Gillard visits Wagga Wagga

[B J Foster]

"Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who visited the town yesterday, said the
cost of the floods would be considerable and it would take months of
recovery".

http://www.news.com.au/national/riverinas-wave-of-destruction-as-homes-and-towns-swamped-by-floodwaters/story-e6frfkvr-1226293036486

What Julia Gillard didn't say:
1. That proceeds of the carbon tax will be donated to Robert Mugabe's
good governance fund
2. How many tonnes of hydrogen were washed dwon the Murrumbidgee in the
last 2 days.
3. Whether Wayne will produce a surplus

[Ördög]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:55:55 +1100, B J Foster wrote:

> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who visited the town yesterday, said the
> cost of the floods would be considerable and it would take months of
> recovery".

Is that not a correct assessment?

> What Julia Gillard didn't say:
> 1. That proceeds of the carbon tax will be donated to Robert Mugabe's
> good governance fund

I hope you have some evidence to back your propaganda bullshit assertion.
If not than I just throw it onto the already huge pile of stinky faecal
material dumped by you into this NG in the name of your great leader,
Monk the Terrible Rabbit.

> 2. How many tonnes of hydrogen were washed dwon the Murrumbidgee in the
> last 2 days.

The last time I looked at some scientific info H2 was still regarded as a
gas under ambient condition prevailing on the surface of our planet.

Molecular Weight
Molecular weight : 2.016 g/mol
Solid phase
Melting point : -259 °C
Latent heat of fusion (1,013 bar, at triple point) : 58.158 kJ/kg
Liquid phase
Liquid density (1.013 bar at boiling point) : 70.973 kg/m3
Liquid/gas equivalent (1.013 bar and 15 °C (59 °F)) : 844 vol/vol
Boiling point (1.013 bar) : -252.8 °C
Latent heat of vaporization (1.013 bar at boiling point) : 454.3 kJ/kg
Solubility in water (1.013 bar and 0 °C (32 °F)) : 0.0214 vol/vol
Concentration in air : 0.00005 vol %

I supplied you the data necessary to calculate the H2 transport in the
flood waters of the Murrumbidgee river. The only data I haven't supplied
was the actual volume of the water. Ask Hockey to provide you with one of
his absolutely accurate street number estimates.

> 3. Whether Wayne will produce a surplus

WTF has that to do with anything?
Are you looking for straws to keep you afloat in the floods?

--
Ördög
(A Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

[HD]

"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:jj8si8$8ni$1...@bjf.motzarella.org...

> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who visited the town yesterday, said the
> cost of the floods would be considerable and it would take months of
> recovery".
>
> http://www.news.com.au/national/riverinas-wave-of-destruction-as-homes-and-towns-swamped-by-floodwaters/story-e6frfkvr-1226293036486
>
> What Julia Gillard didn't say:
> 1. That proceeds of the carbon tax will be donated to Robert Mugabe's good
> governance fund

Have you got a cite for that ?
Or do you mix up the Labor Carbon tax with the Liberal Carbon trading?

> 2. How many tonnes of hydrogen were washed dwon the Murrumbidgee in the
> last 2 days.
> 3. Whether Wayne will produce a surplus

And of course, the most important question for you:
" What was the colour of her car?"

[ralph]

Does it matter what she says? She's a pathological liar who will say
and do anything to hold onto power.

The liar has already given us the carbon tax, breaking the "promise"
she used to steal the election, and then a multi-billion dollar
private health insurance rebate rollback.

And as 2013 approaches, you can be sure her spin doctors will start
planting more and more stories to soften up voters as to why the
surplus might not be delivered (there is only one reason: it was a
Labor lie to begin with - they haven't cut spending sufficiently to
deliver the surplus, so they are completely dependent on whether tax
revenues can be maintained).

So don't be surprised if our liar PM approves yet another flood levy
to help cover Swan's budgetary incompetence.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/swan-firm-on-surplus-as-tax-revenue-falls-20120307-1uknk.html

[keithr]

4. Whether Blow Job will ever get a brain.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 8/03/2012 10:55 AM, B J Foster wrote:

She's answered you question by giving you the answer that is the answer
she's going to give you.

