http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en
sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Sommerwanker= Fuckwit PEDANT - 23 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* Suitable Substitute for Freon TF Solvent - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c078d4094e8d81a8?hl=en
* Aiwa P30 Power Amplifier Fault - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/a7f97a5f2189fe5a?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sommerwanker= Fuckwit PEDANT
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 3:21 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 27, 6:46 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> kreed wrote:
>>> On Sep 26, 3:36 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> kreed wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 26, 1:28 pm, Jeffrey Angus <grendel...@aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/25/2011 7:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "William Sommerwanker the Fuckwit PEDANT"
>>
>>>>>>>>> ** Be better to put idiots like you in straightjackets.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Correct spelling.
>>
>>>>>>>> I did correct the spelling.
>>
>>>>>>> ** No, you fucking FUCKWIT.
>>
>>>>>>> The spelling IS correct !!!!!!
>>
>>>>>>> Pedantry is a mental illness.
>>
>>>>>> Sorry William, despite the rather colorful way Phil has of
>>>>>> expressing himself, he is correct.
>>
>>>>>> strait jacket
>>>>>> [streyt-jak-it]
>>>>>> strait jack et
>>>>>> [streyt-jak-it]
>>>>>> noun
>>>>>> 1. a garment made of strong material and designed to bind the
>>>>>> arms, as of a violently disoriented person.
>>>>>> 2. anything that severely confines, constricts, or hinders:
>>>>>> Conventional attitudes can be a straitjacket, preventing original
>>>>>> thinking.
>>
>>>>> and under Number 2 - a picture of Trevor Wilson is displayed as an
>>>>> example.
>>
>>>> **If you want to carry on a rational discussion, do so. If you want
>>>> to engage in purile insults, feel free. You merely expose yourself
>>>> to others for the moron that you are.
>>
>>> No, I am not being puerile,
>>
>> **Plainly, you are. Read your own words again.
>>
>> Im giving an example that most on this
>>
>>> group can easily identify with in relation to your global warming
>>> "faith". An analogy if you like.
>>
>> **Bollocks. I have merely cited the overwhelming amount of good,
>> solid SCIENCE that supports the notion of AGW. You, OTOH, despite
>> requests, have supplied ZERO evidence to counter that science. Let's
>> talk about who has their beliefs rooted in faith and who has his
>> rooted in science. You are are very shakey ground.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I note you inability to address my previous comments and questions.
>>>> Says a great deal about your ability to carry on a reasoned,
>>>> rational discussion.
>>
>>> To my mind addressing your comments or questions on AGW is like
>>> addressing past "scientific theories" like Hitlers "master Aryan
>>> race" or "eugenics" The subject is so obviously ridiculous,
>>> discredited to start with that any thinking person has already
>>> dismissed it for what it is.
>>
>> **Utter and complete bollocks. If you wish to discredt it, then
>> supply your peer-reviewed science. Should be like shooting fish in a
>> barrel. Unless, of course, you happen to lack ammunition.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is not possible to ever be right debating with someone like
>>> yourself, as your belief level is similar to that of a chronic
>>> religious fanatic, it simply isnt possible to change your mind
>>
>> **Bollocks. Supply your peer-reviewed science.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Suggesting i look at a bought off organisation like the IPCC, ASIO,
>>
>> **I said NOTHING about ASIO. I cited several scientific
>> organisations. If you have some evidence that these organisations
>> have been "bought off", then you need to supply some evidence
>> pertaining to:
>>
>> * Who bought them off?
>> * Why they were bought off?
>> * Which scientists are driving around in Buggatti Veyrons, because
>> they've been bought off?
>> * Some evidence to prove that ALL the organisations I listed were
>> "bought off".
>>
>> YOU made the claim. YOU prove it.
>>
>> or
>>
>>> other sources you mention is as ridiculous as saying "God and every
>>> seemingly impossible thing in the bible is 100% real, just ask the
>>> vicar, bishop, pope, etc in my church, or worse still, the leader of
>>> my cult. I wouldnt dignify it with starting a discussion on it.
>>
>> **YOU made an outrageous claim. YOU need to substantiate that claim.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The answer from these sort of people, if you do not 1000% agree
>>> without question is that "You are a mental case/fool and/or evil for
>>> not believing."
>>
>> **If a person does not accept the fact of AGW, then there are several
>> possibilities:
>>
>
> You forgot one.
**Nope.
>
> "Has lived in the real world, seen how things work, has enough life
> experience to spot when they are being scammed, lied to, or someone is
> pissing on their head and trying to tell them that they are not
> pissing, it is rain."
