Hi,

as you may know, Australia has just made an historic deal with the UK and USA to obtain nuclear submarine tech and to build several of them.
The previous French scammers have been pissed off.

This 2 year old vid shows the owner of Jaycar putting the case for doing just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_QoRDYLym4

IMO Gary was a business rogue, but every dog has his day.

...... Phil

Phil Allison wrote on 16/9/21 11:48 am:
> Hi,
>
> as you may know, Australia has just made an historic deal with the UK and USA to obtain nuclear submarine tech and to build several of them.
> The previous French scammers have been pissed off.
>
> This 2 year old vid shows the owner of Jaycar putting the case for doing just that.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_QoRDYLym4
>
> IMO Gary was a business rogue, but every dog has his day.
>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
And did you notice how U.S. President Biden referred to our P.M.?? "Our
mate from down there" or some such!! NOT by actual name!!

And, at what I think was a later press conference, one of the U.S.
lackies said that the Pres was refering to Aus P.M. 'Mal Turnie' or some
such!! Opps!! Foot-in-mouth again!!

SURE, we are important on the World Scene!!
--
Daniel

On 16/09/2021 8:22 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote on 16/9/21 11:48 am:
>> Hi,
>>
>> as you may know, Australia has just made an historic deal with the UK
>> and USA to obtain nuclear submarine tech and to build several of them.
>> The previous French scammers have been pissed off.
>>
>> This 2 year old vid shows the owner of Jaycar putting the case for
>> doing just that.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_QoRDYLym4
>>
>> IMO Gary was a business rogue,  but every dog has his day.
>>
>>
>>
>> .....  Phil
>>
> And did you notice how U.S. President Biden referred to our P.M.?? "Our
> mate from down there" or some such!! NOT by actual name!!

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery. We can only hope that
the religious nutter is consigned to history at the next election.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS. Too old. HOWEVER, there
was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

>
> And, at what I think was a later press conference, one of the U.S.
> lackies said that the Pres was refering to Aus P.M. 'Mal Turnie' or some
> such!! Opps!! Foot-in-mouth again!!
>
> SURE, we are important on the World Scene!!

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.

Trevor Wilson Goes Rabid wrote:
===========================
>
> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

> My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

>Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>
> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.

** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two decades.
2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

....... Phil

On 17/09/2021 8:10 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson Goes Rabid wrote:
> ===========================
>>
>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>
> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>
> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>
> ** Massive understatement
>
> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>
>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>
> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>
>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.
>
>
> ** For the uninformed:
>
> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two decades.

**"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early 1970s.
It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician, Fourier, back in
the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis was confirmed by
Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100
years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones,
Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe that
there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky and
performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of humanity,
has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a monster
exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to such beliefs
is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists, then you
need to seek psycho-therapy.

> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.

**"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't "hate"
them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons who kept
them in government.

> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY thin
ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean time,
spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Daniel65 wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote

>>> as you may know, Australia has just made an historic deal with the UK
>>> and USA to obtain nuclear submarine tech and to build several of them.
>>> The previous French scammers have been pissed off.
>>>
>>> This 2 year old vid shows the owner of Jaycar putting the case for doing
>>> just that.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_QoRDYLym4
>>>
>>> IMO Gary was a business rogue, but every dog has his day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ..... Phil
>>>
>> And did you notice how U.S. President Biden referred to our P.M.?? "Our
>> mate from down there" or some such!! NOT by actual name!!

> Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

All Albo can manage is to hang on to his job for now.

> We can only hope that the religious nutter is consigned to history at the
> next election.

Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.

> My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS. Too old.

What matters is his stupid insane spending spree.

> HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

>> And, at what I think was a later press conference, one of the U.S.
>> lackies said that the Pres was refering to Aus P.M. 'Mal Turnie' or some
>> such!! Opps!! Foot-in-mouth again!!
>>
>> SURE, we are important on the World Scene!!
>
> We are or were, somewhat strategically important.

Bullshit. We are irrelevant to all but a few pacific islands and even
those have told us to bugger off and mind our own business.

> Our PM is the most insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the
> office. And yes, that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably,
> Scummo is worse.