--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
message news:jjab0b$31r$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 8/03/2012 10:55 AM, B J Foster wrote:
>> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who visited the town yesterday, said the
>> cost of the floods would be considerable and it would take months of
>> recovery".
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/national/riverinas-wave-of-destruction-as-homes-and-towns-swamped-by-floodwaters/story-e6frfkvr-1226293036486
>>
>>
>> What Julia Gillard didn't say:
>> 1. That proceeds of the carbon tax will be donated to Robert Mugabe's
>> good governance fund
>> 2. How many tonnes of hydrogen were washed dwon the Murrumbidgee in the
>> last 2 days.
>> 3. Whether Wayne will produce a surplus
>
> She's answered you question by giving you the answer that is the answer
> she's going to give you.

Great politician isn't she

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Disgraceful human being though.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjbi3d$f46$5...@dont-email.me...

> On 9/03/2012 8:25 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jjab0b$31r$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 8/03/2012 10:55 AM, B J Foster wrote:
>>>> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who visited the town yesterday, said the
>>>> cost of the floods would be considerable and it would take months of
>>>> recovery".
>>>>
>>>> http://www.news.com.au/national/riverinas-wave-of-destruction-as-homes-and-towns-swamped-by-floodwaters/story-e6frfkvr-1226293036486
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What Julia Gillard didn't say:
>>>> 1. That proceeds of the carbon tax will be donated to Robert Mugabe's
>>>> good governance fund
>>>> 2. How many tonnes of hydrogen were washed dwon the Murrumbidgee in the
>>>> last 2 days.
>>>> 3. Whether Wayne will produce a surplus
>>>
>>> She's answered you question by giving you the answer that is the
>>> answer she's going to give you.
>>
>> Great politician isn't she
>
> Disgraceful human being though.

so a great politician. Cool

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 9/03/2012 6:58 PM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jjbi3d$f46$5...@dont-email.me...
>> On 9/03/2012 8:25 AM, dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jjab0b$31r$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 8/03/2012 10:55 AM, B J Foster wrote:
>>>>> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who visited the town yesterday, said
>>>>> the
>>>>> cost of the floods would be considerable and it would take months of
>>>>> recovery".
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.news.com.au/national/riverinas-wave-of-destruction-as-homes-and-towns-swamped-by-floodwaters/story-e6frfkvr-1226293036486
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What Julia Gillard didn't say:
>>>>> 1. That proceeds of the carbon tax will be donated to Robert Mugabe's
>>>>> good governance fund
>>>>> 2. How many tonnes of hydrogen were washed dwon the Murrumbidgee in
>>>>> the
>>>>> last 2 days.
>>>>> 3. Whether Wayne will produce a surplus
>>>>
>>>> She's answered you question by giving you the answer that is the
>>>> answer she's going to give you.
>>>
>>> Great politician isn't she
>>
>> Disgraceful human being though.
>
> so a great politician. Cool

I guess that can be measured by the number of terms she ends up as
serveing as PM. ;-)

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjcv46$24t$2...@dont-email.me...

or if she gets kicked out by her own electorate ;-)

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Not really. She might get kicked out by them after serving, say, four
terms as PM (elect), which would make her equal top on the "greatness"
scale. But I'll give 100:1 against that ever happening. ;-)

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjei3f$c39$1...@dont-email.me...

lots of great politicians don't make your definition of greatness.

BTW when do we see your answer to your warmist quiz

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

What's your definition? More than one term in office perhaps? ;-)

> BTW when do we see your answer to your warmist quiz

Soon. BTW, what was you query on the nature of the data? I may have
dismissed that too quickly, or failed to spot some pedantry "trap" you
were trying to set up. (I presume you were trying to Google for similar
pictures and found something of a match).

[dechucka]

snip

>
>> BTW when do we see your answer to your warmist quiz
>
> Soon. BTW, what was you query on the nature of the data? I may have
> dismissed that too quickly, or failed to spot some pedantry "trap" you
> were trying to set up. (I presume you were trying to Google for similar
> pictures and found something of a match).

? I was just saying it didn't look like a graph of av earth temps and you
lied about one of the data sets being pre ww2

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

So what were the dates for each of the data sets? And which is which?
HINT: That's what the quiz is asking you to identify.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjeuag$oro$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 10/03/2012 5:36 PM, dechucka wrote:
>> snip
>>>
>>>> BTW when do we see your answer to your warmist quiz
>>>
>>> Soon. BTW, what was you query on the nature of the data? I may have
>>> dismissed that too quickly, or failed to spot some pedantry "trap" you
>>> were trying to set up. (I presume you were trying to Google for
>>> similar pictures and found something of a match).
>>
>> ? I was just saying it didn't look like a graph of av earth temps and
>> you lied about one of the data sets being pre ww2
>
> So what were the dates for each of the data sets? And which is which?
> HINT: That's what the quiz is asking you to identify.

