On 3/12/2009 3:06 AM, terryc wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:


Yeah we should all be renting...

If superannuation is to work, then yes.
Superannuation is like a horse race with only a percentage of punters
actually being able to get a full employment payout.
The unfortunate unstable employment ranks are ripped of all the way
through, by "administration costs" to support those with stable
government jobs to support their super.
Owning a home in australia is a gamble, unless you have stable
government employement or are in a trade.

It really helps if you buy within your means from the beginning. This
includes leaving room for interest rate increases. Naturally, have two
incomes reduces the risk.
Having an income and preventing people with two jobs, allows others to
work.
It would also make housing affordable by lowering housing costs.
The next problem is rip of banks who will through the life of a loan
charge two to three time's the cost of the home in "interest". I'd be
interested too.

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:51:23 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:

On 3/12/2009 3:06 AM, terryc wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:


Yeah we should all be renting...

If superannuation is to work, then yes.
Superannuation is like a horse race with only a percentage of punters
actually being able to get a full employment payout.

That is how the existing schemes work, the peeps at the top rort clean it
off and the plebs get very little.

The fundamental problem with superannuation is that unless it is invested
in something that is actually producing concrete goods, it is just
another bubble waiting to burst. Aus

The unfortunate unstable employment ranks are ripped of all the way
through, by "administration costs" to support those with stable
government jobs to support their super.

Join an industry fund where you do not pay commissions to brokers.

Owning a home in australia is a gamble, unless you have stable
government employement or are in a trade.


It would also make housing affordable by lowering housing costs.

Never, ever going to happen. Finite land, ballooning population and more
and more competition is going to come from "superannuation funds" buying
properties for the rental income.

The
next problem is rip of banks who will through the life of a loan charge
two to three time's the cost of the home in "interest". I'd be
interested too.

The trick is to buy a cheaper car, do not take os holidays, smaller Tv,
no bigpond/foxtwel and pay a little extra off the home loan each month.
BTDT twice.

"0tterbot" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the (quite
astonishing given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that china is
making on environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

just wanted to say that i would guess totalitarian states always have an
easier time creating change - because they're totalitarian :-) so perhaps
it is not astonishing at all. the chinese govt wouldn't give a wazoo if
everyone was screeching "but it will cost me an extra dollar a week!!! i'm
going to ring up alan jones!!!!"

LOL. Quite right of course. I wasn't very clear. What I really meant by
my comment was that a totalitarian state wouldn't do anything if it wasn't
convinced of a pressing need to do so. China must be convinced that there
is a huge need to do so given the amount of money they've invested over a
very short period of time. China doesn't give a rat's arse about the health
or well being of their citizens unlike supposedly 'caring' western states so
thye must be concerned about something other than their people.

tee hee. having said that, i saw nicholas stern on lateline last night. he
said environmental issues are the Really Big Worry for people in china
(unlike australians, who'd probably choose something mindless, like house
prices). i speculate that this is because china's environmental problems
are not only pressing, but they're also incredibly _visible_, & that makes
a huge difference to what people care about. everyone in china can
literally see with their own eyes things that are going wrong. therefore,
they care more & are more prepared to do something about it.

Yes I saw him too and he said that Aus is at more risk from climate change
than other places. I'd agree with that just based on observation.

On 3/12/2009 1:25 PM, terryc wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:51:23 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:

On 3/12/2009 3:06 AM, terryc wrote:
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:26:06 +0000, Jonthe Fly wrote:


Yeah we should all be renting...

If superannuation is to work, then yes.
Superannuation is like a horse race with only a percentage of punters
actually being able to get a full employment payout.

That is how the existing schemes work, the peeps at the top rort clean it
off and the plebs get very little.

The fundamental problem with superannuation is that unless it is invested
in something that is actually producing concrete goods, it is just
another bubble waiting to burst. Aus

The unfortunate unstable employment ranks are ripped of all the way
through, by "administration costs" to support those with stable
government jobs to support their super.

Join an industry fund where you do not pay commissions to brokers.

Owning a home in australia is a gamble, unless you have stable
government employement or are in a trade.


It would also make housing affordable by lowering housing costs.

Never, ever going to happen. Finite land, ballooning population and more
and more competition is going to come from "superannuation funds" buying
properties for the rental income.

The
next problem is rip of banks who will through the life of a loan charge
two to three time's the cost of the home in "interest". I'd be
interested too.

