On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:57:19 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 4/01/2023 4:19 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

<reams of your endless pig ignorant repetition flushed where it belongs>

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:58:01 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

<reams of your endless repetition flushed where it belongs>

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

> On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Joe wrote

<reams of your endless repetition flushed where it belongs>

In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>> claimed.
>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Everything's in the too hard basket now!

--
[Speed on Speed #132:]
$ Try harder, gutless. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
-- "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>, Sun, 23 Mar 2003

In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:51:09 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

I think Wod is having one of his breakdowns...

--
[Speed on Speed #128:]
$ Probably best to visit the dunny before hanging yourself.
-- "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>, Mon, 10 Feb 2003

On 4/01/2023 3:29 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 03-Jan-23 11:30 am, Max wrote:
>> Re: the proposed 'voice to parliament' to be inserted into the
>> constitution
>>
>> The 'voice' should not be in the constitution.
>>
>> What if the High Court does something unexpected like Mabo - the case
>> that recognised native title - and give the 'voice' more powers than
>> people thought it would have?
>>
>> Unelected judges should not have the power to give the 'voice' certain
>> powers.  That should only be in the hands of the people, via the
>> elected members of parliament.
>>
>> This is not a troll, but a genuine question for dicussion.
>
> From what the government has said so far, which is not a lot, it
> appears to me that the Voice is empty symbolic virtue signalling, and
> will provide nothing of substance to indigenous people.
>
> We'll have to wait and see what the legislation says.
>
> If I'm right, then I'll vote against it purely on the basis that such
> nonsense has no place in the constitution.

The current wording of the draft referendum question is: "Do you support
an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Voice?”

That suggests to me that the referendum will occur without us knowing
what may be in any legislation which comes as a result of the referendum.

I have major issues with that approach and will not for the voice on
that basis.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:56:16 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes
>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:57:08 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:51:09 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>> claimed.
>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.

>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.

> CO2 is a roughly cyclic function of time, temp is roughly
> cyclic function of time,

So they aren't CORRELATED, fuckwit.

On 04-Jan-23 6:02 pm, Fran wrote:
> On 4/01/2023 3:29 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 03-Jan-23 11:30 am, Max wrote:
>>> Re: the proposed 'voice to parliament' to be inserted into the
>>> constitution
>>>
>>> The 'voice' should not be in the constitution.
>>>
>>> What if the High Court does something unexpected like Mabo - the case
>>> that recognised native title - and give the 'voice' more powers than
>>> people thought it would have?
>>>
>>> Unelected judges should not have the power to give the 'voice'
>>> certain powers.  That should only be in the hands of the people, via
>>> the elected members of parliament.
>>>
>>> This is not a troll, but a genuine question for dicussion.
>>
>>  From what the government has said so far, which is not a lot, it
>> appears to me that the Voice is empty symbolic virtue signalling, and
>> will provide nothing of substance to indigenous people.
>>
>> We'll have to wait and see what the legislation says.
>>
>> If I'm right, then I'll vote against it purely on the basis that such
>> nonsense has no place in the constitution.
>
> The current wording of the draft referendum question is: "Do you support
> an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and
> Torres Strait Islander Voice?”
>
> That suggests to me that the referendum will occur without us knowing
> what may be in any legislation which comes as a result of the referendum.
>
> I have major issues with that approach and will not for the voice on
> that basis.

I was thinking of the legislation that has to be passed before the
question can be asked in a referendum.

Of course, it may do no more than state the question, which will be
unhelpful.

Sylvia.

In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:56:16 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes
>>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Do you need a hankie, precious?

--
[RodBot v. shaving mirror #16:]
$ Typical hillbilly, cant even manage to get the simplest stuff right.
-- "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>, 19 Nov 2002

In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>> claimed.
>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.
>> CO2 is a roughly cyclic function of time, temp is roughly
>> cyclic function of time,
> So they aren't CORRELATED, fuckwit.

You dont seem to know what a function or correlated is.
Even you claimed that one followed another -- i.e. they are related
and therefore correlated. You vascillate between they are related,
theu are "not as corrlated as you thought" to they are no correalted at
all and back again.