All of those leave the only real alternatives for dead.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>
>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>>
>> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>
>> ** Massive understatement
>>
>> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>
>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>
>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>
>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.
>>
>>
>> ** For the uninformed:
>>
>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two decades.
>
> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early 1970s.
> It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician, Fourier, back in
> the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis was confirmed by
> Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years
> of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch,
> Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW
> theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I am always
> ready.
>
>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>
> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe that
> there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky and
> performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of humanity, has
> there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a monster exists, or
> has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly
> delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists, then you need to seek
> psycho-therapy.
>
>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
>
> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
> doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't "hate"
> them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons who kept them
> in government.
>
>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>
> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY thin
> ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean time, spend
> a little effort here:
>
> www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

On 17/09/2021 11:57 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>
>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>
>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>
>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>
>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>
>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>
>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.
>>>
>>>
>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>
>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two decades.
>>
>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
>> 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician, Fourier,
>> back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis was
>> confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century. Despite
>> more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt,
>> Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to
>> prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the
>> subject with me, I am always ready.
>>
>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>
>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
>> monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to such
>> beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists,
>> then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>
>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep face.
>>
>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
>> doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't "hate"
>> them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons who kept
>> them in government.
>>
>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>
>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>
>> www.ippc.ch
>
> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

**There is no "if". Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for
a very long time. AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally
and observation wise.

> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

**Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe. However, if you think
that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria is a good thing, then
you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

>
> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

**Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels. There are lots
of viable alternatives.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>
>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>
>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>>>>
>>>> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>
>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>
>>>> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>
>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>
>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>> worse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>
>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>> decades.
>>>
>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early 1970s.
>>> It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician, Fourier, back in
>>> the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis was confirmed by
>>> Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100
>>> years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones,
>>> Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
>>> wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
>>> am always ready.
>>>
>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>
>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe that
>>> there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky and
>>> performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of humanity,
>>> has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a monster
>>> exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to such beliefs
>>> is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists, then you
>>> need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>
>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
>>>
>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
>>> doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't "hate"
>>> them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons who kept
>>> them in government.
>>>
>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>
>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY thin
>>> ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean time,
>>> spend a little effort here:
>>>
>>> www.ippc.ch
>>
>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

> There is no "if".

Wrong.

> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation wise.

Easy to claim.

>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria is
> a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

> There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

On 19/09/2021 8:29 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>>>
>>>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>
>>>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>
>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>> decades.
>>>>
>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>>>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
>>>> 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
>>>> Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis
>>>> was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century.
>>>> Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo,
>>>> Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been
>>>> unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to
>>>> debate the subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>
>>>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>
>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>>>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>>>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>>>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
>>>> monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
>>>> such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
>>>> exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>
>>>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep face.
>>>>
>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
>>>> of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't
>>>> "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
>>>> who kept them in government.
>>>>
>>>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>
>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>>>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>
>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>
>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>
>> There is no "if".
>
> Wrong.

**Nope. Correct.

>
>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>
> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
> claiming we were seeing global cooling.

**Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago. NOT ONCE, in the intervening
120-odd years, has any credible evidence been put forward to disprove
Arrhenius' theory.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

>
>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation wise.
>
> Easy to claim.

**Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

>
>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>
>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>
> The romans didn’t need that.

**In Greenland? First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the
place. Including Australia. They've been grown in England for many
hundreds of years. I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines.
They were partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

>
>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>> Victoria is a good thing,
>
> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
> to believe that it would happen now.

**"Now"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
'tipping point', it is absolutely possible.

>
>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>
> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

**Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

>
>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>
>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>
> No point in doing anything that stupid.

**Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

>
>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>
> No need for them.

**There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

Trevor Wilson is a Raving Lunatic wrote:
=============================> >>>>>
> >>>>> ** For the uninformed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
> >>>>> decades.
>>>>
> >>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
> >>>> >
> >>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>
> >>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
> >>>>
>
> > It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>> > claiming we were seeing global cooling.

> **Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
> the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>

** Page does not exist, like TW's logic.

> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

** Ummm try "Science" in 1971.

BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the entertainment vaule is huge.

> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
> the one that Arrhenius won.

** Wasn't Greta Thunberg his grand daughter ??
And her parents both rabid communist nut cases ?

> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
> on the planet is wrong.

** Here's the truth - there is no such animal as a "climate scientist".
The subject has as much credibility as " astrology ".

Just like astrology, it makes vague predictions based on arbitrary hypotheses - which you can believe in it or not.
Just like astrology, its proponents make a living from it.
Astrologers use star maps and other astronomy data.
Global warmies use computer models and other people's data, cherry picked.

FYI:
Computer modelling is NOT science, just glorified astrology.