**Except that you have consistently failed to support your arguments with
any science. OTOH, I have consistently referred you to good, solid,
reputable science.
>
>> * That person is as dumb as a rock.
>> * That person is lying.
>> * That person has not taken the time to read the data.
>> * That person is employed by the fossil fuel industry, or gains some
>> income from the use of fossil fuel.
>
> "gains some income from the use of fossil fuel"
>
> HMM. that applies to 99% of the nation.
**Possibly.
Restrict usage, make
> unaffordable, take away fossil fuel and watch how fast the nation
> turns into a place that makes the 3rd world look like luxury.
**Watch what happens over the next decade or two. In case you've been living
under a rock, you might realise that oil is running out.
A large
> majority of people are ALIVE because of Fossil fuel in the form of
> products, transport, chemiclas, medicines but most importantly food
> (via fertilizer). Wake up.
**So? What do you propose we do as the oil runs out?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
>
> Your industry -Hi Fi- would be gone overnight in the blink of an eye.
> Valve amps and other "inefficient" high powered or class A units would
> likely be banned under some bodgy energy efficiency standards and
> probably confiscated.
**Points:
* I have little to do with the products you mention.
* High end amplification represents a miniscule proportion of energy usage.
>
> You might do ok in selling audiophile headphones, and hand cranked
> generators for use with portable MP3 players though, as no one would
> be able to afford to power anything bigger. On the other hand, no
> one would be able to afford to pay the freight on these things, as
> fuel usage is involved. What a bummer.
>
>
>> * That person has allowed religious beliefs to over-ride logic and
>> reason.
>
> We see that in your posts. AGW is a religion to you, a fanatic
> religion.
**It's called science. Something you appear to have no familiarity with.
Your inability to answer my questions says it all.
>
>>
>>> Same process under the soviets, "You live in the USSR
>>> which is the best and most free nation and political system in the
>>> world, if you question this, you must be a mental case, so off to
>>> the mental hospital (re-education camp) you go".
>>
>> **There is no "USSR". The USSR was not a free state.
>>
> Dickhead. Read the post properly.
**Calling me names does nothing to enhance your ability to read plain
English. You spoke in the present tense. The USSR is gone. Any references
should, therefore, be in the past tense.
> Hm, by your logic becuse the Nazis dont exist anymore (well don't
> officially, except in the green movement) so therefore Auchwitz and
> the other horrors of the regime don't exist and are not relevant ?
**Nazis may still exist, though the Third Reich no longer does. Auschwitz is
no longer used as a concentration camp. It is a tourist attraction.
>
> There would have been no free state in the west if this climate
> madness had gone ahead in its full form without people waking up.
**What "climate madness" do you refer to?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
> Gillard is trying hard though.
>
>
>> Not that many truly
>>
>>> believed this crap, but they kept their mouth firmly closed, to
>>> avoid the consequences, or be avoid being ostracised by those
>>> around them, who might agree with them, but are too afraid to be
>>> seen supporting or associating with someone who speaks it publicly.
>>
>> **Fortunately, our society is not like the defunct USSR. Our society
>> is free and ideas can be freely stated and, if found to be false,
>> dismissed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Put it this way, go out there, read and examine anti-AGW material,
>>
>> **I read it daily. I've also read the IPCC AR4. Have you?
**Have you read the IPCC AR4?
As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
>>
>> Im
>>
>>> not going to go and spend lots of my time doing this for you, it
>>> would be a waste of time anyway.
>>
>> **A waste of time is discussing logic and reason with you. I note
>> your continued avoidance of my questions and points raised.
>>
>
> Avoidance of discussing known paid for data made to order.
> I wouldn't give it credibility by discussing it.
**Nope. Avoidance of answering direct questions is an indication of
ignorance. You have no clue. You have not read the IPCC AR4. That much is
abundantly clear. What is also clear is that you would probably fail to
understand the report if you had taken the time to read it. Instead, you
prefer to concentrate your time on listening to Alan Jones, George Pell,
Tony Abbott and the other extremist nutters, who understand nothing about
science.
>
> I may as well try and convince someone who is fanatical islam that if
> they kill an infidel, they won't go to heaven and enjoy an eternal
> orgy with willing young virgins.
**What you SHOULD do, is read the damned science.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 3:24 pm
From: F Murtz
Phil Allison wrote:
The predictable crap he usually does
== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 4:38 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
>research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
>uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
>invalid.
Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels. Everyone that
disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.
Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
<http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt>
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).
Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections. That data shown is the
rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 4:50 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science
>> involves research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just
>> because a bunch of uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does
>> not make those facts invalid.
>
> Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels.
**I have a policy of treating people the way they deserve to be treated. If
a person wilfully ignores the science and resorts to parrotting
unsubstantiated rumour, then they have opened the door to the appropriate
descriptors.
Everyone that
> disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.
**People who dispute those who have spent their lives studying a subject,
without presenting a shred of evidence to support their claims, are
uneducated idiots. People who have failed to read the premier document on a
given subject and then proffer their own unsupported opinions are uneducated
idiots.
>
> Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
> demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
> <http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt>
> I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
> reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
> at least statistically significant results).
**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?
>
> Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
> time to resurrect it. See:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
> This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
> easy to manipulate trends and projections.
**Indeed. However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif
.gif){kind=link}
Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.
That data shown is the
> rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
> extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
> it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
> IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
> spreadsheets used to create this are at:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>
**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 5:02 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
> time to resurrect it. See:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
> This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
> easy to manipulate trends and projections.
**Here are some graphs that are directly related to the issues faced by
Australia (and the rest of the planet):
The tools are available for you to mess around with the graphs all you wish.
The results will be pretty much the same. The trend to higher temperatures
accross Australia are clear and unequivocal. These are not guesses, nor
projections. They're real, hard data.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 6:52 pm
From: kreed
On Sep 28, 6:44 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> > <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> **Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
> >> source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
> >> to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on the
> >> aluminium industry.
>
> >> * Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
> >> level (in Australia).
> >> * Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
> >> * The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
> >> approximately $200.00/Tonne.
> >> * The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
> >> * The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
> >> approximately $400.00/Tonne.
> >> * The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
> >> * Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
> >> reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be
> >> very profitable.
>
> >> The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
> >> don't menton the massive profits.
>
> > Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
> > about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
> > <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-al...>
> > <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf>
> > <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf>
>
> > Price (not adjusted for inflation)
> > US$ per lb
> > 2010 1.214
> > 2009 1.252
> > 2008 1.205
> > 2007 0.794
> > 2006 1.017
> > 2005 0.688
> > 2004 0.649
> > 2003 0.681
> > 2002 0.840
> > 2001 0.880
> > 2000 0.771
> > 1999 0.655
> > 1998 0.657
>
> > Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
> > in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
> > industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia
> > went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia
> > during this time period to produce this difference?
>
> **The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars.
> Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
> 1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
> processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
> energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
> plant (here in Australia).
>
> I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
are the usual suspects.
== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 7:15 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 28, 6:44 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:57:31 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> **Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy
>>>> source. Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just
>>>> to press the point home, I did a little research a while back on
>>>> the aluminium industry.
>>
>>>> * Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present
>>>> level (in Australia).
>>>> * Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
>>>> * The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
>>>> approximately $200.00/Tonne.
>>>> * The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
>>>> * The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was
>>>> approximately $400.00/Tonne.
>>>> * The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
>>>> * Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
>>>> reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still
>>>> be very profitable.
>>
>>>> The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They
>>>> don't menton the massive profits.
>>
>>> Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
>>> about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
>>> <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-al...>
>>> <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf>
>>> <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf>
>>
>>> Price (not adjusted for inflation)
>>> US$ per lb
>>> 2010 1.214
>>> 2009 1.252
>>> 2008 1.205
>>> 2007 0.794
>>> 2006 1.017
>>> 2005 0.688
>>> 2004 0.649
>>> 2003 0.681
>>> 2002 0.840
>>> 2001 0.880
>>> 2000 0.771
>>> 1999 0.655
>>> 1998 0.657
>>
>>> Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
>>> in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
>>> industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in
>>> Australia went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened
>>> in Australia during this time period to produce this difference?
>>
>> **The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US
>> Dollars. Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of
>> approximately 2 between 1989 and now, the cost to aluminium
>> processors is not so clear. Aluminium processors do deals with
>> suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of energy. In at least
>> one case, the producers has their own power generating plant (here
>> in Australia).
>>
>> I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
>
> If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
> regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
> are the usual suspects.
**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the
facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 7:28 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:50:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
>> demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
>> <http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt>
>**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
>others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
>response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
>CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?
Have you stopped beating your wife? Please try to phrase your
questions without the implied insults.