You seem to be the total nitwit package on almost every topic.

--
[Speed on Speed #132:]
$ Try harder, gutless. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.
-- "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>, Sun, 23 Mar 2003

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 10:49:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 4/01/2023 9:38 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:

<b'rissed>

>>>>>>>> Yea.. somehow I find you a far less creditable source than all the
>>>>>>>> massive amounts of data and resource by educated, trained and
>>>>>>>> experiences people who you say haven't proven anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **You mean like the guys who work with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're losing it, cobber. Best lie down.
>>>>>
>>>>> **I realise that you have no functioning neurons left in your noggin. I
>>>>> suggest you listen to those who know more than you do (which is mostly
>>>>> everyone).
>>>>
>>>> You don't even realiise that there's an Ice Age coming!
>>>
>>>
>>> **What evidence do you magically possess to suggest that an ice age is
>>> coming, despite the fact that average temperatures are rising.
>>
>> Historical evidence.
>
>**Historical evidence is just that: HISTORICAL evidence. It is not proof
>of a future occurrence.

So many prior cycles and now you imagine they will suddenly stop?

> I've already mentioned Milankovic's hypothesis:
>>
>
>**I am well aware of Milankovic Cycles. They are certainly an
>hypothesis. They are not fact. Hell, they have yet to advance to a theory.

Hell, better than anything you have presented.

>> "As the planet circles the sun, three factors affect how much sunlight
>> it gets: its tilt (which ranges from 24.5 degrees to 22.1 degrees on a
>> 41,000-year cycle); its eccentricity (the changing shape of its orbit
>> around the sun, which ranges from a near-circle to an oval-like
>> shape); and its wobble (one full wobble, which looks like a slowly
>> spinning top, happens every 19,000 to 23,000 years), according to
>> Milankovitch.
>>
>> In 1976, a landmark paper in the journal Science provided evidence
>> that these three orbital parameters explained the planet's glacial
>> cycles, Sandstrom said."
>>
>> Care to refute that with your own hypothesis?
>
>**I don't need to. The planet is warming. You can't have an ice age,
>when the planet is warming.

Until it starts to cool down again. Which history tells us will
always happen. Surely you don't think temperatures will keep rising
ad infinitum? What will happen when most of the Earth's population is
dead as a result of 'climate change'? Who is going to produce the CO2
to keep temperatures rising???

>>
>>> I assume you are aware that an ice age is impossible if temperatures are
>>> rising?
>>
>> They rise, then they fall...just like they did in previous Ice Ages.
>
>**Except that temperatures are rising. Not falling.

Rising now, falling later. Do you not get that???

>> It's an (extreme) extension of the processes that produce winters
>> after summers.
>>
>>> I suggest you
>>>> look at historical records going back millions of years..
>>>
>>> **What happened in the past may not be a reliable indicator of our future.
>>
>> The tilt, eccentriciy and wobble mentioned above are a reliable
>> indicator of our future. The interglacial periods do vary, though,
>> and the CO2 in the atmosphere may delay, but ultimately won't prevent,
>> the next Ice Age.
>
>**Prove it.

Defy history and disprove it.

>>>>> If you cannot present any scientific arguments, then shut the fuck up.
>>>>
>>>> Do likewise, shithead.
>>>
>>> **I always post scientific references. Like these:
>>>
>>> www.ipcc.ch
>>
>> Climate change peddlers? LOL
>
>**No. Climate scientists.

No, as useless as any other UN quasi-scientific body.

>>> Have you noticed that you're the only one
>>>> peddling your nonsense?
>>>
>>> **_I_ don't peddle anything. I merely cite the climate scientists.
>>
>> You're on your own, sunshine.
>
>**No, I'm not.

Yes, you are.

> Nobody here agrees with you.
>
>**Untrue, liar. Not that it matters. The truth is the truth. Facts are
>facts.

And the FACT is that nobody here agrees with you, liar. You wouldn't
recognise the truth if you trod in it.

> You're
>> not Rod Speed arguing with himself, are you?
>
>**Rod Speed and you are a pair of morons.

