Maker Pro
Maker Pro

CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

J

Jeßus

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like 'denier'
that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to put those who
have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket as the holocaust
deniers.

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done, dusted,
and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a heretic.

See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?

Hmmm, indeed.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arfa said:
Hmmm. You see, this is where I get a bit pissed off. The terms like
'denier' that get bandied about. This is a carefully chosen word to
put those who have an 'alternate' view, firmly into the same bracket
as the holocaust deniers.

**I was EXTREMELY careful in my use of the term 'denier'. I did not call you
a denier (though you may well be - or not). I called John Howard (and his
government) and George W Bush deniers. I was quite specific. John Howard was
a lawyer and a politician. He has little knowledge of scientific matters.
George W Bush was/is a drug-addled college drop-out, whose daddy managed to
keep him out of gaol and then became a politician. His knowledge of
scientific matters was/is virtually non-existent. Both these men employed a
bunch of very smart climate scientists (the EPA, NASA, US Academy of
Sciences - in the US. CSIRO, BoM, Australian Academy of Science - in
Australia) to inform them on the situation regarding climate change (aka:
global warming) and the relevance of human influence. ALL these
organisations informed both men that there was almost no doubt that human
induced global warming was a serious problem that needed to be addressed.

Not only did these men ignore the advice of the scientists that they paid to
inform them, but they actively denied the overwhelming evidence presented
and decided that the people who are employed by the fossil fuel industy were
correct.

That is what I call a denier.

And the "You're a smart guy" .... but
... I can almost see the head sadly shaking.

**Not at all. We've had dealings in the past and I have no issues with the
term. As a technical guy, you will likely have a good grounding in science.
I find it curious that you've managed to find fault with everything in the
IPCC AR4 though. I tazke it that you've read the report? All 1,600 odd
pages?

If you think that I'm
so smart, do you honestly believe that I never do any reading on all
this ?

**I'm sure you do. Have you read the IPCC reports?

Do you think my position on all this has come about as a
result of me just wanting to take an alternate view for the sake of
it ?

**Possibly. Many people take such a view.


I don't know what the situation is in your half of the world,
but up here, the whole eco-bollox thing has become like an hysterical
religion.

**As it should be. Many researchers have predicted that if CO2 levels reach
500ppm, positive feedback will ensue and there will be nothing humans can do
to prevent catastrophic warming from occuring. At least one researcher
believes that the 'tipping point' has already been reached. It would seem
prudent to listen to the guys who study climatology, rather than the guys
who speak for the fossil fuel industry in this matter.

No one is allowed to have an alternate view without being
screamed down as a "denier".

**Well, it would seem that, since climatologists study the climate, ignoring
what they say is, at a very minimum, stupid.

When I say that the case is by no means
proven, except in the media,

**The Murdock controlled media claims it is all wrong. The scientific medai,
OTOH, has made it's case very clear. AGW is a problem.

it's reached the point now where the BBC
don't basically carry any news that might present an alternate view.

**Perhaps the BBC is concentrating on facts, rather than fiction. I accept
that. They leave the fiction, lies and distortions to the Murdock media.
Would you prefer that the BBC was more like the Murdock media?
If they do have anyone on a programme that dares to suggest any
alternate view, they make sure that there are three loud-mouthed
greenies in the studio, to shout the person down.

**I have no problems with charlatans being exposed. In fact, I support it.

Plus the
interviewer of course. It has got so that every news story is twisted
to include the phrases "global warming" and "carbon footprint" and
"CO2 emissions". I'm sick to bloody death of hearing it.

**Given the fact that it is a very serious problem, you should expect to her
a great deal about it.
Most of the initial momentum for this whole affair, came from computer
models.

**No, it did not. The initial momentum came about during the early 1970s
(which is when I first began reading about CO2 induced global warming in the
pages of Scientific American). The warming that was occuring was begining to
alarm researchers. Sometime later (1988), the IPCC was set up to investigate
the measured warming.

Computer models can't even guess your electricity bill
correctly, when they can't be bothered to read your meter, and that's
with just a few variables involved. A lot more of the fuel comes from
the University of East Anglia here in the UK, where the badly flawed
'hockey stick' graph came from, that sought to show the rapid
warming, that actually hadn't taken place. The guy in charge of all
this was suspended from his position, after his emails were obtained,
showing communications with his contemporaries, inviting them to
massage the data to fit the model.

