multi voltage power adaptor

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/04/2020 7:10 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> spewed
the flagrant dishonesty that’s all it can ever manage.

**LOL! Here's where I exposed your stupid lies:

You wrote:

"And even if they did, and they don’t, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate."


To which I asked:


**Really? When was that?

The response from you has been nothing.

Therefore, you lied.


Your claim that the Poms still use the Imperial system of weights and
measures was rebutted with this:

https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/metric-system

Another clanger dropped by you.

You then went on to claim that the IPCC never mentioned the melt of the
Greenland ice sheets, backed by your alleged claim that you have read
the IPCC documents.

To which I proved you wrong on both counts by:

---

**Now I KNOW you haven't read the IPCC documents. You lied about that too.

Working Group 1. 11.2.3

Read it, dickhead.

---

Try READING the documents you claim to have read, before you enter a
discussion that is well beyond your ability to understand.

Idiot.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson who Cannot Read wrote:

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

** The para speaks only of "risk".

So contradicts you completely.

**WTF are you smoking? Go back and learn remedial English.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/risk?s=t

** Again, you post a link that *contradicts* you in lieu of a supporting case. Risk refers to the chance that something may happen.

When the IPCC was set up, climate change was not a real problem just a risk.

Even now, it is simply a hypothetical risk.

The only folk who are *certain* it is real a very dangerous are activists.

FYI: Activist = LUNATIC.

You can assert anything you want, but without proof, it is a meaningless claim.

** There is no proof for ANY of yours.

So " no case to answer".

**Bullshit. I have provided abundant cites

** I will not accept your cherry picked links as proof.

I know they do NOT actually say what YOU say.

If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.

**Prove it.

** It an explanatory comment - you fucking ass.

**IOW: You made it up.


** Fuck me, this nut case IDIOT is dumb !!

**I am not the one who made the idiotic claim.

** What did I claim ?

You have misconstrued* - yet again.


( *Its' a big word - look it up.)

** It is NOT a scientific *theory*.

**It most certainly is.


FFS Google the difference you pig ignorant CUNT !!

**If you imagine

** FFS Look up the meanings of the two words in science.

I am a swearing you for stubbornly refusing to do that !!!



FYI to all,

I know Trevor Wilson personally and many of his associates.

He is widely treated as an annoying idiot and a joke.

As you can also see from his asinine posts.


...... Phil

 

[DBR]

On 13/04/2020 6:08 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson who Cannot Read wrote:

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


** The para speaks only of "risk".

So contradicts you completely.

**WTF are you smoking? Go back and learn remedial English.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/risk?s=t


** Again, you post a link that *contradicts* you in lieu of a supporting case. Risk refers to the chance that something may happen.

When the IPCC was set up, climate change was not a real problem just a risk.

Even now, it is simply a hypothetical risk.

The only folk who are *certain* it is real a very dangerous are activists.

FYI: Activist = LUNATIC.

Good to see you are up to your normal Shit again Phil Keep it up we
missed you

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> spewed
the flagrant dishonesty that’s all it can ever manage.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/04/2020 10:41 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> spewed
the flagrant dishonesty that’s all it can ever manage.

**LOL! Here's where I exposed your stupid lies:

You wrote:

"And even if they did, and they don’t, have fun explaining
how our civilisation somehow managed to cope with
a change of sea level of hundreds of feet, and somehow
managed to cope with a significant drop in climate from when
the romans grew wine in england and the current climate."


To which I asked:


**Really? When was that?

The response from you has been nothing.

Therefore, you lied.


Your claim that the Poms still use the Imperial system of weights and
measures was rebutted with this:

https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/metric-system

Another clanger dropped by you.

You then went on to claim that the IPCC never mentioned the melt of the
Greenland ice sheets, backed by your alleged claim that you have read
the IPCC documents.

To which I proved you wrong on both counts by:

---

**Now I KNOW you haven't read the IPCC documents. You lied about that too.

Working Group 1. 11.2.3

Read it, dickhead.

---

Try READING the documents you claim to have read, before you enter a
discussion that is well beyond your ability to understand.

Idiot.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Xeno]

On 13/4/20 6:38 am, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson who Cannot Read wrote:

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


** The para speaks only of "risk".

So contradicts you completely.

**WTF are you smoking? Go back and learn remedial English.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/risk?s=t


** Again, you post a link that *contradicts* you in lieu of a supporting case. Risk refers to the chance that something may happen.

When the IPCC was set up, climate change was not a real problem just a risk.