You are a cretin all on your own, then.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:00:26 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 4/01/2023 4:29 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Joe wrote
>>
>>>>  <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
>>>> where it belongs>
>>
>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes CO2
>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>
>>>>  Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>> claimed.
>>
>>> Bullshit. They are closely linked. When one goes up, the other follows.
>>
>> Pathetic.
>
>**"Pathetic"? It's a fact you boob.
>
>>
>>>>> RIGHT NOW, we are experiencing a period where CO2 rise is leading
>>>>> temperature rise. I expect that may change when CO2 levels reach
>>>>> approximately 500ppm.
>>
>>>>  And you will discover that it doesn't when that happens.
>>
>> <reams of your endlessly repeated shit flushed where it belongs>
>>
>>>>> At that point, we will see an increase in CO2 levels (and methane
>>>>> levels), as the gases are released from oceans and Arctic regions.
>>>>> Then, of course, temperature levels will increase further. Then
>>>>> CO2/methane levels and process repeats.
>>
>>>>  We'll see, and even it it does, that will not see a climate
>>>> catastrophe as you have previously stupidly claimed.
>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> YOU made that stupid claim.
>
>**Actually, I did not. I merely repeated what the climate scientists
>have told us.

By repeating it, the anus[sic] is on you to prove it.

>>
>> YOU get to do the proving.
>>
>> THATS how it works.
>
>**How it works is that YOU need to learn some basic science, before
>making an (bigger) idiot of yourself. Start here:
>
>www.ipcc.ch

UN? You cannot be serious!

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:k1ji5tF5r4dU4@mid.individual.net...
> On 4/01/2023 6:44 am, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:k1jc09F4r3kU5@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 4/01/2023 12:19 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:k1hj2gFqt1hU4@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 3/01/2023 12:13 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 11:43:12 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/01/2023 10:28 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 06:10:06 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/01/2023 3:40 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:k1ejvkFcpsqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/01/2023 8:47 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Lars
>>>>>>>>>>>> <lars@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melting sea ice has only a minor impact on sea level rise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is already in the ocean, but it does cause major changes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When sea ice melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the Earth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which causes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more warming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a vicious cycle. And here’s how it works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When solar radiation hits snow and ice, approximately 90% of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflected back out to space. As global warming causes more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> snow and ice to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> melt each summer, the ocean underneath the ice is exposed. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dark color
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ocean absorbs more incoming solar radiation, reflecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> less back out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to space. In this way, melting ice causes more warming and so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> melts. This is known as a feedback. According to a recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific study
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that used computer models to predict the future of Arctic sea
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ice, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may be no more sea ice left in the Arctic Ocean during summer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> next few decades
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can make a simple model that shows how the color of ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and water
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impacts temperature.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you need:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 thermometers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A photo of what sea ice and ocean look like from a satellite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (like this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one from the NASA Earth Observatory)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tape
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watch or stopwatch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A lamp with a 75-100 watt incandescent bulb (or sunshine)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you do:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fix thermometers to the back of the picture using tape. One
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thermometer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bulb should be under ice and the other under ocean. Place the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thermometers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that when you lay the picture down on a table, they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right side up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and can be read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Place the light about a foot above the picture. Don’t turn it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on yet!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the thermometers before the light is turned on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turn on their light and record the start time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the temperature of both thermometers every two minutes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which warms
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster: the thermometer under white ice or the one under dark
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Check out more icy science:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Types of Ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Climate and Ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Melting Arctic Sea Ice and Ocean Circulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compare Arctic Sea Ice Extent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A classroom version of the activity above: Looking into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Surface Albedo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/sea-ice-and-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heat-vicious-cycle
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yebbut how do you explain the next Ice Age?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **An ice age is ALWAYS preceded by falling temperatures.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The average temperature of the planet is RISING.
>>>>>>>>>> Yep, temperatures go up.. until suddenly they start going down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What causes temperatures to go down?
>>>>>>>> We don't know, but we do know that they
>>>>>>>> always did and produced a number ice ages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you can explain why temperatures fell, you can't make any
>>>>>>> predictions about an impending ice age.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ALL we need to know is that they did fall even when the
>>>>>> CO2 level and temperatures were much higher than they
>>>>>> are now and that they happened more than once.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Wrong. When CO2 levels were higher, so were temperatures.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that?
>>>
>>> **Proxy measurements, via ice cores:
>>>
>>> https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
>>
>> Which you tell us isn't adequate proof.
>
> **Liar. I never suggested that ice core data was not adequate.