Make no mistake - TW IS a 100% raving lunatic.
He rants he raves, he hates and he bullshits.

I seriously doubt he as ever had a single sane thought in his life.

....... Phil

On 19/09/2021 8:29 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>>>
>>>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>
>>>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>
>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>> decades.
>>>>
>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>>>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
>>>> 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
>>>> Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis
>>>> was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century.
>>>> Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo,
>>>> Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been
>>>> unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to
>>>> debate the subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>
>>>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>
>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>>>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>>>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>>>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
>>>> monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
>>>> such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
>>>> exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>
>>>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep face.
>>>>
>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
>>>> of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't
>>>> "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
>>>> who kept them in government.
>>>>
>>>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>
>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>>>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>
>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>
>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>
>> There is no "if".
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>
> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>
>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation wise.
>
> Easy to claim.
>
>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>
>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>
> The romans didn’t need that.
>
>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>> Victoria is a good thing,
>
> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
> to believe that it would happen now.

How do you know that it wasn't seen then? The local inhabitants of the
time weren't very good at record keeping.

>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>
> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>
>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>
>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>
> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>
>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>
> No need for them.

On 19/09/2021 11:08 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 19/09/2021 8:29 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been
>>>>> reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the
>>>>> early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
>>>>> Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That
>>>>> hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th
>>>>> century. Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like
>>>>> Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW
>>>>> theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is
>>>>> solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>>>>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>>>>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>>>>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such
>>>>> a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
>>>>> such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
>>>>> exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep
>>>>>> face.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
>>>>> of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't
>>>>> "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
>>>>> who kept them in government.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>
>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>>>>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>
>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>
>>> There is no "if".
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>
>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>
>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>> wise.
>>
>> Easy to claim.
>>
>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>
>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>
>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>
>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>>> Victoria is a good thing,
>>
>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>> to believe that it would happen now.
>
> How do you know that it wasn't seen then? The local inhabitants of the
> time weren't very good at record keeping.

**In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any
time in human history. It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals
experienced such temperature extremes. That will be our descendants'
futures.

On 19/09/2021 10:41 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson is a Raving Lunatic wrote:
> ==============================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>> decades.
> >>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>
> >
>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>
>> **Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
>> the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>
>
> ** Page does not exist, like TW's logic.

**I have no idea why you can't bring the page up. Here's how I located it:

* Go to Wikipedia.
* Then here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
* Go to the references section and click on the link at #36. Entitled:
Science: Another Ice Age?"

>
>
>> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>
> ** Ummm try "Science" in 1971.
>
> BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the entertainment vaule is huge.

**I am only speaking about PEER-REVIEWED science.

>
>
> > If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>
> ** Wasn't Greta Thunberg his grand daughter ??

**Dunno. Don't care. Thunberg is not a climate scientist. I do not
listen to children, politicians or fools, when it involves climate
science. I listen to climate scientists.

> And her parents both rabid communist nut cases ?

**Dunno. Don't care. See above.

>
> > Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
>> on the planet is wrong.
>
> ** Here's the truth - there is no such animal as a "climate scientist".

**Yeah, no. That's bullshit:

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/geography/undergraduate/careers/climatologist.page

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/climate-science/

https://climateextremes.org.au/how-to-become-a-climate-scientist/

https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/climate-scientist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

> The subject has as much credibility as " astrology ".

**That would be a lie. Climate science involves a great deal of study.
Astrology requires one to remove one's brain.

>
> Just like astrology, it makes vague predictions based on arbitrary hypotheses - which you can believe in it or not.

**Incorrect. Fourier made the first hypothesis regarding CO2 effects on
the planet's climate. Arrhenius proved Fourier to be correct. At NO time
in the past 120+ years, has Arrhenius' theory been proven incorrect. If
you feel you can prove a Nobel Prize winning chemist (Arrhenius) wrong,
then please do so.

> Just like astrology, its proponents make a living from it.

**Sure do. They make HUGE chunks of money from it. A little less than an
average plumber, in fact.

> Astrologers use star maps and other astronomy data.
> Global warmies use computer models and other people's data, cherry picked.

**Wrong. If you had taken the time to read the IPCC reports, you would
realise just how wrong you are.

>
> FYI:
> Computer modelling is NOT science, just glorified astrology.

**That's your uneducated opinion.

>
> Make no mistake - TW IS a 100% raving lunatic.
> He rants he raves, he hates and he bullshits.
>
> I seriously doubt he as ever had a single sane thought in his life.