I know, do you? If so post the answers

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

That's not how a quiz works. ;-)
Post your answer, and the URL from which you lifted it.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 10/03/2012 10:32 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 6:12 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jjeuag$oro$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/03/2012 5:36 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW when do we see your answer to your warmist quiz
>>>>>
>>>>> Soon. BTW, what was you query on the nature of the data? I may have
>>>>> dismissed that too quickly, or failed to spot some pedantry "trap" you
>>>>> were trying to set up. (I presume you were trying to Google for
>>>>> similar pictures and found something of a match).
>>>>
>>>> ? I was just saying it didn't look like a graph of av earth temps and
>>>> you lied about one of the data sets being pre ww2
>>>
>>> So what were the dates for each of the data sets? And which is which?
>>> HINT: That's what the quiz is asking you to identify.
>>
>> I know, do you? If so post the answers
>
> That's not how a quiz works. ;-)
> Post your answer, and the URL from which you lifted it.

OK, I might be away tomorrow, so the answer is.....

The one on the left is the "evil" post-WWII period 1957-2008

The one on the right is the "natural" period 1895-1946, not post-WWII.

Very telling that none of the AGWers could pick the unmistakable
"footprint" of the manmade AGW era. You were the only one foolish enough
to peruse this extremely revealing challenge. After all, the data in
both cases spans far more than the "magic" 30 years of statistical
significance, so the footprint should have been glaringly apparent.

In answer to your source question, it is the HadCRUT3 Global Monthly
Mean Temperature Anomalies, which I have given you a reference to before.

Now, perhaps *you* can qualify why the HadCRUT series looks wrong "for
average global temperatures", and how both graphs must be post-WWII. :-)

On 9/03/2012 6:56 PM, dechucka wrote:
> It is just the data doesn't quite look right for average global
> temperatures and I am positive that neither of these are pre WW2.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjfpu5$v29$1...@dont-email.me...

interesting this post was not here when I opened up this morning. Must be my
slow internet eh Oy :-)

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjfpu5$v29$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 10/03/2012 10:32 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 10/03/2012 6:12 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>>> message news:jjeuag$oro$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 10/03/2012 5:36 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW when do we see your answer to your warmist quiz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Soon. BTW, what was you query on the nature of the data? I may have
>>>>>> dismissed that too quickly, or failed to spot some pedantry "trap"
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> were trying to set up. (I presume you were trying to Google for
>>>>>> similar pictures and found something of a match).
>>>>>
>>>>> ? I was just saying it didn't look like a graph of av earth temps and
>>>>> you lied about one of the data sets being pre ww2
>>>>
>>>> So what were the dates for each of the data sets? And which is which?
>>>> HINT: That's what the quiz is asking you to identify.
>>>
>>> I know, do you? If so post the answers
>>
>> That's not how a quiz works. ;-)
>> Post your answer, and the URL from which you lifted it.
>
> OK, I might be away tomorrow, so the answer is.....
>
> The one on the left is the "evil" post-WWII period 1957-2008
>
> The one on the right is the "natural" period 1895-1946, not post-WWII.

1946 is post war. Didn't you see Apocalypse Inferno on Fri night :-)

[Ördög Belphegor Mephisto Satan etc...]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> posted the following:

> "Oy Rool Out Little Johnny Howards sockpuppets now:

>> The one on the left is the "evil" post-WWII period 1957-2008
>>
>> The one on the right is the "natural" period 1895-1946, not post-WWII.

> 1946 is post war.

Indeed.

But beyond this particular factual inaccuracy the denialists have to
explain the following:

"The Industrial Revolution was a period from 1750 to 1850 where changes
in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and technology had
a profound effect on the social, economic and cultural conditions of the
times." "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution"

It is obvious that ever since the 1750s humans are putting into the
atmosphere exponentially increasing amounts of GHGs.
How can than anyone insist on saying that pre WWII climate data must
represent purely "natural" (i.e non anthropogenic) changes.

--
Ördög --- Always ready to help you build your personal Hell on Earth

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Must be. Or you "opened up" very early in the morning, but didn't start
replying until 8:39 AM. According to the post header:
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 01:53:55 +1100

(As your buddy bringnobrain would say, "and the evidence is forever
ensconced in Google archives")

Maybe it's just your general ineptitude? The NBN won't help you with that.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Pedantry dealt with and summarily dismissed. Next...

