Emission Trading and climate change

Page 141 of 377 FirstFirst ... 41 91 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 191 241 ... LastLast
Results 7,001 to 7,050 of 18819
  1. #7001
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Still can't find any evidence, huh? Why not just use bolder print instead?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    The average global temperature is rising.
    What, right now? Just today? Only the last hundred years? The last thousand? The last ten thousand?

    Tell you what, for people who claim to know all this "sciency stuff", you seem rather bereft of any facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    The temperature rise is real (and not some "diddling of the data") as the sea-level is also rising.
    Again, these are called effects. The bit we're all trying to work out is what's causing them.

    Apologies for those getting bored, but I'll keep explaining it until they get it. Cult busting requires patience.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    It is a case of cause-and-effect: (??? CAUSES) A warmer earth = warmer oceans. Warmer oceans = water expansion = increased volume of water, and ice at the caps melts with warmer temperatures.

    See, once again you miss the whole point.

    Now where did you put that empirical evidence to insert where the question marks are?

    Uh oh, don't have any? That's okay, just insert the opinion of some dude who wrote a computer program that then told him this evidence will "appear" sometime in the future sometime.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    The science on AGW is very settled.
    Wow! "Very" settled now. And you guys used to claim it was just settled. Will it be "extremely" settled next week?

    And if your other claptrap is all you can muster when requested to present empirical evidence, then you obviously don't understand what this is, or there is none. Or both.

  2. #7002
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Now where did you put that empirical evidence to insert where the question marks are?
    Wow! Talk about taking denial to a whole new level. Are you seriously questioning that "warming" equals temperature rise????
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  3. #7003
    Daniel Morgan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    6995 posts on Climate Change and Emission Trading posted on a Renovation Forum for tradesmen and home renovators? That's my evidence.

    Hello, were you born with this line of thinking , or is it the result of an accident?

    I can see you have an extremely well structured scientific statement here in favour of global warming!

    All I can say is I am glad you are on their side and thanks for the fine example of how over schooled people think.

    As I said before - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??

    EDITED BY BEDFORD

  4. #7004
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wonthaggi
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest

    Hello, were you born with this line of thinking , or is it the result of an accident?

    I can see you have an extremely well structured scientific statement here in favour of global warming!

    All I can say is I am glad you are on their side and thanks for the fine example of how over schooled people think.

    As I said before - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??

    EDITED BY BEDFORD
    A silly response don't you think, demand evidence of what? that this is a forum for handymen and renovators how much evidence do you need. As for evidence that the posts lack substance there is ample proof if you wish to read back even if you limit yourself to your own contribution. Perhaps IQ is an accident of birth however choosing to use it is a matter of choice. Lighten up demanding and demeaning comments don't serve any purpose.

  5. #7005
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    It would be good if you actually answered some questions from the original post.
    We all did that ages ago.....but the OP wasn't listening and it was much more fun to sprout nonsense and other vegetables. We've been well fed and entertained ever since.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  6. #7006
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Tell you what, for people who claim to know all this "sciency stuff", you seem rather bereft of any facts.
    As you are (it seems) in your ability to absorb them....

    Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural & man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural solar radiation) within the biosphere.

    Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic....all the tireless efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  7. #7007
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    As you are (it seems) in your ability to absorb them....

    Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural & man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural solar radiation) within the biosphere.

    Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic....all the tireless efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.
    Sorry S&D there is NO proof of this statement, none whatsoever. Just computer models BS in BS out. It is simply what people have chosen to believe. If this statement is fact show us the proof.
    We know temps have risen we know co2 has also risen. We also know that co2 is a very small contributer to the GHG effect. We know water vapour is the main GHG. We know that man's contribution to the Co2 is tiny compared to that produced in nature.

    What we DONT know how much effect mans Co2 emissions has on temperature vs other natural events. At best we have guesswork. Hopefully over time the guesswork will become factual where it can be demonstrated in a way that is understandable to opposing scientists and the general population, (yes there are scientists who reject AGW therory for what it is).

    For crying out loud, without proper scientific evidence to prove this theory, how can anyone be so emphatic that co2 is the main driver of temperature change over the past 100 years, while there are so many other known drivers of temperature, that have a far greater effect than co2.

    It is beyond belief that so many people are sucked into having no doubt that co2 is the culprit.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  8. #7008
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Sorry S&D there is NO proof of this statement, none whatsoever. Just computer models BS in BS out. It is simply what people have chosen to believe. If this statement is fact show us the proof.
    Rod. the temperature rise is an OBSERVATION, not a projection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    We know temps have risen we know co2 has also risen. We also know that co2 is a very small contributer to the GHG effect. We know water vapour is the main GHG. We know that man's contribution to the Co2 is tiny compared to that produced in nature.
    Now it seems that you are accepting that temperatures have risen. What is your definition of "very small"? CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to about 400ppm which is about a 40% increase. Maybe you are confusing the gross and net CO2 production?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    What we DONT know how much effect mans Co2 emissions has on temperature vs other natural events. At best we have guesswork. Hopefully over time the guesswork will become factual where it can be demonstrated in a way that is understandable to opposing scientists and the general population, (yes there are scientists who reject AGW therory for what it is).

    For crying out loud, without proper scientific evidence to prove this theory, how can anyone be so emphatic that co2 is the main driver of temperature change over the past 100 years, while there are so many other known drivers of temperature, that have a far greater effect than co2.
    There is plenty of "proper scientific evidence" to prove that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of the observed temperature rise. Name ONE reputable scientific organisation or body that disbelieves man-made CO2 is the main contributor to the temperature rise.