**Uh-huh.

Trevor Wilson is a Raving Lunatic wrote:
=============================
>
> >> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
> >
> > ** Ummm try "Science" in 1971.
> >
> > BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the entertainment value is huge.
>
> **I am only speaking about PEER-REVIEWED science.

** Wrong context -- read what you wrote.

Peer reviewing:
Where one global warmie reviews another's paper - for money.
Gotta trust that.

> > ** Wasn't Greta Thunberg his grand daughter ??
>
> **Dunno. Don't care. Thunberg is not a climate scientist. I do not
> listen to children, politicians or fools, when it involves climate
> science. I listen to climate scientists.

** But there no such people. I told you
Such simple faith is very touching, you know.

> > And her parents both rabid communist nut cases ?
> **Dunno. Don't care. See above.

** Can't see the pattern ??
> > > Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
> >> on the planet is wrong.
> >
> > ** Here's the truth - there is no such animal as a "climate scientist".

> **Yeah, no. That's bullshit:

** Fraid it is a fact.

> > The subject has as much credibility as " astrology ".

> **That would be a lie.

** Fraid it is a fact.

> Climate science involves a great deal of study.

** It's only a study, not an established or credible science.

Unis supply courses for *money*, they are greedy and morally bankrupt.
But you have never been near one, have you ?
Not nearly smart enough to even qualify.

> Astrology requires one to remove one's brain.

** So you see the comparison then ?

> >
> > Just like astrology, it makes vague predictions based on arbitrary hypotheses - which you can believe in it or not.

> **Incorrect. Fourier made the first hypothesis regarding CO2 effects on
> the planet's climate. Arrhenius proved Fourier to be correct.

** No such thing is even possible.

> At NO time in the past 120+ years, has Arrhenius' theory been proven incorrect.

** Many hypotheses are like that and stay that way forever.

> If you feel you can prove a Nobel Prize winning chemist (Arrhenius) wrong,
> then please do so.

** You know Einstein never got one for his "Special Theory of Relativity".
So that must surely be wrong then ?
Cos the Nobel Committee are always right, aren't they ?

> > Just like astrology, its proponents make a living from it.

> **Sure do. They make HUGE chunks of money from it.

** They have or are always looking for grants to keep themselves in work.
Kind of a big motive.

> > Astrologers use star maps and other astronomy data.
> > Global warmies use computer models and other people's data, cherry picked.
>
> **Wrong.

** It's a fact - shame you don't know it.
> > FYI:
> > Computer modelling is NOT science, just glorified astrology.
>
> **That's your uneducated opinion.

** While you have not the slightest idea what real science even is.

> > Make no mistake - TW IS a 100% raving lunatic.
> > He rants he raves, he hates and he bullshits.
> >
> > I seriously doubt he as ever had a single sane thought in his life.

> **Uh-huh.

....... Phil

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>>>>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
>>>>> 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician, Fourier,
>>>>> back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis was
>>>>> confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century. Despite
>>>>> more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt,
>>>>> Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to
>>>>> prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the
>>>>> subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>>>>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>>>>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>>>>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
>>>>> monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to such
>>>>> beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists,
>>>>> then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
>>>>>> face.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
>>>>> doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't "hate"
>>>>> them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons who kept
>>>>> them in government.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>
>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>>>>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>
>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>
>>> There is no "if".
>>
>> Wrong.

> Nope. Correct.

We'll see...

>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.

> Bullshit.

Fact.

> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the imaginative
> writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
> is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
> Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

> As I stated before:

> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average temperatures
> more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence been
> put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like the
> one that Arrhenius won.

> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist on
> the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>> wise.

>> Easy to claim.

> Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
> overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>
>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>
>> The romans didn’t need that.
>
> In Greenland?

In europe.

> First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place. Including
> Australia. They've been grown in England for many hundreds of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

> I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were partial to
> the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

Then it later wasn’t.

>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria
>>> is a good thing,

>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>> to believe that it would happen now.

> "Now"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the 'tipping
> point',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

> it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

>> No point in doing anything that stupid.

> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise at a
> faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.

>> No need for them.

> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as there
> are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>>>>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
>>>>> 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician, Fourier,
>>>>> back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis was
>>>>> confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century. Despite
>>>>> more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt,
>>>>> Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to
>>>>> prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the
>>>>> subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>>>>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>>>>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>>>>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
>>>>> monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to such
>>>>> beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists,
>>>>> then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
>>>>>> face.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
>>>>> doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't "hate"
>>>>> them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons who kept
>>>>> them in government.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>
>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>>>>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>
>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>
>>> There is no "if".
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>
>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>
>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>> wise.
>>
>> Easy to claim.
>>
>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>
>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>
>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>
>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria
>>> is a good thing,
>>
>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>> to believe that it would happen now.

> How do you know that it wasn't seen then?

Because we would be able to see the effect of that on flaura and fauna.

> The local inhabitants of the time weren't very good at record keeping.

But we know that they didn’t die like flys.

>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>>
>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>>
>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>>
>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>>
>> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>>
>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>>
>> No need for them.
>

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> keithr0 wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
>>>>>>>> yes,
>>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>>>>>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
>>>>>> 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
>>>>>> Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis
>>>>>> was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century.
>>>>>> Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo,
>>>>>> Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been
>>>>>> unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to
>>>>>> debate the subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>>>>>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>>>>>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>>>>>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
>>>>>> monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
>>>>>> such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
>>>>>> exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
>>>>>>> face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
>>>>>> doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't
>>>>>> "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
>>>>>> who kept them in government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>>>>>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>>
>>>> There is no "if".
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>>
>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>
>>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>>> wise.
>>>
>>> Easy to claim.
>>>
>>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>>
>>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>>
>>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>>
>>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria
>>>> is a good thing,
>>>
>>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>>> to believe that it would happen now.
>>
>> How do you know that it wasn't seen then? The local inhabitants of the
>> time weren't very good at record keeping.
>
> In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any time
> in human history.

There is no evidence of that.

> It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals experienced such
> temperature extremes. That will be our descendants' futures.

Easy to hysterically claim.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Trevor Wilson wrote
>> ==============================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>>> decades.
>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>>
>> >
>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>
>>> **Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
>>> the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>>
>>
>> Page does not exist, like TW's logic.

> I have no idea why you can't bring the page up.

Doesn’t work in Chrome, Waterfox, Pale Moon or Firefox, all the latest
versions.

> Here's how I located it:

> * Go to Wikipedia.
> * Then here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Which proves that your claim that global cooling
was only ever a Time article is a bare faced lie.

> * Go to the references section and click on the link at #36. Entitled:
> Science: Another Ice Age?"

The internet archive link is down and the original
article link gives the same dud result as your link.

>>> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

>> Ummm try "Science" in 1971.

>> BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the
>> entertainment vaule is huge.

> I am only speaking about PEER-REVIEWED science.

Plenty of examples of that in the wiki article.

>> > If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize,
>> like
>>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>>
>> ** Wasn't Greta Thunberg his grand daughter ??
>
> **Dunno. Don't care. Thunberg is not a climate scientist. I do not listen
> to children, politicians or fools, when it involves climate science. I
> listen to climate scientists.
>
>> And her parents both rabid communist nut cases ?
>
> **Dunno. Don't care. See above.
>
>>
>> > Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate
>> scientist
>>> on the planet is wrong.
>>
>> ** Here's the truth - there is no such animal as a "climate
>> scientist".
>
> **Yeah, no. That's bullshit:
>
> https://www.southampton.ac.uk/geography/undergraduate/careers/climatologist.page
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/climate-science/
>
> https://climateextremes.org.au/how-to-become-a-climate-scientist/
>
> https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/climate-scientist
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
>
>> The subject has as much credibility as " astrology ".
>
> **That would be a lie. Climate science involves a great deal of study.
> Astrology requires one to remove one's brain.
>
>>
>> Just like astrology, it makes vague predictions based on arbitrary
>> hypotheses - which you can believe in it or not.
>
> **Incorrect. Fourier made the first hypothesis regarding CO2 effects on
> the planet's climate. Arrhenius proved Fourier to be correct. At NO time
> in the past 120+ years, has Arrhenius' theory been proven incorrect. If
> you feel you can prove a Nobel Prize winning chemist (Arrhenius) wrong,
> then please do so.
>
>
>> Just like astrology, its proponents make a living from it.
>
> **Sure do. They make HUGE chunks of money from it. A little less than an
> average plumber, in fact.
>
>> Astrologers use star maps and other astronomy data.
>> Global warmies use computer models and other people's data, cherry
>> picked.
>
> **Wrong. If you had taken the time to read the IPCC reports, you would
> realise just how wrong you are.
>
>>
>> FYI:
>> Computer modelling is NOT science, just glorified astrology.
>
> **That's your uneducated opinion.
>
>>
>> Make no mistake - TW IS a 100% raving lunatic.
>> He rants he raves, he hates and he bullshits.
>>
>> I seriously doubt he as ever had a single sane thought in his life.
>
> **Uh-huh.