When it was first leaked, I read the original and made up my own mind
as to what it represented. I later read the Wikipedia article and
some of the referenced articles.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy>
That was about 2 years ago. Accepting the conclusions of eminent
authorities is certainly easier than trying to understand what
happened, but I find it more interesting. From the above article:
"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions. Unfortunately, as I didn't understand everything that
was happening in the document, I can only offer a general impression.
Incidentally, I don't recall the exact report, but one of the early
AGW research reports produced spectacular predicted temperature rises.
Even the supporters were amazed, as was the press which carried the
story in the most alarmist manner possible. It turned out that the
researchers had used history from weather stations located in urban
areas, which tend to be heat islands. When all the urban sensor data
was removed, leaving only rural sensors, the numbers looked like
random garbage with no obvious trend line. Recently, satellite data
has eliminated much of these types of problems, but it was amusing to
watch the cover up after this was pointed out.
>> Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
>> time to resurrect it. See:
>> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
>> This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
>> easy to manipulate trends and projections.
>
>**Indeed.
I just wanted to point out how easy it is to do. Much to my disgust,
the local water district used my method to justify drought funding a
few years ago. We really did have a drought, but the historical
numbers were insufficient to qualify for federally funded relief. So,
they produced ominous trend graphs, but also "normalized" (tweaked)
some of the data. Computers make all this so easy to do.
>However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif>
Holdit. A few rants ago, I mentioned that I believe that there's no
question that there's been a trend towards temperature increase. I
don't question any of that type of historical data (unless the
original data is suspect). The pressing questions are:
1. What is the predicted trend line?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
3. Should we do anything about it?
4. Will doing anything about it actually work or cause more problems?
My comments were specifically directed towards predicting future
trends, not historical data.
Incidentally, I find it amusing that the IPCC and you are both using
the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) where anthropogenic means
"caused by humans" as if it's already conclusive that any and all
effects are the result of human activities. Begging the question
comes to mind.
>Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
>experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
>However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
>predictions in this trend.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
puzzle.
<http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
Hmmm... I wonder if the current unusual lack of sunspots is caused by
human activity?
>**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
>unarguable.
Ok. I won't argue.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 7:44 pm
From: Jeff Liebermann
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
>It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
>puzzle.
><http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more accurately
as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't totally clear.
However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
<http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:02 pm
From: kreed
>
>
> **I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the
> facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.
>
I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist. This
cannot be 100% proven as fact, but I doubt any normal adult fully
believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.
I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.
I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.
There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away
as Phil would say. Piss Off.
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:24 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
>> **I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal
>> with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.
>>
>
>
> I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
> equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
> belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.
**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports,
clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for
the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have
not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my
questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is
utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need
to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start,
is to read the damned report.
This
> cannot be 100% proven as fact,
**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume
that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.
but I doubt any normal adult fully
> believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
> to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
> vested interests.
**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off,
that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC,
NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian
Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a
host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated
requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
claims.
As they say: "Put up or shut up."
If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.
As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.
>
> I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
> told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
> lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
> certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
> see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.
**Bollocks. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept
that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have
failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild
claims.
Now who is being an idiot?
The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the
one who believes the bollocks promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and
Tony Abbott?
>
> I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
> business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
> some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
> sell such stuff to the gullible.
**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.
>
> There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
> greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
> manner of delivery give it away
**I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.
>
>
> as Phil would say. Piss Off.
**An expected response from a person who has no answers.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:25 pm
From: "Phil Allison"
"Jeff Liebermann"
>
> "Six committees investigated the allegations and published
> reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
> which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
> substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
> inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
> conclusions.
** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a
logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
scientifically worthless.
By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion
you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.
Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly
removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example
of scientific dishonesty.
.... Phil
== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:35 pm
From: "Phil Allison"
"kreed"
Speaking about TW:
>
> I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
> business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
> some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
> sell such stuff to the gullible.
>
> There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
> greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
> manner of delivery give it away
>
> as Phil would say. Piss Off.
** People like TW have no idea they give themselves away in their own words
all the time.
Charlatans do not have to fool everyone, either all or some of the time, to
be a success.
They just have to fool particular people, when it counts.
That why the call them " marks ".
.... Phil
== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:38 pm
From: kreed
On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
> ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
> >It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
> >puzzle.
> ><http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
>
> NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more accurately
> as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't totally clear.
> However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
> <http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.
IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us ! :)
== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:42 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>> <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
>>> It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
>>> puzzle.
>>> <http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
>>
>> NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
>> accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
>> totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
>> <http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
>
> Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
> scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
> attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
>
>
> They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
> this rubbish out.