The trick is to buy a cheaper car, do not take os holidays, smaller Tv,
no bigpond/foxtwel and pay a little extra off the home loan each month.
BTDT twice.

Already realised this years ago. Small car. small TV
Actaully I have small every thing. (probably explains Sex life. It aint
too good either.)
I aint no Tiger Woods.
Cant take it with me so I'm renting.
Stopped swearing, staying out of the hot sun, live in shopping centers,
dont shout a beer or smoke. Cant be a pollie as I cant buy mates.
Easing up on food intake and moved out of the big smoke.
Grow my own vegies. I should be up for some government grant of some
sort, for showing a good example.
Any other hints?
Trying to influence those less informed so we dont waste money on flunky
climate schemes

Oh by the way This is interesting

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225793355139

Science dont lie and politics dont want you to find out.

On 3/12/2009 3:52 PM, FarmI wrote:
wrote in message
"FarmI"ask@itshall be given wrote in message
it is a bit skimpy on the emphasis the show gave to the (quite
astonishing given that it's a totalitarian state) moves that china is
making on environmental issues:
http://transitiontownsireland.ning.c...icted-to-money

just wanted to say that i would guess totalitarian states always have an
easier time creating change - because they're totalitarian :-) so perhaps
it is not astonishing at all. the chinese govt wouldn't give a wazoo if
everyone was screeching "but it will cost me an extra dollar a week!!! i'm
going to ring up alan jones!!!!"

LOL. Quite right of course. I wasn't very clear. What I really meant by
my comment was that a totalitarian state wouldn't do anything if it wasn't
convinced of a pressing need to do so. China must be convinced that there
is a huge need to do so given the amount of money they've invested over a
very short period of time. China doesn't give a rat's arse about the health
or well being of their citizens unlike supposedly 'caring' western states so
thye must be concerned about something other than their people.

tee hee. having said that, i saw nicholas stern on lateline last night. he
said environmental issues are the Really Big Worry for people in china
(unlike australians, who'd probably choose something mindless, like house
prices). i speculate that this is because china's environmental problems
are not only pressing, but they're also incredibly _visible_,& that makes
a huge difference to what people care about. everyone in china can
literally see with their own eyes things that are going wrong. therefore,
they care more& are more prepared to do something about it.

Yes I saw him too and he said that Aus is at more risk from climate change
than other places. I'd agree with that just based on observation.


Yes, as I thought. No sense of humor or sense.

The real question on Copenhagen is: not that the weather isnt changing, as
it has for many millions of years, but can we do much to repair it, and
whether we are just lining someone elses pockets with patchy repairs that
arent going to do anything to the climate, except to make these epople more
influential?. Also watch China and India as they come online with their huge
potential economies. Will they, can they toe the line?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-world.html

Coming to light in recent days has been one of the most extraordinary
scientific detective stories of our time, bizarrely centred on a single tree
in Siberia dubbed "the most influential tree in the world". On this
astonishing tale, it is no exaggeration to say, could hang in considerable
part the future shape of our civilisation. Right at the heart of the sound
and fury of "Climategate" - the emails leaked from the Climatic Research
Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - is one story of scientific chicanery, overlooked
by the media, whose implications dwarf all the rest. If all those thousands
of emails and other documents were leaked by an angry whistle-blower, as now
seems likely, it was this story more than any other that he or she wanted
the world to see.

To appreciate its significance, as I observed last week, it is first
necessary to understand that the people these incriminating documents relate
to are not just any group of scientists. Professor Philip Jones of the CRU,
his colleague Dr Keith Briffa, the US computer modeller Dr Michael Mann, of
"hockey stick" fame, and several more make up a tightly-knit group who have
been right at the centre of the last two reports of the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On their account, as we
shall see at this week's Copenhagen conference, the world faces by far the
largest bill proposed by any group of politicians in history, amounting to
many trillions of dollars.

It is therefore vitally important that we should trust the methods by which
these men have made their case. The supreme prize that they have been
working for so long has been to establish that the world is warmer today
than ever before in recorded history. To do this it has been necessary to
eliminate a wealth of evidence that the world 1,000 years ago was, for
entirely natural reasons, warmer than today (the so-called Medieval Warm
Period).