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjh8r7$sjp$3...@dont-email.me...

you got caught lying :-(

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjh8pg$sjp$2...@dont-email.me...

actually I think my first post was sometime after midnight after I got back
from a MVA call-out and couldn't sleep

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

In summary... pfffft.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

So if you didn't see it before your post at 1:03 AM it's because it
hadn't been written.

If you didn't see it after 1:54 AM it's because you news feed is rooted
or you are rooted.

[dechucka]

snip

>>
>>
>> actually I think my first post was sometime after midnight after I got
>> back from a MVA call-out and couldn't sleep
>
> So if you didn't see it before your post at 1:03 AM it's because it
> hadn't been written.

correct

>
> If you didn't see it after 1:54 AM it's because you news feed is rooted
> or you are rooted.

that is one explanation which I put forward

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjhkn0$9ic$2...@dont-email.me...

what a way for you to dismiss being caught lying, it is the tool of your
trade

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

No lies, unless you are referring to what HadCRUT do with the data.
(See: Climategate)

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjji0t$qfv$1...@dont-email.me...

so you posted data that you believe is false. What an idiot

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Your logic failure again:

"unless *you* are referring to what HadCRUT do with the data. "

I made no comment on lies (there are none at all in what I posted).
You're on the witch-hunt to avoid the facts. I presumed *you* were
alluding to the widespread accusation that Had/CRU falsify their data.

Bottom line - you warmist losers can't even pick the human footprint you
claim is all over the temperature record. No wonder the "settled
science" is settling to the bottom of the scientific dross bucket.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjjoic$nf1$1...@dont-email.me...

so this is reliable data except if you believe in climategate

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Don't know. It's what HadCRUT fed to the world's climate "scientists".
You'd have to write to an expert like Phil Jones and ask him if it's
authentic. My guess is he'll tell you that it is.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjkoln$3of$2...@dont-email.me...

another fine mess you've got yourself in. A believer in climategate using
CRU data.

BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate was BS

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Yes. It's fact, not a matter of "belief", like AGW "science".

> using CRU data.
What other data is available for use in this context?

>
> BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate was BS

Yeah right... the "independent" ones carried out by the University of
East Anglia. ROTFL.

You have really shown your total ingnorance by foolishly pursuing yet
another topic you have clearly no knowledge of.

You have yet to explain how all the major sources of climate data are
disseminating lies and misinformation, by using temperature anomalies
rather than your preferred "absolute temperatures", as a measure of GW.
Waiting...

[dechucka]

snip

>> another fine mess you've got yourself in. A believer in climategate
> Yes. It's fact, not a matter of "belief", like AGW "science".

You deride the CRU data because of climategate but use the data when you
feel it shows what you want. :-( . So do you beleive the data or not?

>
>> using CRU data.
> What other data is available for use in this context?
>
>>
>> BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate was BS
>
> Yeah right... the "independent" ones carried out by the University of East
> Anglia. ROTFL.

and the enquiries by:- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,
Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, Independent Climate
Change Email Review, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce and National Science
Foundation

snip

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 13/03/2012 1:05 PM, dechucka wrote:
> snip
>
>>> another fine mess you've got yourself in. A believer in climategate
>> Yes. It's fact, not a matter of "belief", like AGW "science".
>
> You deride the CRU data because of climategate but use the data when you
> feel it shows what you want. :-( . So do you beleive the data or not?

Does it matter? I posted the climate "science" very own data, which the
warmists say is AOK coz it came from Had/CRU, then asked the warmists to
point out their "footprint" of man. Not a one could do it. Object lesson
complete.

>>> using CRU data.
>> What other data is available for use in this context?
>>
>>>
>>> BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate
>>> was BS
>>
>> Yeah right... the "independent" ones carried out by the University of
>> East Anglia. ROTFL.
>
> and the enquiries by:- House of Commons Science and Technology
> Committee, Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University,
> Independent Climate Change Email Review, United States Environmental
> Protection Agency, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
> and National Science Foundation

Ah, you mean from "independent" gubbrmnt bodies, whose gubbrmnts are
pursuing carbon taxing schemes. Oh, and Penn State, who also said Mann's
hockey stick was correct. Yeah, right.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjmapc$l14$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 13/03/2012 1:05 PM, dechucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>> another fine mess you've got yourself in. A believer in climategate
>>> Yes. It's fact, not a matter of "belief", like AGW "science".
>>
>> You deride the CRU data because of climategate but use the data when you
>> feel it shows what you want. :-( . So do you beleive the data or not?
>
> Does it matter? I posted the climate "science" very own data, which the
> warmists say is AOK coz it came from Had/CRU, then asked the warmists to
> point out their "footprint" of man. Not a one could do it. Object lesson
> complete.