>
>
>
> IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
> those martians want to come and kill us ! :)
**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument does not
enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions
and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.
Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He
will receive one.
Still waiting for some answers from you.......
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:47 pm
From: "Phil Allison"
"kreed"
Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?
.... Phil
== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 9:40 pm
From: kreed
On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "Jeff Liebermann"
>
>
>
> > "Six committees investigated the allegations and published
> > reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
> > which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
> > substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
> > inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
> > conclusions.
>
> ** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a
> logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
> scientifically worthless.
>
> By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion
> you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.
>
> Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly
> removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example
> of scientific dishonesty.
>
> .... Phil
So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
This won't happen though
== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 10:03 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> "Jeff Liebermann"
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Six committees investigated the allegations and published
>>> reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
>>> which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
>>> substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
>>> inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
>>> conclusions.
>>
>> ** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a
>> logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
>> scientifically worthless.
>>
>> By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any
>> conclusion you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.
>>
>> Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but
>> quietly removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta
>> be an example of scientific dishonesty.
>>
>> .... Phil
>
>
> So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
> credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
> This won't happen though
**LOL! Nor should it. Accusing several dozen of the best scientific
organisations on the planet of fraud, demands some pretty solid evidence.
Thus far, you've presented exactly nothing.
Still waiting for some answers.......
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 10:05 pm
From: kreed
On Sep 28, 2:47 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "kreed"
>
> Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
> scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
> attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
>
> ** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?
>
> .... Phil
I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,
I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
"alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
done. :)
When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,
they would be right up there with governments (historically the
greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
mankind.
== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 10:15 pm
From: kreed
On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> kreed wrote:
> >> **I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal
> >> with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.
>
> > I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
> > equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
> > belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.
>
> **Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports,
> clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for
> the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have
> not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my
> questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is
> utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need
> to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start,
> is to read the damned report.
>
> This
>
> > cannot be 100% proven as fact,
>
> **Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume
> that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:
>
> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
> any time in the last 600,000 years.
> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
> rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
> closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
> the temperature rise over the last 200 years.
>
> but I doubt any normal adult fully
>
> > believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
> > to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
> > vested interests.
>
> **WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off,
> that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC,
> NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian
> Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a
> host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated
> requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
> claims.
>
> As they say: "Put up or shut up."
>
> If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.
>
> As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.
>
>
>
> > I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
> > told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
> > lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
> > certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
> > see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.
>
> **Bollocks. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept
> that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have
> failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild
> claims.
>
> Now who is being an idiot?
>
> The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the
> one who believes the bollocks promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and
> Tony Abbott?
>
>
>
> > I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
> > business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
> > some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
> > sell such stuff to the gullible.
>
> **Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.
>
>
>
> > There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
> > greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
> > manner of delivery give it away
>
> **I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.
>
>
>
> > as Phil would say. Piss Off.
>
> **An expected response from a person who has no answers.
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing
that, go away.
== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 10:24 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2:47 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> "kreed"
>>
>> Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
>> scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
>> attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
>>
>> ** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?
>>
>> .... Phil
>
> I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,
**Have yourself committed. You've completely lost touch with reality.
>
> I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
> done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
> "alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
> might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
> done. :)
**There you go again: Ignoring science, logic and reason. Crop circles were
created by humans. There is no reputable evidence that this planet has been
visited by aliens. Ever. Significantly, so-called 'alien abductions' suddely
began at around the time science fiction movies about aliens made their way
to cinemas. Like your ideas, such things are purely fictional.
>
> When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,
**OK, I'll bite: What damage and what potential dmage do you refer to? Be
specific. Compare that damage to:
* The war in the Gulf.
* The Vietnam War.
* WWII
* WWI
* Chernobyl
* The recent nuclear reactor problems in Japan
* Bhopal
* The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
* The extinction of thousands of species during the last 100 years
Which is worse and why?
> they would be right up there with governments (historically the
> greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
> mankind.
**Is that so? How so? Be specific in your answer.
I fully expect that you will adopt your usual attitude and you will fail to
respond to any of my questions.
I accept, in advance, that you acknowledge that you are full of shit.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 10:27 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"
kreed wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2:24 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> kreed wrote:
>>>> **I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal
>>>> with the facts presented. I accept your admission that you are
>>>> wrong.
>>
>>> I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
>>> equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
>>> belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.