The most celebrated attempt to demonstrate this was the "hockey stick" graph
produced by Dr Mann in 1999, which instantly became the chief icon of the
IPCC and the global warming lobby all over the world. But in 2003 a Canadian
statistician, Steve McIntyre, with his colleague Professor Ross McKitrick,
showed how the graph had been fabricated by a computer model that produced
"hockey stick" graphs whatever random data were fed into it. A wholly
unrepresentative sample of tree rings from bristlecone pines in the western
USA had been made to stand as "proxies" to show that there was no Medieval
Warm Period, and that late 20th-century temperatures had soared to
unprecedented levels.

Although McIntyre's exposure of the "hockey stick" was upheld in 2006 by two
expert panels commissioned by the US Congress, the small group of scientists
at the top of the IPCC brushed this aside by pointing at a hugely
influential series of graphs originating from the CRU, from Jones and
Briffa. These appeared to confirm the rewriting of climate history in the
"hockey stick", by using quite different tree ring data from Siberia. Briffa
was put in charge of the key chapter of the IPCC's fourth report, in 2007,
which dismissed all McIntyre's criticisms.

At the forefront of those who found suspicious the graphs based on tree
rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia was McIntyre himself, not least
because for years the CRU refused to disclose the data used to construct
them. This breached a basic rule of scientific procedure. But last summer
the Royal Society insisted on the rule being obeyed, and two months ago
Briffa accordingly published on his website some of the data McIntyre had
been after.

This was startling enough, as McIntyre demonstrated in an explosive series
of posts on his Climate Audit blog, because it showed that the CRU studies
were based on cherry-picking hundreds of Siberian samples only to leave
those that showed the picture that was wanted. Other studies based on
similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than
today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a
"hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary
reverence given to the CRU's studies, which led McIntyre to dub it "the most
influential tree in the world".

But more dramatic still has been the new evidence from the CRU's leaked
documents, showing just how the evidence was finally rigged. The most quoted
remark in those emails has been one from Prof Jones in 1999, reporting that
he had used "Mike [Mann]'s Nature trick of adding in the real temps" to
"Keith's" graph, in order to "hide the decline". Invariably this has been
quoted out of context. Its true significance, we can now see, is that what
they intended to hide was the awkward fact that, apart from that one tree,
the Yamal data showed temperatures not having risen in the late 20th century
but declining. What Jones suggested, emulating Mann's procedure for the
"hockey stick" (originally published in Nature), was that tree-ring data
after 1960 should be eliminated, and substituted - without explanation -
with a line based on the quite different data of measured global
temperatures, to convey that temperatures after 1960 had shot up.

A further devastating blow has now been dealt to the CRU graphs by an expert
contributor to McIntyre's Climate Audit, known only as "Lucy Skywalker". She
has cross-checked with the actual temperature records for that part of
Siberia, showing that in the past 50 years temperatures have not risen at
all. (For further details see the science blog Watts Up With That.)

In other words, what has become arguably the most influential set of
evidence used to support the case that the world faces unprecedented global
warming, developed, copied and promoted hundreds of times, has now been as
definitively kicked into touch as was Mann's "hockey stick" before it. Yet
it is on a blind acceptance of this kind of evidence that 16,500
politicians, officials, scientists and environmental activists will be
gathering in Copenhagen to discuss measures which, if adopted, would require
us all in the West to cut back on our carbon dioxide emissions by anything
up to 80 per cent, utterly transforming the world economy.

Little of this extraordinary story been reported by the BBC or most of our
mass-media, so possessed by groupthink that they are unable to see the
mountain of evidence now staring them in the face. Not for nothing was
Copenhagen the city in which Hans Andersen wrote his story about the Emperor
whose people were brainwashed into believing that he was wearing a beautiful
suit of clothes. But today there are a great many more than just one little
boy ready to point out that this particular Emperor is wearing nothing at
all.

I will only add two footnotes to this real-life new version of the old
story. One is that, as we can see from the CRU's website, the largest single
source of funding for all its projects has been the European Union, which at
Copenhagen will be more insistent than anyone that the world should sign up
to what amounts to the most costly economic suicide note in history.

