OT: carbon polls in daily telegraph. Interesting results.

Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:06 am   

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-digging-herself-a-deeper-hole-over-the-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226093386366

Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:06 am   

On 13/07/2011 10:06 AM, kreed wrote:


--
X-No-Archive: Yes

Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:06 am   

kreed wrote:

**Why is that interesting? The average IQ of the Telegraph readership is
below room temperature.

Witness the answer to the last question.

64% believe that global warming is a myth.
Kinda says it all, really. 64% of respondents are idiots.

Even worse, is the way the questions are worded. Some are impossible to
answer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:06 am   

kreed wrote:




**Ok. You're surrounded by idiots. I get that.


**Clearly, that is not the case. ALL the climatologists have told us that
AGW is a reality. Denial of that, is denial of science. Denial of science is
proof of stupidity.


**Nope. It is clear prof that 64% of the respondents are idiots.


**It is tragic that so many Australians are able to deny science so readily.


**It is 100% true, not somewhat.


**The opinions of idiots mean little to me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:14 am   

On 13/07/2011 11:59 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:


--
X-No-Archive: Yes

Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:23 am   

On 13/07/2011 10:06 AM, kreed wrote:

"Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal election?"

And 64% say yes.

The Daily Telegraph readership must be hugely dominated by marginal voters.

Either that, or people don't pay much attention to the question, and
just treat it as a vote on whether they like the carbon tax.

Sylvia.

Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:46 am   

Sylvia Else wrote:

**A smart person once described the Daily Telegraph readership as possessing
an average IQ that is below room temperature.

And, as you previously commented, the questions are appallingly poorly
phrased.

And, as I previously noted, the responses to the last question prove,
conclusively, that the Daily Telegraph readership are mostly idiots.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:38 am   

On Jul 13, 11:10 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.
I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.



It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves
It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.



That is somewhat true.
for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.

Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:07 am   

"Trevor Wilson"



** Since when is climatology a science ?

It is no more a science than Scientology is.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made
successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at
by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists.


BTW:

The word "science" coming from the lips of TW is a blasphemy.


..... Phil

Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:17 am   

Phil Allison wrote:

**For a few decades now. Here's a guy who seems to know a little about the
topic:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml


**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

Send a message to Dr Ayers explaining your POV. I'm certain he will most
interested in your well informed opinion.

Remind me: What is your experience in the area of atmospheric physics?


**Are you certain about that? Got some proof?


**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More than
100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the planet would
rise, if humans increased CO2 emissions. He drew on works and experimental
data from guys like Fourier that has already established that CO2 was highly
resonant at several IR frequencies.

and

**I don't accept that lie. I do accept that Tony Abbott, George Pell and
Alan Jones dispute the science however. None of those guys understands
diddly about science though.


**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that has been
observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:34 am   

"Trevor Wilson"

** Nonsense.

It is not science at all.




** No science involved in either.

But lostsa money and gaining influence over gullible people is the driver.



** How absurd.



** He a friend of " Nostradamus " by any chance ??

What absurd Crapology.

The only " science " TW is familiar with.



** ROTFL.

TW always use his opinions to prove his opinions.

Same as all fakes, liars and charlatans.




** The small, recent trend you allude to may well be measurement error,
statistical variance or a natural effect that will turn and go the other way
in the future.

THEN we will have all sorts of dire predictions of planet wide disaster
from Global Cooling !!!

THEN all the climate charlatans will be saying we need to generate more CO2
to fix it !!!!!

The obvious comparisons with witchcraft and bone pointing are frightening.

BTW:

Been damn cool where I live lately......



..... Phil

Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:09 am   

Phil Allison wrote:

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.


**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?



**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.


**Failure to answer question duly noted.


**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier


**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

www.ipcc.ch



**Nup. Just the science and logic.


**You mean like Tony Abbott, George Pell and Alan Jones? You think they're
honest?

You're dreaming.


**That "small, recent trend" is the most rapid rise in temperature in more
than 400,000 years. That makes it neither small, nor recent. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.


**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............


**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.


**So? Here's the climate comparisons where I live:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=0112&ave_yr=10

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=1202&ave_yr=10.

And:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=eaus&season=0608&ave_yr=10

Kinda obvious, huh?

Damned science. It'll get you every single time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:19 am   

Trevor Wilson <trevor_at_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
[NPD Phil:]


That's right. More magical thinking.

Climates operate on magical principles and completely random factors that
are impossible to study.

--
[v^3 is Phil's notation for linear:]

The drag experienced by the solar car or a cyclist is almost entirely due to
AIR resistance.
And that is not a linear function of speed.
-- "Phil Allison" <phil_a_at_tpg.com.au>, 9 Jan 2011 13:28 +1100

Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:22 am   

"Trevor Wilson"


** TWs idea of "science" is the same as my idea of witchcraft.

Nothing new there.

The guy is a notorious fake, charlatan and audiophool.




..... Phil

Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:44 am   

<kym_at_kymhorsell.com


** Context shifting is not your game is it ??

Fuckwit.



.... Phil