So you lied about not accepting glacial periods?

> ... After all the same ice cores
>> are used to show glaciation has occurred.
>>
>> So you can't have it both ways.. either they are proof or they aren't/
>
> **Ice core data represents the best proxy data we have for climate
> information going back almost 1 million years.

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:k1k8ucF95dkU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 4/01/2023 11:22 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Ice core data represents the best proxy data we have for climate
>>> information going back almost 1 million years.
>>
>> And yet you stupidly ignore the FACT that that shows ice age cycles
>
> **I do not, nor have I ever ignored ice age evidence.

" There is insufficient data to suggest that these "cycles" you speak of
exist."

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:k1ejvkFcpsqU1@mid.individual.net...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:k1kipvF95dkU6@mid.individual.net...
> On 4/01/2023 4:19 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>
>>>>> Ice core data represents the best proxy data we have for climate
>>>>> information going back almost 1 million years.
>>
>>>> And yet you stupidly ignore the FACT that that shows ice age cycles
>>
>>> I do not, nor have I ever ignored ice age evidence.
>>
>> You clearly did with the ice age CYCLES, you silly little pathological
>> liar.
>
> **Cite my words where I allegedly ignored ice age evidence.

"There is insufficient data to suggest that these "cycles" you speak of
exist."

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:k1ji1bF5r4dU3@mid.individual.net...
> On 4/01/2023 6:53 am, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:k1jb5vF4r3kU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 4/01/2023 12:21 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:k1gob3Fn22sU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 3/01/2023 3:41 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "KKKernal Corn" <vet@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:im84rhh7fv3vigtgplrbfnb84b1159b84f@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:40:35 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/01/2023 8:47 am, KKKernal Corn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 21:27:37 -0000 (UTC), Lars <lars@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Melting sea ice has only a minor impact on sea level rise because
>>>>>>>>>> the ice
>>>>>>>>>> is already in the ocean, but it does cause major changes to the
>>>>>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>>>>>> When sea ice melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the Earth, which
>>>>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>>>>> more warming.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a vicious cycle. And here's how it works:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When solar radiation hits snow and ice, approximately 90% of it
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> reflected back out to space. As global warming causes more snow
>>>>>>>>>> and ice to
>>>>>>>>>> melt each summer, the ocean underneath the ice is exposed. The
>>>>>>>>>> dark color
>>>>>>>>>> of ocean absorbs more incoming solar radiation, reflecting less
>>>>>>>>>> back out
>>>>>>>>>> to space. In this way, melting ice causes more warming and so
>>>>>>>>>> more ice
>>>>>>>>>> melts. This is known as a feedback. According to a recent
>>>>>>>>>> scientific study
>>>>>>>>>> that used computer models to predict the future of Arctic sea
>>>>>>>>>> ice, there
>>>>>>>>>> may be no more sea ice left in the Arctic Ocean during summer
>>>>>>>>>> within the
>>>>>>>>>> next few decades
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can make a simple model that shows how the color of ice and
>>>>>>>>>> water
>>>>>>>>>> impacts temperature.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you need:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2 thermometers
>>>>>>>>>> A photo of what sea ice and ocean look like from a satellite
>>>>>>>>>> (like this
>>>>>>>>>> one from the NASA Earth Observatory)
>>>>>>>>>> Tape
>>>>>>>>>> Watch or stopwatch
>>>>>>>>>> A lamp with a 75-100 watt incandescent bulb (or sunshine)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What you do:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fix thermometers to the back of the picture using tape. One
>>>>>>>>>> thermometer
>>>>>>>>>> bulb should be under ice and the other under ocean. Place the
>>>>>>>>>> thermometers
>>>>>>>>>> so that when you lay the picture down on a table, they are right
>>>>>>>>>> side up
>>>>>>>>>> and can be read.
>>>>>>>>>> Place the light about a foot above the picture. Don't turn it on
>>>>>>>>>> yet!
>>>>>>>>>> Read the thermometers before the light is turned on.
>>>>>>>>>> Turn on their light and record the start time.
>>>>>>>>>> Read the temperature of both thermometers every two minutes.
>>>>>>>>>> Which warms
>>>>>>>>>> faster: the thermometer under white ice or the one under dark
>>>>>>>>>> ocean?
>>>>>>>>>> Check out more icy science:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Types of Ice
>>>>>>>>>> Climate and Ice
>>>>>>>>>> Melting Arctic Sea Ice and Ocean Circulation
>>>>>>>>>> Compare Arctic Sea Ice Extent
>>>>>>>>>> A classroom version of the activity above: Looking into Surface
>>>>>>>>>> Albedo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/sea-ice-and-
>>>>>>>>>> heat-vicious-cycle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yebbut how do you explain the next Ice Age?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **An ice age is ALWAYS preceded by falling temperatures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The average temperature of the planet is RISING.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore, we cannot expect to see an ice age anytime soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But there will eventually BE one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually looking at the historical record.. the next glacial period
>>>>>> can be expected at any time.. indeed.. global warming could be the
>>>>>> trigger for a glacial period.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nonsense. You can't have a glaciation, whilst temperatures are
>>>>> rising.
>>>>
>>>> Where did I ever suggest otherwise?
>>>
>>> **I have no idea if you suggested otherwise. I was responding to Rod
>>> Speed's idiocy. Not your idiocy. That was elsewhere in the thread.
>>
>> The only idiocy on display is yours.
>
> **Lemme see: I cite science, whilst you promulgate lies and complete
> bullshit.