**I am familiar with the illegally obtained emails, which were carefully
cherry-picked for release, in a shabby attempt to discredit some very
dedicated scientists. Fortunately several independent inquiries have
exonerated the scientists.

It was largely as a result of
this, that the last big convention up in Scandinavia fell apart, as
it was taking place when all this came out. What kind of science is
that ? What kind of scientist is he ?

**A very good scientist, actually. Of course, if you had taken the time to
investigate the matter, you might realise that the (Murdock controlled?) did
a number on the CRU.
My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation.

**Some do. Some don't.

As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done,
dusted, and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a
heretic.

**Nope. The only people who don't accept the reality of AGW are:

* Idiots.
* Religious nutters.
* Fossil fuel apologists.
* Those who are too lazy to read the best information on the issue (AR4).

Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the
slightest doubt, the case isn't proven and closed, and a good
scientist should keep his mind open.

**Indeed. Have you read AR4? All 1600-odd pages?

Fortunately, there is a recent
groundswell of alternate view from a number of equally reputable
scientists, who are finally having the balls to stand up and be
counted.

**Wrong. There are a very, very tiny number of climate scientists who
challenge the consensus view. Most are paid by the fossil fuel industry and
are, therefore, suspect. The opinions of scientists whose discipline is not
climate science are not of much interest.
And as for people being in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, have
you stopped to consider the multi-billion dollar industry that is now
the green movement ?

**What are you attempting to draw a comparison here with? A wind turbine
manufacturer, compared to Exxon? Yeah, right. The fossil fuel industry is
extremely well-funded, entrenched and uses EXACTLY the same tactics as those
employed by the tobacco industry. In fact, they use the same organisations
to promote their position. THAT should send warning bells to any sane
person.

Do you think that for some reason, because they
are greenies, they are somehow nicer people than those in fossil fuel
?

**I am not talking about nice. I'm talking about science. Keep the
discussion centred on the science. Personalities are a spurious issue.

Not prepared to have people in their pay to say what they need them

**Some people say what they're paid to say and some say what they believe.
And some say what the science says. They're the scientists and they are the
only ones I care about.

If the whole man-made global warming argument were to collapse,
it would spell the death of the green industrial machine, with no
less implications and impact that a similar demise of the fossil fuel
industry would have.

**You may as well ask what would happen if NASA admitted that the Moon
landing was bullshit. It happened. Global warming is happening. The trend is
impossible to refute.
I quite understand that you feel strongly that the case for man-made
global warming is made with 100% certainty.

**Call it 95% certainty. That's close enough for me. If my local fire
authorities suggested that there was a 95% probability that my home would be
destroyed in a bushfire within the next 10 years, I'd make certain my
insurance policy covered such an event. Are you one of those people who
prefers to cling to the 5% possibility? I call that dumb.

That is your prerogative.
But please understand that I, and many others also read the same data
and arguments, and arrive at a different conclusion.

**Have you read AR4?

I don't have a
closed mind on the subject. I am still open to persuasion if
indisputable data is presented. But I would really like it to all
become detached from the religious hysteria that has gripped the
world over it.

**It's science, not religion.
I don't have a problem with accepting that the weather patterns are
changing. But then they always have throughout recorded history.

**Just a reminder: We're discussing CLIMATE change, not the daily weather.

Maybe man's activities do have a contributory effect. But I seriously
don't believe that all of the changes that are perceived are down to
things that we are doing.

**NO ONE EVER said that humans were solely responsible. The Sun is the major
driver of climate on this planet. CO2 is _a_ driver of climate. A small one.
Small, but significant. CO2 is not insignificant.


There are many other factors that
contribute to weather patterns, and some of them may be more
significant than some of the pseudo-science about man's activities,
would have everyone believe. As far as I am concerned, the jury is
still out.

**Have you read AR4?
Anyway, that's my piece said. I don't suppose it will change
anything, and I expect there will still be a lot of people pursing
their lips and shaking their heads at this poor deluded fool, but
hey-ho. That's life, and I don't really have the inclination to spend
any more time on it now.

**Take some time to read AR4. THEN get back to me.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
The reports are here:
<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml>
I've only read the one on the physical science basis.