Yes it does you either posted data you believe is wrong or you agree with
it.

>
>>>> using CRU data.
>>> What other data is available for use in this context?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate
>>>> was BS
>>>
>>> Yeah right... the "independent" ones carried out by the University of
>>> East Anglia. ROTFL.
>>
>> and the enquiries by:- House of Commons Science and Technology
>> Committee, Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University,
>> Independent Climate Change Email Review, United States Environmental
>> Protection Agency, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
>> and National Science Foundation
>
> Ah, you mean from "independent" gubbrmnt bodies, whose gubbrmnts are
> pursuing carbon taxing schemes. Oh, and Penn State, who also said Mann's
> hockey stick was correct. Yeah, right.

Of course it is a great big conspiracy. maybe you would like an independent
group like the Heartland Institute to do an enquiry

[^A^G^W^Cock^n^Bull]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jrSdnfB1k_U3W8PS...@westnet.com.au...

Excellent idea!



Warmest Regards

B O N Z O

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.

"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:

"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author

"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated

Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher

"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 13/03/2012 3:00 PM, dechucka wrote:
>
> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
> message news:jjmapc$l14$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 13/03/2012 1:05 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>> another fine mess you've got yourself in. A believer in climategate
>>>> Yes. It's fact, not a matter of "belief", like AGW "science".
>>>
>>> You deride the CRU data because of climategate but use the data when you
>>> feel it shows what you want. :-( . So do you beleive the data or not?
>>
>> Does it matter? I posted the climate "science" very own data, which
>> the warmists say is AOK coz it came from Had/CRU, then asked the
>> warmists to point out their "footprint" of man. Not a one could do it.
>> Object lesson complete.
>
> Yes it does you either posted data you believe is wrong or you agree
> with it.

It's irrelevant. I posted a quiz for warmists (see Subject header) using
data which the warmists themselves claim is true. Even a warmist can not
therefore complain about the data. Except if they happen to be a
science-illiterate moron and don't understand why temperature
*anomalies* rather than "absolute" (Kelvin?) temperatures are used to
look at Global Surface Temperature records.

Tell us again - Why is it that using anomalies (standard practice in
climate "science") is misrepresentation?

>>>>> using CRU data.
>>>> What other data is available for use in this context?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate
>>>>> was BS
>>>>
>>>> Yeah right... the "independent" ones carried out by the University of
>>>> East Anglia. ROTFL.
>>>
>>> and the enquiries by:- House of Commons Science and Technology
>>> Committee, Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University,
>>> Independent Climate Change Email Review, United States Environmental
>>> Protection Agency, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
>>> and National Science Foundation
>>
>> Ah, you mean from "independent" gubbrmnt bodies, whose gubbrmnts are
>> pursuing carbon taxing schemes. Oh, and Penn State, who also said
>> Mann's hockey stick was correct. Yeah, right.
>
> Of course it is a great big conspiracy. maybe you would like an
> independent group like the Heartland Institute to do an enquiry

Desperate drivel even by your standards. Again, you should have just
shut up about a subject you clearly know nothing about, instead of
trying to appear knowledgeable and digging yourself into one of your
bottomless pits. You've really fucked on this one. Again.

You would do well to take on board some of the wisdom of Albert
Einstein, whose Theory of Relativity you reckon is wrong:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjmn9j$5i0$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 13/03/2012 3:00 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:jjmapc$l14$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/03/2012 1:05 PM, dechucka wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>> another fine mess you've got yourself in. A believer in climategate
>>>>> Yes. It's fact, not a matter of "belief", like AGW "science".
>>>>
>>>> You deride the CRU data because of climategate but use the data when
>>>> you
>>>> feel it shows what you want. :-( . So do you beleive the data or not?
>>>
>>> Does it matter? I posted the climate "science" very own data, which
>>> the warmists say is AOK coz it came from Had/CRU, then asked the
>>> warmists to point out their "footprint" of man. Not a one could do it.
>>> Object lesson complete.
>>
>> Yes it does you either posted data you believe is wrong or you agree
>> with it.
>
> It's irrelevant. I posted a quiz for warmists (see Subject header) using
> data which the warmists themselves claim is true. Even a warmist can not
> therefore complain about the data. Except if they happen to be a
> science-illiterate moron and don't understand why temperature *anomalies*
> rather than "absolute" (Kelvin?) temperatures are used to look at Global
> Surface Temperature records.

but you disagree with the data that you posted you reckon it is all BS
because it is a great conspiracy. As I said you are in awful trouble again
with this one.