You haven't cited shit. All you've done is made claims and allegations.

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 22:05:30 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:56:16 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes
>>>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 22:07:53 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes
>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.
>>> CO2 is a roughly cyclic function of time, temp is roughly
>>> cyclic function of time,
>> So they aren't CORRELATED, fuckwit.

> You dont seem to know what a function or correlated is.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> Even you claimed that one followed another

I did nothing of the sort and clearly they don't. ALL they do is VARY.

> -- i.e. they are related

Nope, dope.

> and therefore correlated.

Nope, dope.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 22:05:30 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
> wrote:
>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:56:16 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes
>>>>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>>>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

If you need to run off into a corner and cry for a bit more, everyone
understands.

--
Dunning-Kruger Effect: Ignorance and Overconfidence Affect Intuitive Thinking,
New Study Says
The Debrief, 13 Apr 2021
In a newly published study, researchers say the Dunning-Kruger Effect
can cause low-performers to overestimate their judgments during the
intuitive decision-making process.
According to the study published in the journal Frontiers in
Psychology on April 8, 2021, researchers found that persons with the
highest number of errors demonstrated the highest degree of
miscalibration, or overconfidence, in their actual performance on the
cognitive reflection test.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:09:06 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 22:05:30 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>> wrote:
>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 17:56:16 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell
>>>>>> <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise
>>>>>>>>>>> precedes
>>>>>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously
>>>>>>>>>> stupidly
>>>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight
>>>>>>>>> curve.
>>>>>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit
>>>>>>>> child.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 22:07:53 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes
>>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.
>>>> CO2 is a roughly cyclic function of time, temp is roughly
>>>> cyclic function of time,
>>> So they aren't CORRELATED, fuckwit.
>> You dont seem to know what a function or correlated is.
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>> Even you claimed that one followed another
> I did nothing of the sort and clearly they don't. ALL they do is VARY.
....

Vary together. Correlation.

You obviously have never seen
any data and are just bull-shitting
your usual dump opine.

From past experience we know it's a waste of time given your limited
understanding of numbers and arithmetic but here is the
numbers for the past 70y. As I say -- the past 1/4 mn is almost identical
anyway.