    Your view isn't supported by the science. Maybe it is time for you to look at why you are so resistant to accepted findings of the science. What is it that really bothers you about AGW?

    A true "sceptic" will look at the evidence and be prepared to change their mind when shown to be wrong. A "denier" will simply shift their point of argument rather than change their view.

    Anyway, most of this thread and discussion is a waste on the likes of deniers such as yourself. Your minds, it seems, are firmly closed (perhaps due to political bias?).

    The rest of the world accepts, or will accept, the AGW theory and move towards change. You can see this change starting to take place all around the world.

    Whilst I admire your resolute on this issue, I certainly don't admire your wisdom.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  9. #7009
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Rod. the temperature rise is an OBSERVATION, not a projection.



    Now it seems that you are accepting that temperatures have risen. What is your definition of "very small"? CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to about 400ppm which is about a 40% increase. Maybe you are confusing the gross and net CO2 production?



    There is plenty of "proper scientific evidence" to prove that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of the observed temperature rise. Name ONE reputable scientific organisation or body that disbelieves man-made CO2 is the main contributor to the temperature rise.

    Your view isn't supported by the science. Maybe it is time for you to look at why you are so resistant to accepted findings of the science. What is it that really bothers you about AGW?

    A true "sceptic" will look at the evidence and be prepared to change their mind when shown to be wrong. A "denier" will simply shift their point of argument rather than change their view.

    Anyway, most of this thread and discussion is a waste on the likes of deniers such as yourself. Your minds, it seems, are firmly closed (perhaps due to political bias?).

    The rest of the world accepts, or will accept, the AGW theory and move towards change. You can see this change starting to take place all around the world.

    Whilst I admire your resolute on this issue, I certainly don't admire your wisdom.
    WTF am I denying?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  10. #7010
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Morgan View Post

    Hello, were you born with this line of thinking , or is it the result of an accident?

    I can see you have an extremely well structured scientific statement here in favour of global warming!

    All I can say is I am glad you are on their side and thanks for the fine example of how over schooled people think.

    As I said before - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE??

    EDITED BY BEDFORD
    I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time.

    Scientists have the knowledge and training to do the research and analyse the results and to come to sound and logical conclusions. A scientist who publish false or fabricated research is condemed by the scientific community for life. They are discredited and lose their reputation. They will not be employed by any respected scientific organisations ever again. There is no second chance for any scientist who publishes false scientific research.

    Other the other hand, radio shock jocks and politicans are prepared to lie about climate change to boost their ratings or political agenda. Radio shock jocks and politicans have a big voice in the community through the medium of radio or parliament and parlimentary press releases. Scientists have a much smaller voice in the community. Their research and conclusions are published in scientific journals to a much smaller scientific community of people.

    Scientific research papers are complex and detailed and thus hard to comprehend by the vast majority of people who are not trained as scientists. Radio shock jocks and politicans take these research papers and reports them selectively in parts and in simplicity terms to the under-educated populace and often draw their own conclusions and ignore the conclusions of the scientists.

    To deny the research of highly qualified scientists is just folly and foolhardy. The term "Lemmings Effect" well and truly describe the current low level and uneducated debate on Climate Change and Emission Trading.

  11. #7011
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    WTF am I denying?
    As I recall, it is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  12. #7012
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time.

    Scientists have the knowledge and training to do the research and analyse the results and to come to sound and logical conclusions. A scientist who publish false or fabricated research is condemed by the scientific community for life. They are discredited and lose their reputation. They will not be employed by any respected scientific organisations ever again. There is no second chance for any scientist who publishes false scientific research.

    Other the other hand, radio shock jocks and politicans are prepared to lie about climate change to boost their ratings or political agenda. Radio shock jocks and politicans have a big voice in the community through the medium of radio or parliament and parlimentary press releases. Scientists have a much smaller voice in the community. Their research and conclusions are published in scientific journals to a much smaller scientific community of people.

    Scientific research papers are complex and detailed and thus hard to comprehend by the vast majority of people who are not trained as scientists. Radio shock jocks and politicans take these research papers and reports them selectively in parts and in simplicity terms to the under-educated populace and often draw their own conclusions and ignore the conclusions of the scientists.

    To deny the research of highly qualified scientists is just folly and foolhardy. The term "Lemmings Effect" well and truly describe the current low level and uneducated debate on Climate Change and Emission Trading.
    Please spare me, how pious
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  13. #7013
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Please spare me, how pious
    I can except that your response comes from a profound resistance to anything that doesn't fit into your comfort zone. The denialist blogs rely on those who want to believe warming does not exist, they are not there to educate just obfiscate. The very fact you write how pious and have studiously avoided answering anything of substance would indicate that political prejudice, fear of change and a disrespect for those who hold an educated view is the driver of your opinion not anything approaching a reasoned and intelligent approach to a problem. The ability to discuss. reason and exchange views is a sign of an active intelligence, continual beligerence and an unwillingness to accept a view other than your own is simply arrogance.

  14. #7014
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    We have had a number of references to cults, which is those on the fringe of religion, the following is an extract written by an Anglican bishop, hardly at the cult end but the comments should be of interest.


    Seek the truth on carbon

    John McIntyre

    August 12, 2011 Opinion




    Illustration: Andrew Dyson.