OF course if the data is correct let's see what it says over the full data
set : -)

>
> Tell us again - Why is it that using anomalies (standard practice in
> climate "science") is misrepresentation?
>
>>>>>> using CRU data.
>>>>> What other data is available for use in this context?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate
>>>>>> was BS
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah right... the "independent" ones carried out by the University of
>>>>> East Anglia. ROTFL.
>>>>
>>>> and the enquiries by:- House of Commons Science and Technology
>>>> Committee, Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University,
>>>> Independent Climate Change Email Review, United States Environmental
>>>> Protection Agency, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce
>>>> and National Science Foundation
>>>
>>> Ah, you mean from "independent" gubbrmnt bodies, whose gubbrmnts are
>>> pursuing carbon taxing schemes. Oh, and Penn State, who also said
>>> Mann's hockey stick was correct. Yeah, right.
>>
>> Of course it is a great big conspiracy. maybe you would like an
>> independent group like the Heartland Institute to do an enquiry
>
> Desperate drivel even by your standards. Again, you should have just shut
> up about a subject you clearly know nothing about, instead of trying to
> appear knowledgeable and digging yourself into one of your bottomless
> pits. You've really fucked on this one. Again.

So basically you are describing 9 enquiries into climategate as BS

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Never claimed any conspiracy. Who would bother with one when there's a
trillion dollar gravy train with an "All warmists welcome" sign on it.
But if you mean the collaborative data distortion by members of "the
team", it's all there in Climategate. (Google for the original leaked
e-mail archive)

> As I said you are in awful trouble
> again with this one.

You always say that when you've been shot down in flames.

>
> OF course if the data is correct let's see what it says over the full
> data set : -)

It's all there for you to see. How many times do you need to be pointed
to the HadCRUT data set (learn to use Google FFS). And how many times do
you then never bother to do anything with it? Get off your leftie couch
potato arse and do something yourself for a change. And you also don't
realize that I've previously shown you exactly what you're after,
numerous times in other threads. Since you appear totally lost with even
the fundamental significance of anomalies in this context, this is
hardly surprising.

>
>>
>> Tell us again - Why is it that using anomalies (standard practice in
>> climate "science") is misrepresentation?

Still waiting...

>>>>>>> using CRU data.
>>>>>> What other data is available for use in this context?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW I'll let you off ,the numerous inquiries said that climategate
>>>>>>> was BS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah right... the "independent" ones carried out by the University of
>>>>>> East Anglia. ROTFL.
>>>>>
>>>>> and the enquiries by:- House of Commons Science and Technology
>>>>> Committee, Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University,
>>>>> Independent Climate Change Email Review, United States Environmental
>>>>> Protection Agency, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of
>>>>> Commerce
>>>>> and National Science Foundation
>>>>
>>>> Ah, you mean from "independent" gubbrmnt bodies, whose gubbrmnts are
>>>> pursuing carbon taxing schemes. Oh, and Penn State, who also said
>>>> Mann's hockey stick was correct. Yeah, right.
>>>
>>> Of course it is a great big conspiracy. maybe you would like an
>>> independent group like the Heartland Institute to do an enquiry
>>
>> Desperate drivel even by your standards. Again, you should have just
>> shut up about a subject you clearly know nothing about, instead of
>> trying to appear knowledgeable and digging yourself into one of your
>> bottomless pits. You've really fucked on this one. Again.
>
> So basically you are describing 9 enquiries into climategate as BS

Read the damning evidence for yourself and make up your own mind. Stop
being a willing sheep for once in your sorry life.

[Ördög]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:30:45 +1100, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:

Oy Johnny says:

>... I posted the climate "science" very own data
>... the warmists say is AOK
>... the warmists to point out their "footprint" of man.
>... It's irrelevant.
>... I posted a quiz for warmists
>... warmists themselves claim is true.
>... a science-illiterate moron "absolute" (Kelvin?)
>... Never claimed any conspiracy.
>... trillion dollar gravy train
>... "All warmists welcome" sign
>... in Climategate.
>... It's all there for you to see.
>... learn to use Google FFS)
>... your leftie couch potato arse
>... "independent" gubbrmnt bodies
>... gubbrmnts are pursuing carbon taxing schemes
>... Read the damning evidence for yourself and make up your own mind.
>... Stop being a willing sheep for once in your sorry life.