The 5th report is scheduled for release in stages from Sept 2013 thru
Oct 2014. It's focus is a bit different than previous reports.
<http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml>
"...AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
In other words, it will tell the governments and politicians what to
do. I can't wait.

**No, it won't. It will, like a good scientific document, ADVISE on
appropriate course/s of action. They are not likely to be pleasant and will
be resisted by the Murdock media and the fossil fuel industry. There is
certainly no doubt that many nations will be dragging their feet on the way
to reduce CO2 emissions.


Will our society survive? I doubt it. It seems more likely that action will
be too little too late.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
True. Climate researchers don't run the government or run for office.
Politicians tend to pick whatever helps them win:


Also true. However, the AGW deniers do serve a vital function. If
everyone agrees with the IPCC consensus, there would be no need for a
5th report, no need to fund research, and no need to debate the
issues. Without opposition, the IPCC would probably be disolved.


Of course. When in doubt, do nothing. That may sound awful, but it
has served mankind quite well since we climbed out of the trees. If
we were more impulsive, we would probably be extinct by now. Evolution
sometimes rewards aggressive action. Human society does not.


As opposed to too much too early? That seems to be the real problem.
I don't think there's any serious opposition to the observation that
the global climate is changing. It has changed before and will
certainly do so again. The real questions are is it caused by human
activity and can we do anything about it? The options are not very
appealing. Leave things as they are, and civilization comes to an
end. Drastically downsize the population with a corresponding
reduction in greenhouse gas production, and it's almost as likely that
we would also put an end to civilization, at least as we know it
today. Since genocide and enforced austerity are not popular
concepts, the compromise is to do nothing, which we are now doing
quite nicely.

Drivel: I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
same mistake with AGW.

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the
climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed
the ability of the population of this planet to pay.
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Jeff Liebermann"
I used to work for a boss who's motto was "Do something, even
if it's wrong". He ended his career by doing something really wrong,
instead of thinking it out in advance. Hopefully, we won't make the
same mistake with AGW.


** Ever hear of Politician's Logic ??

It goes like this:

A group of politicians is confronted with what looks like a serious problem.

They say to each other:

" This is just terrible - we must do SOMETHING "

Then a rather obvious suggestion is made and they all latch onto it saying:

" This is SOMETHING therefore we MUST do it !! "



.... Phil
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
No downside? What about the economic downside?

**I did say: "No serious downside". The estimated costs, right now, are not
onerous. As we move foreward, those costs will increase. Possibly more
importantly, there are some potential upsides for many new industries.

If we went on a major
global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
transportation would come to an end,

**Which it exxentially will anyway. Oil is rapidly running out.

many inherently inefficient
industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned,

**Not at all. Aluminium smelting can utilise any electrical energy source.
Nukes, geo-thermal, Solar, wind, tidal, whatever. And, just to press the
point home, I did a little research a while back on the aluminium industry.

* Back in 1989, electricity costs were around 50% of the present level (in
Australia).
* Aluminium was around US$600.00/Tonne.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium in 1989 was
approximately $200.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium industry (in Australia) was profitable in 1989.
* The electricity cost to smelt 1 Tonne of aluminium today was approximately
$400.00/Tonne.
* The aluminium price today is close to US$2,500.00/Tonne.
* Even using the most pessimistic cost increases, due to greenhouse
reduction costs, the aluminium industry (in Australia) will still be very
profitable.

The aluminium industry continually bleats about high costs. They don't
menton the massive profits.

and production
of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
fertilizer) would be drastically reduced.

**That would depend on the measures that are taken.

I'm sure the IPCC has
recognized this downside, which might explain their emphasis:
"... on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
in the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I
said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success,
but the patient died" comes to mind.

**There will certainly be some serious downsides in any CO2 abatement
programmes. The alternative is, however, utterly unthinkable.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
That is a very scientific observation.
We should all embrace Trevor's crackpot theories based on just this.

**I do not espouse "crackpot theories". I merely read and understand the
science. It is a great pity that you do not do likewise.
Our society will surive and thrive if we stop allowing ourselves to
constantly being made to live in fear for the purposes of controlling
us, throw this AGW crap and those involved in it straight in the bin,
cut the big guys out of controlling everything (including both sides
of our government and media) stop them from creating artificial
shortages of resources in order to fleece us, and stop worrying about
lies and lead productive lives.