    The biggest dilemma we face with the carbon tax is that the only package the federal government was able to broker will not deliver the change that is needed. With the mining industry crying poor and the federal opposition seeking to spook the electorate to its own ends, the government has included measures that both placate the mining industry and soothe a fearful electorate. This means the intent to reduce our carbon footprint to any significant degree is severely compromised.
    The best thing that can be said for the carbon tax is that it is a historic necessary beginning that paves the way for a carbon trading scheme. This gives some hope that we will eventually face our responsibilities as a nation by addressing the adverse impact we continue to have on the environment.
    This generation at some point must face its obligation to ensure we leave an inhabitable planet to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Anything less is inexcusable; a selfish dereliction of duty. It is an indictment on us that we have refused to accept our responsibility until it has threatened to hit us in the hip pocket. It is an even greater indictment on us that the only scheme which government has been able to introduce is one that offers so little financial pain that it is limited in its capacity to reduce our impact on the planet.

    Some of the simple facts are these. The reduction target of the current Australian program is 5 per cent by 2020. That is only about half that required to stabilise carbon emissions to the extent necessary to avoid a potentially disastrous temperature rise. Australia generates more carbon pollution per head than any other developed country, thanks to reliance on coal-fired power stations. With a population of 22 million, we are responsible for 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions. By comparison, Britain, with nearly three times the population, produces 1.7 per cent. Australia is one of the world's top 20 carbon polluters.
    When it comes to Gippsland, some of the facts are these. Victoria will receive 97 per cent of the national business compensation package for carbon emissions, essentially because of its dependence on brown coal for power. Hazelwood was supposed to close in 2007. The Gippsland Trades and Labour Council, recognising the closure or conversion to gas of Hazelwood will result in significant job losses, is focusing on attracting new industries into Gippsland.
    The federal government recognises the impact any change to power generation will have in Gippsland and has committed not to abandon us as we address the changes necessary to reduce carbon emissions. This is the reason the Prime Minister visited the Latrobe Valley so early in her campaign to respond to questions about the carbon tax. At the same time, the Electrical Trades Union has opted not to support the tax, not because it does not think there should be a carbon price, but because there is not enough detail in the government's plans to prepare for inevitable job losses in the valley.
    Christians cannot avoid responding to this matter of national and local interest and well-being. In the first place, it is imperative that we deal in the truth. The scare tactics and deceit employed by those raging against the carbon tax need to be resisted. Listen carefully to the facts and respond accordingly. Do not believe what is not true. And do not live in denial of what needs to change to realise a sustainable future.
    Be prepared to respond to the needs of those most affected by the inevitable economic changes that will take place with the introduction of the tax. The communities in Gippsland will face significant change and pain. Efforts being made now by the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council to prepare for this need to be supported, and, as the ETU action indicates, government needs to be held accountable for the commitments it makes to assist those most radically affected.
    Above all, be prepared to think creatively about how we can reduce our over-dependence on consumption. Perhaps the biggest single factor in the human impact on climate change is consumerism. Growth in economic terms has become an assumed right to the point that we fail to confront the negative impact on so many others of our demand for ''more and bigger and better''.
    To focus our minds on these realities, we might contemplate the current drought in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. It is just one example in the current generation of the impact of climate change on those who can least afford it. In what one 70-year-old man in Kenya described as unseen in his lifetime, there has been a three-year period without any rain at all. All the livestock is long gone and crops cannot be produced. Tens of thousands of people are starving and many, mostly small children, are dying even after reaching relief centres, such is the extent of their malnutrition. While we unthinkingly consume more, they die.
    This is just the edge of the potential impact of the ''take without paying, let alone giving back'' mentality of wealthier societies like ours. It is this that prevents us from seeing the price we must pay to take responsibility for our lifestyle and the impact it has on the world in which we live.
    A Christian response is surely to stand in the face of this and say ''enough is enough''. What better place to begin than to recognise the need to pay for and to redress the impact of our lifestyle on the environment and the cost that others pay for our profligacy. And in the meantime, what better response than to support with generosity the appeal for assistance from those countries in the Horn of Africa devastated by famine.
    The Right Reverend John McIntyre is the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland.




    Read more: Carbon Tax

  15. #7015
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I can except that your response comes from a profound resistance to anything that doesn't fit into your comfort zone. The denialist blogs rely on those who want to believe warming does not exist, they are not there to educate just obfiscate. The very fact you write how pious and have studiously avoided answering anything of substance would indicate that political prejudice, fear of change and a disrespect for those who hold an educated view is the driver of your opinion not anything approaching a reasoned and intelligent approach to a problem. The ability to discuss. reason and exchange views is a sign of an active intelligence, continual beligerence and an unwillingness to accept a view other than your own is simply arrogance.
    You guys just dont get it do you. We have presented reasoned arguments against this scam througout the past 7000 posts you guys just want to appeal to a higher authority rather than use your own initiative. Just because "they" say its true does not make it so. The whole deal is falling apart, scientist who dissagree with the AGW theory are rejected out of hand by warmist.

    I will accept others views if they have substance and can be proven, but to call me arrogant just because I will not join your club is in itself arrogant. You are blind to this.

    I find it amusing that you can be so blind to the fact that you and others are more guilty of what you acuse. If you can prove to me tha AGW is real then i will change my mind, but will you?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  16. #7016
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Where have I seen similar amateurish efforts before?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    90% of it highly suspect by volume, you are are completely right, the very fact it exists at this low level indicates the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
    Just subjectively making up a "90%" figure without doing the required research, in order to justify a position entirely lacking credibility.