Even now, it is simply a hypothetical risk.

The only folk who are *certain* it is real a very dangerous are activists.

FYI: Activist = LUNATIC.

FYI, the people who are *certain* of climate change are the scientists.
The deniers are the lunatics.

You can assert anything you want, but without proof, it is a meaningless claim.

** There is no proof for ANY of yours.

So " no case to answer".

**Bullshit. I have provided abundant cites

** I will not accept your cherry picked links as proof.

I know they do NOT actually say what YOU say.




If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.

**Prove it.

** It an explanatory comment - you fucking ass.

**IOW: You made it up.


** Fuck me, this nut case IDIOT is dumb !!

**I am not the one who made the idiotic claim.

** What did I claim ?

You have misconstrued* - yet again.


( *Its' a big word - look it up.)



** It is NOT a scientific *theory*.

**It most certainly is.


FFS Google the difference you pig ignorant CUNT !!

**If you imagine


** FFS Look up the meanings of the two words in science.

I am a swearing you for stubbornly refusing to do that !!!



FYI to all,

I know Trevor Wilson personally and many of his associates.

He is widely treated as an annoying idiot and a joke.

As you can also see from his asinine posts.


...... Phil

Hmmm, I see you in that light.


--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> spewed
the flagrant dishonesty that’s all it can ever manage.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/04/2020 6:38 am, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson who Cannot Read wrote:

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


** The para speaks only of "risk".

So contradicts you completely.

**WTF are you smoking? Go back and learn remedial English.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/risk?s=t


** Again, you post a link that *contradicts* you in lieu of a supporting case. Risk refers to the chance that something may happen.

When the IPCC was set up, climate change was not a real problem just a risk.

**Ummm. No. Unlike you, I've been consuming scientific journals since
the mid 1970s. Even back then, Sciam, Science, Nature and the others
were all reporting on the OBSERVED warming. They were suggesting that,
perhaps, Fourier and Arrhenius had got it right. The IPCC was set up in
1988 (well over a decade after most climate scientists were issuing
clear and unequivocal warnings that something serious was wrong with the
planet's climate.

Here's a 1981 prediction of the problem:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

Even now, it is simply a hypothetical risk.

**No. It is an actual risk.

The only folk who are *certain* it is real a very dangerous are activists.

**Huh? Are your seriously telling me that EVERY single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong and that you, Alan Jones, Tony Abbott, ScoMo and
a bunch of other guys who know nothing about climate science are right?

Yeah, sure.

You can side with the religious nutters and loud-mouthed shock jocks, if
that makes you feel better. Me? I'll listen to the climate scientists.
After all, they know about the climate. You don't.

FYI: Activist = LUNATIC.

**Idiot = Someone who believes in the same shit that ScoMo, Jones and
Abbott do.

You can assert anything you want, but without proof, it is a meaningless claim.

** There is no proof for ANY of yours.

So " no case to answer".

**Bullshit. I have provided abundant cites

** I will not accept your cherry picked links as proof.

**"Cherry picked"? Bullshit. I cited meteorlogical DATA from BoM. Why
don't you support your bullshit with some "cherry picked" data from BoM.
Feel free.

I know they do NOT actually say what YOU say.

**Ummm, yeah, they do.

If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well.

**Prove it.

** It an explanatory comment - you fucking ass.

**IOW: You made it up.


** Fuck me, this nut case IDIOT is dumb !!

**I am not the one who made the idiotic claim.

** What did I claim ?

"If asked to find evidence for life on Mars, they would have as well."

You have misconstrued* - yet again.


( *Its' a big word - look it up.)

**No need. You make shit up and pass it off as fact. You lie and
obfuscate and expect people to believe your crap. You fail to provide a
single shred of evidence back your insane claims.

** It is NOT a scientific *theory*.

**It most certainly is.


FFS Google the difference you pig ignorant CUNT !!

**If you imagine


** FFS Look up the meanings of the two words in science.

I am a swearing you for stubbornly refusing to do that !!!

**I KNOW what a scientific theory is. I know what an hypothesis is. YOU,
OTOH, know shit. You don't know how to conduct a logical argument. You
don't supply any evidence to back your insane claims. Your scientific
knowledge is at the same level as Jones, ScoMo and Abbott. IOW: ZERO.

FYI to all,

I know Trevor Wilson personally and many of his associates.

He is widely treated as an annoying idiot and a joke.

As you can also see from his asinine posts.