**I note your continued avoidance of dealing with my previous questions and
comments. I further note your dismissal of good, solid science, in
preference for a religious, stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach. You, Tony
Abbott, George Pell, Christopher Monckton and Alan Jones are a good match
for each other. None of you deals with the science.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Interesting. I excavated some US numbers on aluminum. Each page has
about 5 years worth of annual costs. Sorry for the mess:
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/mcs-2011-alumi.pdf>
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/alumimcs06.pdf>
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/050302.pdf>

Price (not adjusted for inflation)
US$ per lb
2010 1.214
2009 1.252
2008 1.205
2007 0.794
2006 1.017
2005 0.688
2004 0.649
2003 0.681
2002 0.840
2001 0.880
2000 0.771
1999 0.655
1998 0.657

Looks to me like the price of aluminum doubled between 1998 and 2010
in the US. That's about right considering the increased cost of
industrial electricity. However, it seems that the price in Australia
went up by 4.2 times. Was there something that happened in Australia
during this time period to produce this difference?

**The prices I cited were international ones. Hence the use of US Dollars.
Although the cost of electricity rose by a factor of approximately 2 between
1989 and now, the cost to aluminium processors is not so clear. Aluminium
processors do deals with suppliers that do not reflect the real cost of
energy. In at least one case, the producers has their own power generating
plant (here in Australia).

I'll attempt to locate my cites with the relevant information.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
That is an extremely contradictory statement.

**No, it is not. You have consistently failed to back your claims with any
science. You supply only opinions. I cite science, whilst you cite nothing.

You avoid the fact that
you only quote paid off shills like the IPCC as factual,

**In this thread, I have cited a dozen or so SCIENTIFIC sources of good
repute. Some of those sources (NASA, the US EPA, the US Academy of Sciences)
were reporting the dangers of AGW, while George W Bush was in charge of the
US. Just a reminder: George W Bush was inextricably linked to the oil
industry and a well-known AGW denier. Same deal with CSIRO and John Howard.
Care to explain that?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.


and as being
"solid science" and regard anyone who disagrees with these "paid for"
theories as being a religious nutter or being paid off by a particular
industry, whereas the AGW movement is both of these times 1000.

**Care to prove it?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.
Sadly a lot of science is corporate or government funded these days.

**There is no other way to fund science or any other form of research.
These people are therefore owned,

**Care to prove that?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

and both groups who own them want
the power and money that AGW potentially put in their hands. The power
to control resources that are vital such as coal and oil, ensure that
they have a monopoly to extract usury prices for them, and also to
ensure that only their own companies and sponsors have access to them
cheaply in order to eliminate competition. (IE: GE has an exemption in
Texas, and will be allowed to burn all the coal it wants, but its
competitors won't, causing a monopoly to exist) This is litereally
worth trillions and comes with a bonus of a high level of control of
billions of humans. With this at stake, no one is going to let the
facts get in the way of what is probably the biggest prize in human
history. - but fortunately for us (except you) this is what has
happened.

**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.
We are not talking scientists here, we are talking "pay for required
results" people. Ones who probably could never get a job, or funding
if they didnt get on the bandwagon and get the results they were told
to get.

**Strawman duly noted. Try to stay on topic.
This is why your entire statement is so ridiculous to start with.
Polls show that the vast majority of Australians (and other countries
by the sound of it) have woken up to it, and it is about time too.

**So, what you are saying is this:

AGW science is a popularity issue, with the people who really know their
stuff (IE: The climatologists) don't know what is going on, but the
uneducated masses (IS: You, Tony Abbott, George Pell, et al) are right, for
some unknown reasons? Is that what you're trying to say?

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.

I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
invalid.
the "master race" and "eugenics" were "good solid science" in their
day too.

**Were they? Cite your proof of this.

As usual, you will fail to answer my questions. Your non-answer will be
viewed as an admission that you are wrong.


If you were a "scientist" and didn't agree with this good
science agenda, you didnt have a career - therefore you didnt eat - or
you didn't have a life. Ditto if you were in the media, or other
industry that could report the truth, and blow these scams open.