    I recall a previously inept attempt to do similar.

    Where was that?

  17. #7017
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Surely you aren't that simple?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    that this is a forum for handymen and renovators how much evidence do you need
    Way to go champ, demean the entire forum.

    Cos a lawyer, detective, doctor, biologist, chemist, physicist never did any work around the house and sought to learn from tradies how to do it better?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno62 View Post
    demeaning comments don't serve any purpose.
    And so you are also a hypocrite with no self awareness, as you first demean the entire forum, then criticise the process of demeaning, all in the same post.

    You don't even know what empirical evidence is, do you?

  18. #7018
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Definitely comprehension.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Wow! Talk about taking denial to a whole new level.
    Wow! Talk about taking semantics to a whole new level.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Are you seriously questioning that "warming" equals temperature rise????
    No. I said it is a scientific fact that there is ZERO empirical evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

    If you have any, please post it.

    If not, you and your cult members can just keep chanting the mantra of your opinions.

    Oh yeh, sorry, not your opinions, the opinions of the people you all "believe" are much smarter than you are.

    The new cult members are now telling us we're not even allowed to have an opinion any more? Even after I posted the definition of what an opinion is.

    Are you guys gonna call in the opinion police now?

  19. #7019
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Nice opinion, watch out for the opinion police.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    As you are (it seems) in your ability to absorb them....
    Please post a single piece of empirical evidence relating to this farce that you "believe" I have failed to "absorb".

    Is it part of the cult philosophy to continually criticise the "disbelievers" in order to promote a feeling of unity within?

    I guess when your "beliefs" are based solely on psychic computers and the opinions of your cult leaders, denigrating the realists of the world must provide some comfort.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Temperature is rising as a result of an inbalance between natural & man made GHG emissions and the natural capacity of the biosphere to absorb them which leads to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere which enhances the GHGs otherwise natural contribution towards the atmosphere (as a whole) retaining heat (derived from natural solar radiation) within the biosphere.
    That's a lovely opinion. Shame you've ZERO empirical evidence to prove it.

    But your new breed of cultists said that you're not even allowed to have an opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    The vast majority of people who claim to have an opinion on Climate Change and Emission Trading - DON'T.

    They don't have an opinion because they are not scientists or highly educated to be able to able to analyse and debate the issues rationally. They do not understand scientific principles nor are they able to comprehend a scientific discussions or read scientific research papers.

    Debate on the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading is largely being driving by the under-educated populace.
    I think he's talking to you mate?

    I wouldn't take that if I were you.


    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Whilst the above statement is incredibly simplistic
    Don't be too hard on yourself mate, we've gotten used to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ....all the tireless efforts of the past three decades (or more) by scientists, government agencies, international conglomerates and scientific bodies (of all sorts) to prove it to be fundamentally wrong have come to naught.
    So by your "scientifity", whatever we can't prove does not exist, must actually exist?

    What else do you "scientifise" this about?

    Tooth fairies? Multiple spacetime dimensions? God?

    Should we Aussies alone then also pay TAX to get rid of these as well.

    That's why scientists use empirical evidence champ, cos your "scientifity" just doesn't make sense.

  20. #7020
    Retired Marine Engineer 1K Club Member Ashore's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Newcastle
    Age
    71
    Posts
    1,647

    Default

    JuLIAR addmitted she wasn't an expert on Global Warming .....funny though she knows which experts to believe
    And apparently I posted ROT when I said that water rates would rise due to this Big New Tax on Everything
    Just using google ( which I am sure some here will say is wrong because it shows them to be not telling the truth ) the state governments are forcasting a water rate rise of as much as 10 % due to the Carbon Tax, still what would they know .

    Geno62 has already made the statements
    Blanket statements that all costs will rise are simply not correct, even the rot about water, the electrical power that drives those pumps.
    That is why your water analogy is very wrong
    Also get your hands on some water board accounts and see how much electricity is of total operating costs and then factor in the impact of a carbon price
    in most cases it will be next to nothing as it is a tiny number

    Do you think 10% increase is next to nothing, I don't



    Still if he didn't tell the truth about that .....you have to wonder what else didn't he tell the truth about. Still maybe he's just taking a leaf out of our Temporary Prime Ministers Book
    Ashore




    The trouble with life is there's no background music.

  21. #7021
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Regression is fine for data, not comprehension.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Rod. the temperature rise is an OBSERVATION, not a projection.
    Yes, as has been said over and over again, the OBSERVATION as you put it, is the measurement of an effect. Now we need to work toward finding empirical evidence of the causes.

    The IPCC fairytales are psychic computers "projections" or predictions of the future. These psychic computers have told JuLIAR that our kids and grandkids are going to burn to hell, or drown when the oceans rise, damn psychic computers should just pick one. Or did you actually OBSERVE what our kids and grandkids are doing?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Now it seems that you are accepting that temperatures have risen.
    You're not keeping up mate. The climate changes. It has for 4.5 billion years. This means all components of climate including temperature, rainfall, wind speed, cloud cover, etc. always change. This means it goes up and down over various time frames for various reasons. These are scientific facts. They do not need to be accepted by anyone. Us realists call this reality.

    Your cult "believes" it knows why in the absence of any empirical evidence and you mistake this "belief system" for what you call "the science".

