of some of them, that isn't difficult if the party
machine is behind them.






At least they have someone behind them.
The party machine principle is one I disprove of too.
As far as them having a legal background, there is profound evidence
that this creates mischief, in that they know how to avoid legal issues by
creation of issues that skirt what the law was meant to do in the first
place.
These people, who I support in this one issue, are at least willing to
stick their neck out, knowing what repercussions there would/could be.
Whether they relate to political repercussions on being re-elected or
not, I would say yes, most likely. But the issue on the table is the one
I'm concerned with. One step at a time.


We can't trust scientists?
Scientific facts are assumptions that pass the scientific method that
later get disproven when new evidence is found.


And truth is absolute reality in harmony with all other truths in existence.

Scientists put forward theories which can be tested and hence proved,
disproved or revised. Any true scientist is open to their work being
challenged. This is called 'scientific method'.
It is dangerous to assume that you ever have all the answers, whatever
your position on evolution / the big bang / whatever.

The new evidence is that there are certain emails, which if they are
genuine, (and it appears they are), will show a tendency to fudge the
figures. It appears the Al Gore run NASA institute has also been found
to make "certain mistakes" which didnt fit in with what he says.
The CRU institute is now proceeding with an enquiry.

We tend to slant science and situations to past history and test is
against what is happening now, or project it into the future.
This does not always work So we have theories.
We are still testing the theory of relativity. It appears to fit.


Additional and not really relevant, but still a point to ponder.
Hoping to become famous and make breakthrough discoveries scientists are
sometimes tempted to use questionable methods. They may steal someone
else's research data and ideas and take the credit. This happened for
example in 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick were credited for
discovering the structure of the DNA, when in fact the credit should
have gone to a brilliant female biologist Rosalind Franklin.

Franklin came up with the double helix structure based on X-ray images
of the DNA. Her supervisor passed her data to Watson and Crick who at
the time were also studying the DNA and realised Franklin was on the
right track. In 1962 Watson and Crick received the Nobel Prize for
'their' discovery. Franklin on the other hand was already dead. She died
at the age of 38 due to radiation exposure she got from taking X-rays as
part of her original research.

I would say there, dont mistake science with ethics.

The financial advantages of lying must be understood.
There are many examples of "great" people who have bent the truth, and
it was recently done over a speeding fine, by one of our legal
representatives of great standing. I am sure short cuts are used.

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message

Unless you come up with much more substance I am not going to spend any
more time on this.

We're being trolled David and under a number of socks it seems. I never
thought I'd have to do it in aus.gardens but I've decided it's time for the
killfile.