Funny to look at the parallels now to this situation and the global
warming industry.

**The research by the IPCC and others is about independent, quality science.
Which, if you had taken the time to read and digest the IPCC reports, you
would understand. By choosing NOT to read the IPCC reports and then
criticising those same reports, you merely expose your extreme ignorance.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels.

**I have a policy of treating people the way they deserve to be treated. If
a person wilfully ignores the science and resorts to parrotting
unsubstantiated rumour, then they have opened the door to the appropriate
descriptors.

Everyone that
disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.

**People who dispute those who have spent their lives studying a subject,
without presenting a shred of evidence to support their claims, are
uneducated idiots. People who have failed to read the premier document on a
given subject and then proffer their own unsupported opinions are uneducated
idiots.

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
<http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt>
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).

**I have not read that particular document, though I have read half a dozen
others, which comment negatively on the CRU. I've also read the CRU's
response AND a couple of the INDEPENDENT reviews that have exonerated the
CRU. Have you read all that? Or have you only read the negative comments?
Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Indeed. However, this is a trend which is VERY difficult to refute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif

Note the TREND. No data fudging is required to prove that the planet is
experiencing a warming TREND. Some years will be warmer and some cooler.
However, the overall TREND is clear and obvious. Also note that there are no
predictions in this trend.

That data shown is the
rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>

**I suggest you examine the graph I tabled. Note the trend. It is clear and
unarguable.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections.

**Here are some graphs that are directly related to the issues faced by
Australia (and the rest of the planet):

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/clima...gi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=11

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/clima...cgi?graph=tmax&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=11

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/clima...cgi?graph=tmin&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=11

The tools are available for you to mess around with the graphs all you wish.
The results will be pretty much the same. The trend to higher temperatures
accross Australia are clear and unequivocal. These are not guesses, nor
projections. They're real, hard data.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
If it is like everything else, permit fees, outrageous environmental
regulations, rates, taxes and other charges
are the usual suspects.

**I note your continued inability to answer my questions and deal with the
facts presented. I accept your admission that you are wrong.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
I accept that you are making an impossible demand, by doing the
equivalent of demanding that I provide proof that facts (in your
belief) that the easter bunny, angels, ghosts etc DON'T exist.

**Absolute twaddle. I haev presented, in the form of the IPCC reports,
clear, unequivocal evidence that shows that AGW is the best explanation for
the warming we are experiencing. You, OTOH, have demonstrated that you have
not read the IPCC reports. You have also failed to answer any of my
questions WRT this issue. Your analogy, like all your previous analogies, is
utterly bereft of logic. If you feel the IPCC AR4 is faulty, then you need
to show where and how the report is faulty. A good place for you to start,
is to read the damned report.

This
cannot be 100% proven as fact,

**Since there is no evidence of those things, a reasonable person can assume
that they don't exist. However, in the case of the IPCC AR4, we have:

* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is warming at a faster rate at
any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the planet is experiencing a rate of CO2
rise that is faster than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that the rate of temperature rise has been
closely linked to CO2 rise in the past.
* Clear, unequivocal evidence that Solar variability fails to account for
the temperature rise over the last 200 years.

but I doubt any normal adult fully
believes in it and rightly would laugh themselves silly if you tried
to tell them otherwise that you had proof because you listened to
vested interests.

**WHAT VESTED INTERESTS? You keep claiming that people have been paid off,
that there are vested interests and that corruption is rife in the IPCC,
NASA, the US EPA, The US Academy of Sciences, The BoM, The Australian
Academy of Science, the UK MET, The Royal Swedish Academy of Science and a
host of other reputable organisations, BUT you have failed, despite repeated
requests, to provide evidence to support you wild and potentially libellous
claims.

As they say: "Put up or shut up."

If you have evidence to support your claims of corruption, present it.

As usual, you will fail to provide evidence to support your wild claims.
I accept that you have been over time due to either mental illness (as
told by other posters on this group in the past), or the victim of
lifelong brainwashing that you accept without question belief in
certain things that vested interests defecate out that you cannot ever
see past this, and it is always right regardless of the facts.

**Bollocks. I have a logical, rational, critical thinking brain. I accept
that which has been proven by science. Nothign else. I note that you have
failed to present a single shred of scientific evidence to support your wild
claims.