Year CO2 glb temp
ppmv 1/100th C
1968 319.012 -2.40152
1976 328.393 -0.15625
1982 337.73 18.9028
1987 346.047 21.7667
1994 355.295 32.6667
1999 364.446 44.6667
2003 372.444 54.5625
2008 381.722 61.2833
2012 390.709 65.7917
2015 398.667 77.2778
2018 406.438 92.8333
2019 412.506 98.1667

The R2 (correlation) is 99%.
The \beta (another correlation) is 1.08.
The conf interval indicates beta is +ve with prob 99.99%.

It doesn't matter with "global temp" you use -- NASA, NOAA, JMA, Jadley
or even Roy Spencer's lower trop temperature.

They all get the same answers.

--
[Speed on Speed #129:]
$ You should remove your pathetic existence from this world. Soon.
-- "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>, Mon, 10 Feb 2003

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:14:53 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 22:07:53 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:49:46 +1100, R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In alt.global-warming Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Joe wrote
>>>>>>>>> Ice core data tells us that sometimes, temperature rise precedes
>>>>>>>>> CO2
>>>>>>>>> rise and sometimes it lags.
>>>>>>>> Because they aren't as correlated as you have previously stupidly
>>>>>>>> claimed.
>>>>>>> If you plot CO2 by temperature you get a closeline or slight curve.
>>>>>> Your stupid bum chum just claimed the exact opposite, fuckwit child.
>>>>> CO2 is a roughly cyclic function of time, temp is roughly
>>>>> cyclic function of time,
>>>> So they aren't CORRELATED, fuckwit.
>>> You dont seem to know what a function or correlated is.
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> Even you claimed that one followed another

>> I did nothing of the sort and clearly they don't. ALL they do is VARY.

> Vary together.

Those two don't as Wilson pointed out.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

> here is the
> numbers for the past 70y. As I say -- the past 1/4 mn is almost
> identical
> anyway.
>
> Year CO2 glb temp
> ppmv 1/100th C
> 1968 319.012 -2.40152
> 1976 328.393 -0.15625
> 1982 337.73 18.9028
> 1987 346.047 21.7667
> 1994 355.295 32.6667
> 1999 364.446 44.6667
> 2003 372.444 54.5625
> 2008 381.722 61.2833
> 2012 390.709 65.7917
> 2015 398.667 77.2778
> 2018 406.438 92.8333
> 2019 412.506 98.1667

That doesn't show the preceding and following that Wilson correctly stated.

Sylvia Else

> Fran
>> Sylvia Else
>>> Max
>>>> Re: the proposed 'voice to parliament' to be inserted into the
>>>> constitution
>>>> The 'voice' should not be in the constitution.
>>>> What if the High Court does something unexpected like Mabo - the
>>>> case that recognised native title - and give the 'voice' more powers
>>>> than people thought it would have?
>>>> Unelected judges should not have the power to give the 'voice'
>>>> certain powers.  That should only be in the hands of the people, via
>>>> the elected members of parliament.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a troll, but a genuine question for dicussion.

As per usual Max remains a bad faith actor. His so called "questions"
are like that of Tucker Carlson's on Fox and Friends. Just the typical
rhetorical trick to circulate some hard right political talking points.

>>>  From what the government has said so far, which is not a lot, it
>>> appears to me that the Voice is empty symbolic virtue signalling, and
>>> will provide nothing of substance to indigenous people.
>>>
>>> We'll have to wait and see what the legislation says.
>>>
>>> If I'm right, then I'll vote against it purely on the basis that such
>>> nonsense has no place in the constitution.
>>
>> The current wording of the draft referendum question is: "Do you
>> support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an
>> Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”
>>
>> That suggests to me that the referendum will occur without us knowing
>> what may be in any legislation which comes as a result of the referendum.
>>
>> I have major issues with that approach and will not for the voice on
>> that basis.
>
> I was thinking of the legislation that has to be passed before the
> question can be asked in a referendum.
>
> Of course, it may do no more than state the question, which will be
> unhelpful.

Indeed!
A very strange approach from the government.

I'd much prefer that they produced some details which people could see,
understand and debate. Obviously, I am very much for establishing a
proper indigenous representative body that is able to fulfill more than
just a symbolic role. Labor surely must know that indigenous affairs
require more than just empty gestures.

But somehow Labor still think posing a politically small target for now
is more important than disclosing too early what they really intend to do.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.