    This is the part where we laugh.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What is your definition of "very small"?
    Oh I could be so cruel.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    CO2 levels have risen from 280ppm to about 400ppm which is about a 40% increase. Maybe you are confusing the gross and net CO2 production?
    See how cults are always fixated about the minutiae and lose their grasp on reality.

    Do you have any idea what water vapour is or how clouds operate?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    There is plenty of "proper scientific evidence" to prove that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of the observed temperature rise. Name ONE reputable scientific organisation or body that disbelieves man-made CO2 is the main contributor to the temperature rise.
    First, organisations or bodies don't have beliefs, the people within them do.

    But you regard the "beliefs" of people who you think are smarter than you to be "scientific evidence"?

    I think we all now see where your cultish confusion stems from.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Your view isn't supported by the science.
    See, here's a demonstration of your confusion. When you say "the science", do you mean:

    (1) Empirical scientific evidence;

    or

    (2) The beliefs or opinions of people who you think are smarter than you.

    If you mean (1) then us realists views are supported by "the science".

    If you mean (2) then we will choose to disagree with the people who you think are smarter than you.

    There are also tens of thousands of scientists in many fields who similarly laugh at the opinions of those people who you think are smarter than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What is it that really bothers you about AGW?
    The same thing that bothers me about Aum Shinrikyo, The People's Temple, Ananda Marga, Orange People, etc. etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    A true "sceptic" will look at the evidence and be prepared to change their mind when shown to be wrong.
    Correct. Where's the empirical evidence? We're all waiting.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Your minds, it seems, are firmly closed (perhaps due to political bias?).
    See the question above? Our minds are firmly open. Why don't you put some empirical evidence in there?

    What our minds are not open to is mind control by ingrates chasing research grants.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The rest of the world accepts, or will accept, the AGW theory and move towards change. You can see this change starting to take place all around the world.
    And you have the nerve to call other people deniers.

    Have you heard what's happening in Durban? Amazing huh, no one else has either.

  22. #7022
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The inanity continues...

    I ignored your first effort on the assumption that you'd snuck in a quick session without adult supervision present, but if you're gonna hang around, welcome aboard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time.
    I know that you don't debate these issues because you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Scientists have the knowledge and training to do the research and analyse the results and to come to sound and logical conclusions.
    See, you've already proved my point. You obviously have not read the IPCC reports.

    And you certainly haven't read this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    A scientist who publish false or fabricated research is condemed by the scientific community for life. They are discredited and lose their reputation. They will not be employed by any respected scientific organisations ever again. There is no second chance for any scientist who publishes false scientific research.
    What if a scientist was so blatantly and monumentally stupid as to ask for the NHST process to be reversed?

    Surely you wouldn't even let them wash the test tubes, let alone give them more funding grants?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Other the other hand, radio shock jocks and politicans are prepared to lie about climate change to boost their ratings or political agenda.
    Yeh, tell me about it. We're together on this one mate.

    Can you believe these idiots call Carbon Dioxide by the label "pollution" to confuse the weak minded that what you are currently breathing out is pollution. JuLIAR does this and condones this. What a LIAR, hey?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Scientific research papers are complex and detailed and thus hard to comprehend by the vast majority of people who are not trained as scientists.
    Feel free to label yourself as ignorant and unintelligent, happy to agree with that wholeheartedly.

    But how about we let others speak for themselves and think for themselves, eh?

    I know this is discordant with your "authority figures" ideology, but give it a go, you may just like democracy.

  23. #7023
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I ignored your first effort on the assumption that you'd snuck in a quick session without adult supervision present, but if you're gonna hang around, welcome aboard.
    Thank you for your warm (climate change) welcome.

    I ignored your previous posts because I mis-read your name as "Dr Fraud".


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I know that you don't debate these issues because you have no idea what you're talking about.
    I repeat: "I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time."


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    See, you've already proved my point. You obviously have not read the IPCC reports.
    I have read some but not all. That was rather presumptuous of you to think otherwise and to jump to that conclusion. That is not thinking with scientific logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    And you certainly haven't read this thread.
    This is thread is not a rational, scientific debate on Climate Change hence my point above, "I repeat: ...".


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    What if a scientist was so blatantly and monumentally stupid as to ask for the NHST process to be reversed?
    At the risk of sounding like Pauline Hanson; "Please explain".


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Surely you wouldn't even let them wash the test tubes, let alone give them more funding grants?
    No, I wouldn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Yeh, tell me about it. We're together on this one mate.
    Yay! We are in AGREEMENT.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Can you believe these idiots call Carbon Dioxide by the label "pollution" to confuse the weak minded that what you are currently breathing out is pollution. JuLIAR does this and condones this. What a LIAR, hey?
    Yes, there are idiots out there as well as the weak minded and under-educated that are part of the "Lemming Effect" in this debate about Climate Change.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Feel free to label yourself as ignorant and unintelligent, happy to agree with that wholeheartedly.
    Scientists are experts in their fields and are ignorant and unintelligent in those fields that they are not. Do you understand quantum physics or string theory?


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But how about we let others speak for themselves and think for themselves, eh?

    I know this is discordant with your "authority figures" ideology, but give it a go, you may just like democracy.
    Australia is a democracy and people are free to speak their minds, however they should do so with some intelligent thoughts and reasonings and not with inane rants.

  24. #7024
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    You guys just dont get it do you. We have presented reasoned arguments against this scam througout the past 7000 posts you guys just want to appeal to a higher authority rather than use your own initiative. Just because "they" say its true does not make it so. The whole deal is falling apart, scientist who dissagree with the AGW theory are rejected out of hand by warmist.