**This would be a pot, kettle, black kind of moment.

Try supplying some proof of your nonsensical claims. Bet you can't.

All while you ignore the elephant in the room:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:%22EDC_TempCO2Dust%22.svg

You may care to note several things in those graphs:

1) CO2 levels and temperature levels are closely related.
2) Sometimes CO2 level rise leads temperature rise.
3) Sometimes CO2 level rise lags.
4) The present rise in CO2 levels and temperatures is, on that time
scale, a vertical line. Unheard of in at least the past million years.

Then there's this:

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

Note the temperatures around 50 million years ago.

CO2 levels were VERY high back then.

The real worry comes when the permafrost regions begin releasing
stupendous amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

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

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/


Methane is around 20 times more potent a GHG than CO2. Fortunately,
methane breaks down in the atmosphere fairly rapidly (ca. 12 years
atmospheric life). However, it major breakdown component is, you guessed
it: CO2. Then, of course, is the massive amount of CO2 dissolved in the
planet's ocean. There's around 39,000Gt of carbon in the ocean (around
750Gt in the atmosphere). As the ocean warms, CO2 will be released, thus
raising the amount in the atmosphere still further. Then, as the planet
warms, we get more methane, more CO2. The cycle repeats. We know it as
positive feedback. It is commonly referred to as the 'tipping point'.

The tipping point is thought to be around 500ppm of CO2 concentration in
the atmosphere.

We should be concerned. ScoMo's god won't save us. Nor will Abbott's
delusionary ideas.

Nor will yours.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/04/2020 2:44 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> spewed
the flagrant dishonesty that’s all it can ever manage.

**Yeah, you keep avoiding the questions, coward.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

Xeno wrote:


** Listen here, pal.

You are nothing but trolling fuckwit.

You act like you might be a stupid 14 year old.

At best.

So FOAD.


.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson is INSANE

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

** FFS Look up the meanings of the two words in science.

I am a swearing you for stubbornly refusing to do that !!!

**I KNOW what a scientific theory is. I know what an hypothesis is.

** Right now, you do fucking not.

Why not post your idea of the difference.

I am happy to correct your misconceptions in detail, as it will benefit others.

Buy YOU are beyond any kind of help.


BTW:

I'm quite certain you have an untreatable mental illness.

One you have had all your life.



...... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 13/04/2020 3:38 pm, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson is INSANE

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


** FFS Look up the meanings of the two words in science.

I am a swearing you for stubbornly refusing to do that !!!

**I KNOW what a scientific theory is. I know what an hypothesis is.


** Right now, you do fucking not.

Why not post your idea of the difference.

**No point. Your scientific abilities lie at the same level as ScoMo,
Abbott and Jones. Every one of them is ignorant of basic science. Same
as you.

I am happy to correct your misconceptions in detail, as it will benefit others.

**And yet, you don't.

Buy YOU are beyond any kind of help.

**Uh-huh. Do tell.

BTW:

I'm quite certain you have an untreatable mental illness.

**And what would that be?

My ability to conduct a logical, structured and 100% correct argument
about AGW theory?

One you have had all your life.

**You're a psycho-therapist now?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Xeno]

On 13/4/20 3:29 pm, Phil Allison wrote:

Xeno wrote:


** Listen here, pal.

You are nothing but trolling fuckwit.

You act like you might be a stupid 14 year old.

At best.

So FOAD.


.... Phil


Aw, Gee, I've won a heart! ;-)

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> spewed
the flagrant dishonesty that’s all it can ever manage.

 

[~misfit~]

On 13/04/2020 3:35 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 13/4/20 6:38 am, Phil Allison wrote:
snipped

FYI to all,

I know Trevor Wilson personally and many of his associates.

He is widely treated as an annoying idiot and a joke.

As you can also see from his asinine posts.


......  Phil


Hmmm, I see you in that light.

As do I. Historically perhaps 1 in 100 of Phils posts have been useful to me so I've kept him out
of the bozo bin but lately the signal to noise ratio has dropped significantly.

Trevor on the other hand only ramps up the noise when Phil posts his bullshit. Otherwise his posts
are almost all signal...
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

 

[Clocky]

On 11/04/2020 11:49 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 11/04/2020 9:14 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hej2tsFc17gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2020 1:47 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
Max wrote:

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



** The info on the linked page page is wrong.

That unit is clearly a SMPS ( weighs 75gm ) so is regulated.

Simple transformer based DC adapters have long been excluded by
the MEPS
regulations - permitted only for replacement purposes.