Now who is being an idiot?

The one who accepts the solid science, from reputable organisations, or the
one who believes the bollocks promulgated by Alan Jones, George Pell and
Tony Abbott?
I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

**Strawman duly noted. You have zero idea of my business practices.
There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away

**I'll say again: Sumbit your proof of your wild accusations.
as Phil would say. Piss Off.

**An expected response from a person who has no answers.
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Jeff Liebermann"
"Six committees investigated the allegations and published
reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a
substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating
inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined
conclusions.


** Cleaning up data is otherwise known as selecting your evidence - a
logical fallacy of the highest order. It is completely dishonest and
scientifically worthless.

By selecting ones evidence, it becomes possible to "prove" any conclusion
you like and posters on usenet do it all the time.

Dunno what definition of "scientific fraud" you think is right, but quietly
removing evidence that does not suit an hypothesis has gotta be an example
of scientific dishonesty.



..... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"kreed"
Speaking about TW:
I guess you would have to be that way to be into the audiophile hi-fi
business. Unless you believed in the shonky claims thrown about by
some manufacturers and their "proof", it probably is much harder to
sell such stuff to the gullible.

There are loads like you in various crackpot movements be they the
greens, feminism etc. You are not hard to see through. The words and
manner of delivery give it away

as Phil would say. Piss Off.


** People like TW have no idea they give themselves away in their own words
all the time.

Charlatans do not have to fool everyone, either all or some of the time, to
be a success.

They just have to fool particular people, when it counts.

That why the call them " marks ".




..... Phil
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).


They must be getting so desparate - like a cornered rat - to trot
this rubbish out.



IIRC there were reports of "global warming" on mars also, no wonder
those martians want to come and kill us ! :)

**Substituting lies and complete bullshit for a rational argument does not
enhance your case (such as it is). You need to respond to my many questions
and comments, rather that veering into fantasy-land.

Hanging onto Jeff's coattails is not a reasonable response. Jeff has
presented a cogent, rational argument, that deserves a reasoned response. He
will receive one.

Still waiting for some answers from you.......
 
P

Phil Allison

Jan 1, 1970
0
"kreed"

Also noted a news article a couple of weeks back where a NASA
scientist came out on record speaking of concerns that aliens might
attack us if we don't do something about man made global warming :).


** Rabid greenies, space aliens - what's the difference ?



..... Phil
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
So true. They should be drummed out of their position, have their
credentials stripped and be prosecuted.
This won't happen though

**LOL! Nor should it. Accusing several dozen of the best scientific
organisations on the planet of fraud, demands some pretty solid evidence.
Thus far, you've presented exactly nothing.

Still waiting for some answers.......
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
I will take my chances with the space aliens thanks,

**Have yourself committed. You've completely lost touch with reality.
I have yet to see where space aliens (assuming they even exist) have
done any harm to us, even if you were to take as fact the claims of
"alien abductees" and such. At best, a few crop circles here and there
might have shaved a few % of profit off the farmers for the damage
done. :)

**There you go again: Ignoring science, logic and reason. Crop circles were
created by humans. There is no reputable evidence that this planet has been
visited by aliens. Ever. Significantly, so-called 'alien abductions' suddely
began at around the time science fiction movies about aliens made their way
to cinemas. Like your ideas, such things are purely fictional.
When you compare the damage and potential damage done by greenies,

**OK, I'll bite: What damage and what potential dmage do you refer to? Be
specific. Compare that damage to:

* The war in the Gulf.
* The Vietnam War.
* WWII
* WWI
* Chernobyl
* The recent nuclear reactor problems in Japan
* Bhopal
* The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
* The extinction of thousands of species during the last 100 years

Which is worse and why?
they would be right up there with governments (historically the
greatest threat to human life) and plagues as a significant threat to
mankind.

**Is that so? How so? Be specific in your answer.

I fully expect that you will adopt your usual attitude and you will fail to
respond to any of my questions.

I accept, in advance, that you acknowledge that you are full of shit.
 
T

Trevor Wilson

Jan 1, 1970
0
kreed said:
Submit real proof, not paid for and discredited "proof", failing
that, go away.

**Inability to provide even a tiny shred of supporting evidence is duly
noted.
 
Top