On 20/09/2021 5:45 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
>>>>>>>> the most
>>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
>>>>>>>> yes,
>>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been
>>>>>> reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
>>>>>> the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
>>>>>> mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
>>>>>> century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
>>>>>> end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
>>>>>> deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
>>>>>> et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
>>>>>> AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
>>>>>> am always ready.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
>>>>>> believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
>>>>>> in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
>>>>>> history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
>>>>>> show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
>>>>>> who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
>>>>>> that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep
>>>>>>> face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
>>>>>> of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't
>>>>>> "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those
>>>>>> morons who kept them in government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the
>>>>>> mean time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>>
>>>> There is no "if".
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>
>> Nope. Correct.
>
> We'll see...

**There is no "we'll see'. We are already seeing it.

>
>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>
>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Fact.

**Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

>
>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>
> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

>
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>
>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
>> It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
>> a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>
>>  NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>
> Wrong, as always.

**Then present your evidence.

>
>> As I stated before:
>
>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>
> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years. Planet-wide,
NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

>
>> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
>> been put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.
>
> What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
of something?

You're kidding.

>
>> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>
>> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
>> on the planet is wrong.
>
> That claim is pure bullshit.

**Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

>
>>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>>> wise.
>
>>> Easy to claim.
>
>> Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
>> overwhelming.
>
> More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
> done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

>
>>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>>
>>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>>
>>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>
>> In Greenland?
>
> In europe.

On 20/09/2021 5:52 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> keithr0 wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
>>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
>>>>>>>>> the most
>>>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
>>>>>>>>> yes,
>>>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
>>>>>>>>> is worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been
>>>>>>> reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
>>>>>>> the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
>>>>>>> mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
>>>>>>> century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
>>>>>>> end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
>>>>>>> deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
>>>>>>> et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
>>>>>>> AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
>>>>>>> am always ready.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
>>>>>>> believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
>>>>>>> in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
>>>>>>> history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
>>>>>>> show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
>>>>>>> who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
>>>>>>> that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep
>>>>>>>> face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
>>>>>>> incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
>>>>>>> badly. I don't "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly
>>>>>>> disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on
>>>>>>> VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
>>>>>>> the mean time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>>>
>>>>> There is no "if".
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>
>>>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>>>> wise.
>>>>
>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>>
>>>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>>>
>>>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>>>
>>>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>>>
>>>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>>>>> Victoria is a good thing,
>>>>
>>>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>>>> to believe that it would happen now.
>>>
>>> How do you know that it wasn't seen then? The local inhabitants of
>>> the time weren't very good at record keeping.
>>
>> In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any
>> time in human history.
>
> There is no evidence of that.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg

>
>> It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals experienced such
>> temperature extremes. That will be our descendants' futures.
>
> Easy to hysterically claim.

**Nope. It's all about the science. You know, the stuff you don't
understand and ignore.

Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
===========================>
> >>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time..
> >
> >>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
> >>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
> >
> >> Bullshit.
> >
> > Fact.
> **Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>
> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** " Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. "

Those "guys" were aka " climate alarmists ".

> >> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
> >> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
> >
> > Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

> **No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.
** Its not a women's mag either, so what.
> > How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
> > the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
> > and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

> **What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.

** Errr - the "Roman Warm Period" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.

> Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
> temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
> Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
> way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!
Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
=====================================

...... Phil

On 20/09/2021 9:27 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
> ============================
>>
>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>>
>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Fact.
>> **Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>
>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>
> ** " Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. "
>
> Those "guys" were aka " climate alarmists ".

**If you meant to say: Highly qualified climate SCIENTISTS, then I
agree. The first one was Arrhenius. His proof that CO2 was a cause of
warming has never been challenged successfully. Not once, not ever. If
you and Rod think you can, then have at it.

>
>
>>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.
>
>> **No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.
>
> ** Its not a women's mag either, so what.

**Time Magazine was the one that published the bogus 'global cooling'
nonsense.

>
>>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.
>
>> **What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
>> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
>> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.
>
> ** Errr - the "Roman Warm Period" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
> Google it.