The lack of any amp rating is unhelpful, but I guess from the
price it is at least 1 amp.


It said it is MEPS compliant, whatever that is.


**  MEPS  = Minimum Energy Performance Standard

Essentially a loony Green idea forced on us for insane reasons.

**Not quite. Reducing power consumption results in a reduction in CO2
emissions.

Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.

Bullshit.

**Really? I take it that you disagree with these guys?


www.ipcc.ch

Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?

I'll wait.

Not going to happen.
They will carry their worthless baseless opinions with them into the ground.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/04/2020 12:18 pm, Clocky wrote:

On 11/04/2020 11:49 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/04/2020 9:14 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hej2tsFc17gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2020 1:47 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
Max wrote:

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



** The info on the linked page page is wrong.

That unit is clearly a SMPS ( weighs 75gm ) so is regulated.

Simple transformer based DC adapters have long been excluded by
the MEPS
regulations - permitted only for replacement purposes.

The lack of any amp rating is unhelpful, but I guess from the
price it is at least 1 amp.


It said it is MEPS compliant, whatever that is.


**  MEPS  = Minimum Energy Performance Standard

Essentially a loony Green idea forced on us for insane reasons.

**Not quite. Reducing power consumption results in a reduction in
CO2 emissions.

Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.

Bullshit.

**Really? I take it that you disagree with these guys?


www.ipcc.ch

Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?

I'll wait.




Not going to happen.
They will carry their worthless baseless opinions with them into the
ground.

**Of course. They're idiots, who prefer to listen to Jones, Abbott,
ScoMo and the other scientific illiterates.

Notice how that, when they're presented with facts and data, they resort
to insult?

SOP.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Xeno]

On 14/4/20 1:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 14/04/2020 12:18 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 11/04/2020 11:49 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/04/2020 9:14 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hej2tsFc17gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2020 1:47 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
Max wrote:

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



** The info on the linked page page is wrong.

That unit is clearly a SMPS ( weighs 75gm ) so is regulated.

Simple transformer based DC adapters have long been excluded by
the MEPS
regulations - permitted only for replacement purposes.

The lack of any amp rating is unhelpful, but I guess from the
price it is at least 1 amp.


It said it is MEPS compliant, whatever that is.


**  MEPS  = Minimum Energy Performance Standard

Essentially a loony Green idea forced on us for insane reasons.

**Not quite. Reducing power consumption results in a reduction in
CO2 emissions.

Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.

Bullshit.

**Really? I take it that you disagree with these guys?


www.ipcc.ch

Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?

I'll wait.




Not going to happen.
They will carry their worthless baseless opinions with them into the
ground.



**Of course. They're idiots, who prefer to listen to Jones, Abbott,
ScoMo and the other scientific illiterates.

Notice how that, when they're presented with facts and data, they resort
to insult?

SOP.

That's how most illiterates operate. There's a few classics in aus.cars too.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/04/2020 1:51 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 14/4/20 1:05 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/04/2020 12:18 pm, Clocky wrote:
On 11/04/2020 11:49 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/04/2020 9:14 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:hej2tsFc17gU1@mid.individual.net...
On 1/04/2020 1:47 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
Max wrote:

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



** The info on the linked page page is wrong.

That unit is clearly a SMPS ( weighs 75gm ) so is regulated.

Simple transformer based DC adapters have long been excluded by
the MEPS
regulations - permitted only for replacement purposes.

The lack of any amp rating is unhelpful, but I guess from the
price it is at least 1 amp.


It said it is MEPS compliant, whatever that is.


**  MEPS  = Minimum Energy Performance Standard

Essentially a loony Green idea forced on us for insane reasons.

**Not quite. Reducing power consumption results in a reduction in
CO2 emissions.

Reducing CO2 emissions is critical to the future of our civilisation.

Bullshit.

**Really? I take it that you disagree with these guys?


www.ipcc.ch

Wanna present your alternate (peer-reviewed) theory?

I'll wait.




Not going to happen.
They will carry their worthless baseless opinions with them into the
ground.



**Of course. They're idiots, who prefer to listen to Jones, Abbott,
ScoMo and the other scientific illiterates.

Notice how that, when they're presented with facts and data, they
resort to insult?

SOP.

That's how most illiterates operate. There's a few classics in aus.cars
too.

**Oh yeah. We both know who you're talking about. Funnily enough,
they're AGW deniers too.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Phil Allison]

~misfit~ wrote:

===============

** FYI:

This loon is a know nothing, trolling idiot,