    I will accept others views if they have substance and can be proven, but to call me arrogant just because I will not join your club is in itself arrogant. You are blind to this.

    I find it amusing that you can be so blind to the fact that you and others are more guilty of what you acuse. If you can prove to me tha AGW is real then i will change my mind, but will you?
    You can't lay claim to reasoned arguments when most of your references are from cranks and fools as well as opinion writers who know Jack about the science. Make an effort to show some quality in the references you post and you might gain some respect.

  25. #7025
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You continually claim "the science" yet continually use emotional blackmail instead.

    I haven't got time to refute all of the nonsense in this article, but here's just a few points.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    This gives some hope that we will eventually face our responsibilities as a nation by addressing the adverse impact we continue to have on the environment.
    Can you explain to your friend what "Global" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    This generation at some point must face its obligation to ensure we leave an inhabitable planet to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
    We will. Who's psychic computer prediction said we wouldn't. Does this whacko now "believe" that a computer program is more powerful than his own God, who is now powerless to save Man created in His own image?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Some of the simple facts are these. The reduction target of the current Australian program is 5 per cent by 2020. That is only about half that required to stabilise carbon emissions to the extent necessary to avoid a potentially disastrous temperature rise.
    This nut job actually thinks a 10% reduction in Australia's emissions will avoid a disastrous temperature rise?

    And he calls this a simple fact? And you "believe" him?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Do not believe what is not true.



    So this man has never asked anyone to "believe" or have faith in something?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    In what one 70-year-old man in Kenya described as unseen in his lifetime, there has been a three-year period without any rain at all.
    I recall being taught as a child that it once rained for forty days and forty nights. One dude called Noah actually knew it was coming. And it was John McIntyre's boss that sent the rain on a whim. Can't he just send a few days this time? Not losing the faith are we John?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The scare tactics and deceit employed by those raging against the carbon tax need to be resisted.
    You don't like scare tactics being employed, huh John? I recall being taught regularly as a child about the Hellish and torturous [S]warming[/S] oops, burning end for those blasphemers and disbelievers alike. No wonder you like this cult. Birds of a feather, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    To focus our minds on these realities, we might contemplate the current drought in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. It is just one example in the current generation of the impact of climate change on those who can least afford it.
    I think you and reality parted company a long time ago John. How's this for climate change:

    The summer of 1845 was mild but very wet in Britain. It was almost the perfect weather conditions for the blight to spread. There was a 50% loss of potatoes in this year. Famine had been common in Nineteenth Century Ireland and almost an occupational hazard of rural life in Ireland. But the Great Famine of 1845 eclipsed all others.

    Between 1846 and 1850, the population of Ireland dropped by 2 million which represented 25% of the total population.


    This figure of 2 million can by effectively split in two. One million died of starvation or the diseases associated with the famine and one million emigrated to North America or parts of England, such as Liverpool, and Scotland, such as Glasgow.

    The Great Famine of 1845
    Your ancestors were affected by climate change too John.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The Right Reverend John McIntyre is the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland.
    According to your newest cult member, this man is not fit to have an opinion on this subject anyway.

    And neither are you.

    Do you support your fellow members opinion that you can't have an opinion?

    P.S. Let me reiterate, I fully support any person's right to believe in whatever religion or faith based system they want. But if they try to sell these faith based systems (or ideological opinions) as "scientific" then I will squash them like a bug. I was very gentle above out of respect for other adherents of this traditional faith, but the AGW hypothesis cult will receive no such niceties.



    GONNA PUT ME IN THE MOVIES: BUG BUSTER


  26. #7026
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Local Bookshop

    I was in the local suburban bookshop this afternoon. It is a small independent outfit that stocks a reasonably good range reasonable quality of books. i.e. I get the impression that they only stock the books they think they can sell.

    I was looking through the "science" section and interestingly I saw there were quite a few books on the topic of global warming. I thought I'd do a quick-and-dirty statistical sample.

    On one shelf (covering H-S by author) there were 35 different titles (~50 books in total). Of these, 7 were on the topic of global warming. Of these 7, 2 were on denial (i.e why there is denial - not denial of AGW); about 3 were on the general topic of AGW; and about 2 were 'adaptation guides' (my terminology). None were anti-AGW (i.e. Pilmer's book wasn't on the shelf - maybe it was in 'fiction' or 'religion' sections?).

    Maybe Rod and the Doc should visit a bookshop sometime?


    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  27. #7027
    Daniel Morgan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    6995 posts on Climate Change and Emission Trading posted on a Renovation Forum for tradesmen and home renovators? That's my evidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    That was rather presumptuous of me[sic you]
    Hello, certainly was, and very denigrating too, as it's my understanding that there are quite a few highly schooled people here as members.

    There are also some members that can think for themselves thankfully.

    Yes scientific papers are hard to read and oh so accurate.

    Here's a couple of scientific achievements for you to study.

    Tell that to all the farmers who have unusable land because they sprayed
    with what the government and their scientists told them to - DDT

    DDT and

    Mosquitoes, DDT, and Human Health

    Tell that to all the people who suffered terribly from stomach ulcers because science said that germs/viruses cannot grow in an acid environment.

    http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.htm and

    Helicobacter pylori


    Tell that to all the vietnam vets who got blasted with "mosquito repellent" who now have cancer amongst other things. No links here ....go search the Vietnam Vets associations. there are too many to quote.