I wonder how many newsgroup readers have you managed to convert so far
with your "scientific" grandstand lectures outlined above. How many have
joined the lieberal party since you've started your cyber crusade.

Let me guess! NONE?
And they pay you for this? Excellent!
---

PS:
I am really impressed with your disclosed "climate science" credentials.
My dog also has one just like yours.

--
Ördög
(A Hungarian Devil in service of aus.politics and Usenet)
Either the neocons go or civilisation does!

[dechucka]

"Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax" <gillar...@promises.are.invalid> wrote in

message news:jjoea0$k2p$1...@dont-email.me...

So you used data you consider tainted

>
>> As I said you are in awful trouble
>> again with this one.
>
> You always say that when you've been shot down in flames.

:-)

>
>>
>> OF course if the data is correct let's see what it says over the full
>> data set : -)
>
> It's all there for you to see. How many times do you need to be pointed to
> the HadCRUT data set (learn to use Google FFS). And how many times do you
> then never bother to do anything with it? Get off your leftie couch potato
> arse and do something yourself for a change. And you also don't realize
> that I've previously shown you exactly what you're after, numerous times
> in other threads. Since you appear totally lost with even the fundamental
> significance of anomalies in this context, this is hardly surprising.

OK so we agree that the data is valid ( obviously climategate was BS ) . I
one looks at the data a warming trend since in particular since 1900 is
obvious http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/. Natural man made or
a mixture? I think probably a mixture but I do believe dumping all these GHG
into the atmosphere can't be good just like dumping S and ozone depleting
chemicals weren't

>
>>
>>>
>>> Tell us again - Why is it that using anomalies (standard practice in
>>> climate "science") is misrepresentation?

The misrepresentation was in your graphs as looking at them it seemed to be
av global temps. Have a look at graphs of the 2 and note the differences

Read the damning enquires about climategate for yourself and make up your

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

No, the warmists say it's valid, so they will be clearly happy with it
and can't blame the quiz data for their inability to answer. Remember,
it was a _warmist_ quiz.

> I one looks at the data a warming trend since in particular since 1900
> is obvious http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/.

Ah, you've found a source all by yourself. Well done - not *that* hard
after all, was it? Did the information on that page give you a bit of a
clue as to why anomalies are used? :-)

> Natural man
> made or a mixture? I think probably a mixture but I do believe dumping
> all these GHG into the atmosphere can't be good just like dumping S and
> ozone depleting chemicals weren't

I wouldn't disagree with any of what you suggest there. You obviously
don't toe the AGWer line then that warming changed for the worse
(accelerated in any way) post-WWII, in _correlation_ with the increased
GHG emissions. I'm not actually sure, in view of your own take on
warming, why you are kicking up so much about not being able to pick the
difference between the two warming periods. "Can't tell" would be an
answer entirely consistent with your own view that the man-made warming
has been there since the industrial revolution began, insane as this
view is in the face of other evidence.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell us again - Why is it that using anomalies (standard practice in
>>>> climate "science") is misrepresentation?
>
> The misrepresentation was in your graphs as looking at them it seemed to
> be av global temps. Have a look at graphs of the 2 and note the differences

Where are the ones to compare the anomolies graphs with? URLs?

I have done so and reject them in the face of obvious non-independence
(you read the list of enquirers yourself - use your brain for once) and
the irrefutable evidence in the leaked raw material. Try actually
reading those e-mails and making up your own mind for once; rather than
having some warmist site tell you that the enquiries made were
independent - "we're independent enquirers and we're here to find the
truth for you." Yeah, right.

[dechucka]

snip

>> OK so we agree that the data is valid ( obviously climategate was BS ) .
> No, the warmists say it's valid, so they will be clearly happy with it and
> can't blame the quiz data for their inability to answer. Remember, it was
> a _warmist_ quiz.

So you are using tainted data, fool it makes your quiz totally invalid

>
>> I one looks at the data a warming trend since in particular since 1900
>> is obvious http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/.
> Ah, you've found a source all by yourself. Well done - not *that* hard
> after all, was it? Did the information on that page give you a bit of a
> clue as to why anomalies are used? :-)

Is this good data or poor data?

>
>> Natural man
>> made or a mixture? I think probably a mixture but I do believe dumping
>> all these GHG into the atmosphere can't be good just like dumping S and
>> ozone depleting chemicals weren't
> I wouldn't disagree with any of what you suggest there. You obviously
> don't toe the AGWer line then that warming changed for the worse
> (accelerated in any way) post-WWII, in _correlation_ with the increased
> GHG emissions.