The other is that the ugly, drum-like concrete building at the University of
East Anglia which houses the CRU is named after its founder, the late Hubert
Lamb, the doyen of historical climate experts. It was Professor Lamb whose
most famous contribution to climatology was his documenting and naming of
what he called the Medieval Warm Epoch, that glaring contradiction of modern
global warming theory which his successors have devoted untold efforts to
demolishing. If only they had looked at the evidence of those Siberian trees
in the spirit of true science, they might have told us that all their
efforts to show otherwise were in vain, and that their very much more
distinguished predecessor was right after all.

ArSee wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-world.html


Once again you refer to a most dubious source of information on your quest
for climate change denial. Perhaps once or twice you could check these
people out before uncritically posting their fluff.

From wikipedia:

quote
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed
that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is
"chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to
human health, that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that
inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that
there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the
theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case
on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
unquote

One of the reasons that Booker makes such absurd claims could be that he is
not climate scientist, in fact not a scientist at all. The asbestos-talcum
powder confusion shows an appalling lack of even basic knowledge of
chemistry, not to mention denying the many studies showing the ill effects
of white asbestos. He joins Miloy in holding the peculiar duo of ideas of
climate change denial and second-hand smoke denial. He also joins Miloy in
making a living through journalism and books "debunking" science. As for
Intelligent Design there is no more thoroughly discredited and ludicrous
so-called theory. ID is a religious scam so unrelated to actual science
that it is not even wrong.

It would not have taken you very long to find numerous articles debunking
Booker's stupidity but you don't bother looking.

David

On 6/12/2009 11:55 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
ArSee wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-world.html



Once again you refer to a most dubious source of information on your
quest for climate change denial. Perhaps once or twice you could check
these people out before uncritically posting their fluff.

From wikipedia:

quote
Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has
claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white
asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a
"non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to
support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer
simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD
in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design,
maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind
faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".
unquote

One of the reasons that Booker makes such absurd claims could be that he
is not climate scientist, in fact not a scientist at all. The
asbestos-talcum powder confusion shows an appalling lack of even basic
knowledge of chemistry, not to mention denying the many studies showing
the ill effects of white asbestos. He joins Miloy in holding the
peculiar duo of ideas of climate change denial and second-hand smoke
denial. He also joins Miloy in making a living through journalism and
books "debunking" science. As for Intelligent Design there is no more
thoroughly discredited and ludicrous so-called theory. ID is a religious
scam so unrelated to actual science that it is not even wrong.

It would not have taken you very long to find numerous articles
debunking Booker's stupidity but you don't bother looking.

David
Well as I said youre a hard man to convince.
What about this.


In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently
assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present
concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous
oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride,
trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane
exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for
serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And,
since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and
water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the
"greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon,
unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and
calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the
atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km,
and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at
78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now
that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra
for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen
aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse
gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC
reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a
"gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best
comments we've read on this subject:

"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is
that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse
gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about
the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global
warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the
greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated
by water vapor and clouds."
There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Also: Those who think they know everything, upset those who do.
Taken from this, (shortly be discredited by ***) website
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Jonthe Fly wrote:
"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know
is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main
greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and
removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove'
that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems
have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect,
which is dominated by water vapor and clouds."
There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Also: Those who think they know everything, upset those who do.
Taken from this, (shortly be discredited by ***) website
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

The role of water vapour in the issue *is* considered by climate scientists
and this simplistic view that there is a great deal of it and it is natural
therefore there is no anthropogenic climate change is wrong. As I have been
saying for some time you blokes should do your own research, it is not hard
to find the rebuttal for this. You are not going to find climate scientists
red-faced saying "duh we never thought of that".

I don't have time to participate in an endless game of ninepins where you
two (or three or howmany) set 'em up I knock 'em down. The pattern is
getting too boring and the point has been made. As somebody observed
already this is fairly off topic for aus.gardens although one would hope the
residents are interested. If you still want to debate this with somebody
try some of the climate change blogs.

I have a possible explanation for why you will not research both sides of
the issues. An opinion firmly held that was acquired by non-rational means
cannot be changed by rational means.

Now I have to get out and work before it gets too hot.

David

"ArSee" wrote in message
...

I would suggest before you mention BER you make sure of your facts.
BER is when flowers actually rot.

blossom end rot is when the blossom-end of the fruit rots. the flower is
usually long gone by then & presence or absence of the flower is irrelevent.
it's called that to distinguish it from situations where the stalk-end of
the fruit rots.

have you noticed yet that david is observably intelligent? and when you do,
will you stop?
kylie