    The doctor/scientist who discovered that thalidomide was affecting unborn babies, who years later was discredited for manipulating and falsifying his results with debendox, and got struck off the register! After the event ... and after people got ripped off

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_(doctor)


    So all these issues are caused by scientists, who are the only ones who can interpret and read data ?? These examples are off the top of my head, and I am a person who reads and interprets scientific data. For every scientific paper I have read in favour of, there is another paper against.


    The debate has always been about the reasons for paying a tax (Emission Trading) on disputed science.

    We are now accused of political bias because the scientists have a lack of evidence.

    It is not political bias as has been suggested, as it doesen't matter who's in Government and imposting this tax.

  28. #7028
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    And I'm just the Dumb Administrator.........who has read every post....and still can't understand why people (highly or lowly educated) can't understand the word.

    DEBATE

  29. #7029
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Willco boss.

    I thought this meant you didn't want to debate this issue with us uneducated masses:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    I repeat: "I don't debate the issue of Climate Change and Emission Trading with people because most people simply do not have the facts or are not prepared to listen to sound scientific reasonings and research. To have a debate with such people is a waste of my time."
    Yet here you are "wasting your time", and even asking questions.

    So were you lying before, or are you being a hypocrite now?

    But your questions and statements again show you have not read the thread, yet you freely comment on it's content. Are you psychic? Like the computers?

    But back to your questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    At the risk of sounding like Pauline Hanson; "Please explain".
    If you read the thread, you would already know this answer, but to save you "wasting" your precious time, you can start here:

    Warmists: 'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules' – Telegraph Blogs

    Then when you're as ignorant and uneducated as the rest of us, then we can start the debate in earnest, assuming you are debating contrary to your own statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    Do you understand quantum physics or string theory?
    Sure do.

    If you had read the thread, you would know that we have already touched upon these topics several times. Not bad for a bunch of tradies, eh?

    But if you want to debate the areas of contention in these fields, feel free to start another thread and we can go for it.

    But how about you first read the ETS thread, then when you are up to speed, we can debate the subject as suggested above, rather than continue with your bizarre "I don't debate" debate?

  30. #7030
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The good Mr Bolt liked McIntyre's work too.

    The Age seeks an expert to write on global warming and the drought in Africa. Naturally, it turns to John McIntyre, the Anglican Bishop of Gippsland, whose grip on the science is so sound that he thinks Australia can stop the whole planet from warming with just a little extra cut to its emissions:

    The reduction target of the current Australian program is 5 per cent by 2020. That is only about half that required to stabilise carbon emissions to the extent necessary to avoid a potentially disastrous temperature rise.
    Wow. Who knew that our sacrifices down here could save everyone else? In fact, that they could stop a drought in Africa:


    To focus our minds on these realities, we might contemplate the current drought in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. It is just one example in the current generation of the impact of climate change on those who can least afford it.
    I doubt there’s a single scientist who’d blame that drought on our emissions, but the bishop has found a peer-reviewed expert to back him up:
    In what one 70-year-old man in Kenya described as unseen in his lifetime, there has been a three-year period without any rain at all.
    That’s enough proof for the bishop. But I suspect that his 70-year-old Kenyan is suffering Alzheimer’s:

    But how can a bishop resist that old hairshirt message, so beloved of Marxists and a certain kind of Christian, that the wealth of one must have been stolen from the other:
    While we unthinkingly consume more, they die.
    The Age’s climate expert and his peer reviewed Kenyan | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Don't you just love the facts.

  31. #7031
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The ice is, well, still there.


    Warmists, having heard those predictions of vanishing ice at the Arctic, start rowing:
    Scots adventurer Jock Wishart is mounting an expedition to the Magnetic North Pole (as certified in 1996) to highlight the already dramatic effect of climate change on the ice around the Polar Regions.
    As they say:
    Only recently has it been possible to consider rowing to the 1996 Magnetic North Pole. This is due to the recognised trend of retreating sea ice over the past 30 years.
    Hmm. But the curious route they’ve taken suggests a certain icy flaw in their plans:


    So there’s ice - lots more of it than they thought. The rowers will not be daunted:

    Some people may have discouraging things to say about this expedition.
    We ask our followers NOT to comment or reply on skeptic’s posts. Ignore them. This does not mean these concerns are being ignored.
    Still, it’s odd that they hadn’t leaned from previous expeditions by warmists convinced the Arctic was turning into another Mediterranean (links at the link):
    Yet another alarmist is nearly killed by global warming hysteria:
    Tom Smitheringale ... was on his way to the North Pole, alone, when he fell through an ice sheet. He was close to death when he was miraculously rescued by Canadian soldiers… He wrote on his website: “Had a bad fall into the ice today and came very close to the grave.” ...
    Smitheringale had intended, in fact, to demonstrate we’re in the grip of global warming:
    Part of the reason Tom’s One Man Epic is taking place now is because of the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps… Some scientists have even estimated that the polar ice cap will have entirely melted away by 2014!