**Again: LOCAL climate variations are not significant. Europe is local.
England, more so. More importantly, scientists are uncertain of the
causes of such a localised climate variation. OTOH, climate scientists
KNOW why the planet has warmed since the start of the industrial
revolution. Fourier supplied the hypothesis. Arrhenius developed a
credible theory, which has never been challenged.

>
>
>> Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
>> temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>> Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
>> way it happens, the two events are closely linked.
>
> ** It proves the EXACT opposite !!
>
> Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
> ======================================

**Here's the thing:

Sometimes temperatures on this planet have risen for various reasons.
Increasing Solar flux, for instance. Sometimes temperatures have risen
due to increases in GHGs. When CO2 levels rise, temperatures follow.
Always. When temperatures rise, CO2 levels follow. Always.

Right now and for the past couple of centuries, we have witnessed a
rapid rise in CO2 levels. Temperature rise has followed. As temperatures
rise still further, we will witness a rise in CO2 outgassing from the
oceans (as they, too, warm). No mystery there. We are also witnessing a
rapid increase in methane from permafrost regions as they warm. The
methane release is VERY serious, as methane is roughly 20 times more
potent a GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane does not last as long as CO2
in the atmosphere (roughly 20 years vs. 1,000 years), but there is a
large amount buried.

So, it kinda goes like this:

CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > CO2 levels rise
CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > methane levels AND CO2 levels rise
Methane and CO2 rise > temperature rise.

The positive feedback effects continue.

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
>>>>>>>>> yes,
>>>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
>>>>>>>>> worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
>>>>>>> everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
>>>>>>> 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
>>>>>>> Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis
>>>>>>> was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century.
>>>>>>> Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo,
>>>>>>> Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been
>>>>>>> unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to
>>>>>>> debate the subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
>>>>>>> that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
>>>>>>> and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
>>>>>>> humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
>>>>>>> monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
>>>>>>> such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
>>>>>>> exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
>>>>>>>> face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
>>>>>>> of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't
>>>>>>> "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
>>>>>>> who kept them in government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY
>>>>>>> thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
>>>>>>> time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>>>
>>>>> There is no "if".
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Nope. Correct.
>>
>> We'll see...

> There is no "we'll see'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

We haven't even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>
>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Fact.
>
> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>
> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>
>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
>> about.

> No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>
>>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
>>> is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
>>> Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>>
>>> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>
> Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>> As I stated before:

>>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>>
>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

> What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.
> Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a planet-wide
> scale. To put that into perspective, England represents 1/4000th the
> surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.
>
> 1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

>>> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
>>> been put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.
>>
>> What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.
>
> **How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence of
> something?
>
> You're kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

>>> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
>>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>>
>>> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
>>> on the planet is wrong.
>>
>> That claim is pure bullshit.
>
> Nup. Fact:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

On 20/09/2021 10:06 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
>>>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
>>>>>>>>>> the most
>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office.
>>>>>>>>>> And yes,
>>>>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
>>>>>>>>>> is worse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been
>>>>>>>> reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
>>>>>>>> the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
>>>>>>>> mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
>>>>>>>> century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
>>>>>>>> end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
>>>>>>>> deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch,
>>>>>>>> Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
>>>>>>>> wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject
>>>>>>>> with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
>>>>>>>> believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
>>>>>>>> in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
>>>>>>>> history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
>>>>>>>> show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
>>>>>>>> who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you
>>>>>>>> feel that such a monster exists, then you need to seek
>>>>>>>> psycho-therapy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to
>>>>>>>>> keep face.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
>>>>>>>> incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
>>>>>>>> badly. I don't "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly
>>>>>>>> disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
>>>>>>>>> it)
>>>>>>>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on
>>>>>>>> VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
>>>>>>>> the mean time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "if".
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> Nope. Correct.
>>>
>>> We'll see...
>
>> There is no "we'll see'. We are already seeing it.
>
> No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**"WE" won't see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

>
> We haven't even seen england returning to the
> climate that was there when the romans were
> there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

**Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

>
>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>>
>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Fact.
>>
>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>
>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para from YOUR cite:

"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]"

'Global cooling' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now. Since
Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures, no
climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

>
>>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
>>> about.
>
>> No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.
>
> There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
> It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**Who is "they"?

A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>>
>>>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of
>>>> note. It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as
>>>> credible as a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>>>
>>>>  NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> Then present your evidence.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]"