Never seen that argument before except by you and Lindzen. Some cites
please, Oh you asked for those before and began to dance

>I'm not actually sure, in view of your own take on warming, why you are
>kicking up so much about not being able to pick the difference between the
>two warming periods. "Can't tell" would be an answer entirely consistent
>with your own view that the man-made warming has been there since the
>industrial revolution began, insane as this view is in the face of other
>evidence.

I did tell you the difference :-)

What I complained was about the obvious misrepresentation and your lies.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us again - Why is it that using anomalies (standard practice in
>>>>> climate "science") is misrepresentation?
>>
>> The misrepresentation was in your graphs as looking at them it seemed to
>> be av global temps. Have a look at graphs of the 2 and note the
>> differences
>
> Where are the ones to compare the anomolies graphs with? URLs?

any one will do you, it is just the style we are looking at

Never realized what a conspiracy wacko you are

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

On 14/03/2012 2:09 PM, dechucka wrote:
> snip
>
>
>>> OK so we agree that the data is valid ( obviously climategate was
>>> BS ) .
>> No, the warmists say it's valid, so they will be clearly happy with
>> it and can't blame the quiz data for their inability to answer.
>> Remember, it was a _warmist_ quiz.
>
> So you are using tainted data, fool it makes your quiz totally
> invalid

You would have to read the actual Climategate leaked e-mails to make a
decision on that for yourself (don't be a sheep). But since you haven't
done so, you won't know one way or t'other.

>>
>>> I one looks at the data a warming trend since in particular since
>>> 1900 is obvious http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/.
>> Ah, you've found a source all by yourself. Well done - not *that*
>> hard after all, was it? Did the information on that page give you a
>> bit of a clue as to why anomalies are used? :-)
>
> Is this good data or poor data?

The warmists reckon its AOK. That's all that matters for the purpose of
the quiz none of them were able to solve (without looking up the answer
;-)) But you still don't understand anomalies, do you? :-)

>>
>>> Natural man made or a mixture? I think probably a mixture but I
>>> do believe dumping all these GHG into the atmosphere can't be
>>> good just like dumping S and ozone depleting chemicals weren't
>> I wouldn't disagree with any of what you suggest there. You
>> obviously don't toe the AGWer line then that warming changed for
>> the worse (accelerated in any way) post-WWII, in _correlation_ with
>> the increased GHG emissions.
>
> Never seen that argument before except by you and Lindzen. Some cites
> please, Oh you asked for those before and began to dance

Again, Google is your friend. But as a first clue, do you remember the
Mannmade global warming hockey stick - the one Al Gore used in his
propaganda piece?
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/spencer1.jpg

Whoops! Sorry, they were the real temperatures. This is the warmist version:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg/350px-Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

But you ought to give some thought to your stance on this. If you
dismiss the post-WWII "rapid" warming period as having no particular
connection with the acceleration in AGHG emissions... what was all this
AGW fuss about in the first place? You are saying that the brief
correlation period was just coincidental. Good. You are learning.

>
>
>> I'm not actually sure, in view of your own take on warming, why you
>> are kicking up so much about not being able to pick the difference
>> between the two warming periods. "Can't tell" would be an answer
>> entirely consistent with your own view that the man-made warming
>> has been there since the industrial revolution began, insane as
>> this view is in the face of other evidence.
>
> I did tell you the difference :-)

No. You said there was one but didn't explain it. Show with graphs that
you have obviously constructed or seen..

> What I complained was about the obvious misrepresentation and your
> lies.

Of which there were none. As shown. Next...

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell us again - Why is it that using anomalies (standard
>>>>>> practice in climate "science") is misrepresentation?
>>>
>>> The misrepresentation was in your graphs as looking at them it
>>> seemed to be av global temps. Have a look at graphs of the 2 and
>>> note the differences
>>
>> Where are the ones to compare the anomolies graphs with? URLs?
>
> any one will do you, it is just the style we are looking at

Provide the URLs. And since the quiz graphs (as originally presented)
had no baseline or scales marked, show how these could not have been
taken from "absolute" temperature data, as opposed to anomaly data. How
could you tell what the y-axis values were?

Just a realist. Any opportunist needing funding would be mad not to get
a piece of a trillion dollar gravy train. Only an ethical scientist
would be willing to stand by his principles and risk being ostracised
into the wilderness.