>>
>> **Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC
>> reports, clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best
>> explanation for the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have
>> demonstrated that you have not read the IPCC reports. You have also
>> failed to answer any of my questions WRT this issue. Your analogy,
>> like all your previous analogies, is utterly bereft of logic. If you
>> feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need to show where and how the
>> report is faulty. A good place for you to start, is to read the
>> damned report.
>>
>> This
>>
>>> cannot be 100% proven as fact,
>>
>> **Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person
>> can assume that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC
>> AR4, we have:
>>
>> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster
>> rate at any time in the last 600,000 years.
>> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate
>> of CO2 rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000
>> years. * Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature
>> rise has been closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
>> * Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to
>> account for the temperature rise over the last 200 years.
>>
>> but I doubt any normal adult fully
>>
>>> believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
>>> to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
>>> vested interests.
>>
>> **WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been
>> paid off, that there are vested interests and that corruption is
>> rife in the IPCC, NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The
>> BoM, The Australian Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal
>> Swedish Academy of Science and a host of other reputable
>> organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated requests, to
>> provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
>> claims.
>>
>> As they say: "Put up or shut up."
>>
>> If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present
>> it.
>>
>> As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild
>> claims.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness
>>> (as told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim
>>> of lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
>>> certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot
>>> ever see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.
>>
>> **Bollocks. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I
>> accept that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note
>> that you have failed to present a single shred of scientific
>> evidence to support your wild claims.
>>
>> Now who is being an idiot?
>>
>> The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations,
>> or the one who believes the bollocks promulgated by Alan Jones,
>> George Pell and Tony Abbott?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile
>>> hi-fi business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown
>>> about by some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much
>>> harder to sell such stuff to the gullible.
>>
>> **Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.
>>
>>
>>
>>> There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
>>> greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
>>> manner of delivery give it away
>>
>> **I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.
>>
>>
>>
>>> as Phil would say. Piss Off.
>>
>> **An expected response from a person who has no answers.
>>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
> Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing
> that, go away.
**Inability to provide even a tiny shred of supporting evidence is duly
noted.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 10:50 pm
From: kreed
On Sep 28, 2:42 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> kreed wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 12:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:28:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> >> <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
> >>> It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the
> >>> puzzle.
> >>> <http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml>
>
> >> NASA's Glory satellite was suppose to measure all this more
> >> accurately as the exact effect of variations in solar output isn't
> >> totally clear. However, the satellite failed to reach orbit.
> >> <http://glory.gsfc.nasa.gov/misison_details.html>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)>
>
> >> --
> >> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> >> 150 Felker St #Dhttp://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> >> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> >> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
> > Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
> > scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
> > attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).
>
> > They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
> > this rubbish out.
>
> > IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
> > those martians want to come and kill us ! :)
>
> **Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument does not
> enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions
> and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.
>
I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering
into fantasy-land"
Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!
> Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
> presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He
> will receive one.
>
No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,
putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him, so you are sucking up to him, and gently
trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.
You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care. You know that I and some
others already have studied the matter,and those behind it, and have
made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others. I guess its
also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.
With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so, know that I
generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.
I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.
I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bullshit, or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult
member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more :).
I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".
I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.
> Still waiting for some answers from you.......
>
> --
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
You got plenty :)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suitable Substitute for Freon TF Solvent
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c078d4094e8d81a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 3:47 pm
From: Winston
Jim Yanik wrote:
(...)
> perhaps automotive Mass Air Flow Sensor cleaner would work?
> my can of CRC cleaner says it's plastic safe and leaves no residue,and you
> can find it at most auto parts stores and even Wal-Mart.
> it's around $3 per 11 oz can.
>
So that's pressurized naphtha and mineral spirits
for 34.91 a gallon, yes?
http://www.crcindustries.com/faxdocs/msds/5025.pdf
Coleman Camp Fuel is still around $11.00 a gallon.
For The Moment. :)
--Winston
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Aiwa P30 Power Amplifier Fault
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/a7f97a5f2189fe5a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 27 2011 1:41 pm
From: M.Joshi
Hello,
I am trying to diagnose a fault with an Aiwa P30 DC Stereo Power Amp.
It is part of a mini separates system consisting of a separate tuner and
pre-amp.
The power amplifier does not output any audio to the speakers from
either channels. I have checked that the startup relay engages and both
the positive and negative power rails seem to be OK?
Any other pointers would be useful.
Thank you.
--
M.Joshi
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.electronics.repair"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No Response to "sci.electronics.repair - 25 new messages in 3 topics - digest"
Post a Comment