    Last year it was Pen Hadow and his team who had to be rescued from their global warming stunt:

    Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.
    The year before, eco-adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh was similarly thwarted:
    August 30, 2008, from the BBC: Lewis Pugh plans to kayak 1200km (745 miles) to the North Pole to raise awareness of how global warming has melted the ice sheet . . . This year, for the first time, scientists predict that the North Pole could briefly be ice-free and that has inspired Mr Pugh . . .
    September 6, 2008, from Reuters:
    Pugh’s kayak trip ended at 81 degrees north, about 1000km from the Pole. (A) barrier of sea ice . . . eventually blocked his route north . . .
    And the year before that, alarmists Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen paid the price for thinking the Arctic was warmer than it actually is:

    February 26, 2007, from PRNewswire: On March 4, world-renowned polar explorers and educators Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen will embark on a historic 75-day expedition to the North Pole and beyond to raise awareness of global warming’s impact on the fragile Arctic.
    March 12, 2007, from AP:
    Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen . . . called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment . . . “They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,” (spokesman Ann) Atwood said.
    (Via Watts Up With That, which has lots of juicy more.)

    Who’d have thought there’d still be ice at the Arctic? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    Make the pilgrimage?

    Cult!

  32. #7032
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    Tell that to all the farmers who have unusable land because they sprayed
    with what the government and their scientists told them to - DDT

    DDT and

    Mosquitoes, DDT, and Human Health

    Tell that to all the people who suffered terribly from stomach ulcers because science said that germs/viruses cannot grow in an acid environment.

    http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.htm and

    Helicobacter pylori


    Tell that to all the vietnam vets who got blasted with "mosquito repellent" who now have cancer amongst other things. No links here ....go search the Vietnam Vets associations. there are too many to quote.


    The doctor/scientist who discovered that thalidomide was affecting unborn babies, who years later was discredited for manipulating and falsifying his results with debendox, and got struck off the register! After the event ... and after people got ripped off

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_(doctor)

    I am well aware of the above cases that you pointed out plus many more. However, science and scientists have done so much for the advancement and benefit of mankind. Human lives longer and better life because of scientific research into medical procedures, pharmaceuticals, disease diagnosis, control and erradication.

    As in all aspects of life and professions there will always be some rogue elements that do the wrong thing. So what is your point in raising the above cases?

    As for the claim that Climate Change science is a disputed science. It is only disputed because some people chooses to ignore the scientific research and facts because -

    1. They don't comprehend the science, the research and conclusions.
    2. It is contrary to their own opinons or beliefs.
    3. They are pushing their own agenda.
    4. They have been influenced by others less educated, non-scientists.
    5. They choose to ignore sound scientific research and conclusions.
    6. They are just obstinate or lemmings.

  33. #7033
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Another disastrous program on the way.

    Not happy with the insulation debacle, the live cattle debacle, the school halls debacle and the soon to be Carbon Dioxide Tax debacle, now JuLIAR want's to destabilise our property market:

    A NEW green scheme threatens to wipe tens of thousands of dollars from the market price of energy-guzzling old homes and McMansions.

    Experts said there would be significant financial implications for owners of these homes - either spend up on going green or face the prospect of a lower sale price.


    A federal government study into a similar ACT scheme operating since 1999, which rates properties out of 10 stars, found a one-star difference affected selling prices by 3 per cent.
    If mirrored in Melbourne, a one-star variation would equal $17,700 - based on the REIV's median house price of $590,000, as reported in June. A three-star variation would equal $53,100.


    Choice head of campaigns Matt Levey said homes that were energy inefficient would cost more to run, but star-rating models have been criticised for failing to factor in actual consumption, leading to questions about whether the changes will even cut power use.

    Threat to rip tens of thousands of dollars off old homes and McMansions | Perth Now
    So overnight, properties can lose around 10% of their value because some morons in Canberra come up with some arbitrary bureaucratic green dream scheme rating system.

    What about some poor first home buyer with a 5% deposit that now wants or needs to sell?

    What will this do for consumer confidence?

    This government is so inept that it is now impossible to quantify.

  34. #7034
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Why shouldn't properties have a condition report? even if that extends to the cost of heating etc after all is there much difference between the cost of rates, water, body corporate fees etc and costs incurred to heat and cool? Seems reasonable as would an electrical and plumbing inspection.

  35. #7035
    Daniel Morgan
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    I am well aware of the above cases that you pointed out plus many more.
    Hello, for the benefit of the uneducated, could you list some of the other scientific failures.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    So what is your point in raising the above cases?
    That the science is not always right.
    You can help by identifying the additional cases that you are aware of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack-the-Hammer View Post
    As for the claim that Climate Change science is a disputed science. It is only disputed because some people chooses to ignore the scientific research and facts because -
    There are a lot of scientific failures, as you are well aware.

  36. #7036
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Carbon Dioxide Tax modelling?

    They can't predict a budget position one year into the future with no major policy changes:

    Julia Gillard, August 2010, says there are no ifs about it:
    PM: Mr Abbott couldn’t tell you when the Budget would come back to surplus. Well I can: the Budget will be back in surplus in 20113 if I’m re-elected, if my Government is re-elected on Saturday. ...
    JOURNALIST: If you don’t make a, get the Budget back in to surplus in 2012-2013, this is a question to both of you, the cameras are on – will you resign?
    PM: (laughs) The Budget is coming back to surplus, no ifs no buts it will happen.
    Gillard in November 2010 is adamant:
    Gillard in May 2011 says it really is a promise:
    We’ll bring the budget to surplus in 2012-13, exactly as promised… The budget will come back to surplus in 2012-13; we’ve worked hard to make the responsible decisions to get that done.
    But suddenly an iron-clad promise isn’t any more:


    JULIA Gillard has toned down the government’s hardline rhetoric on returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13 but said she still had an “expectation” of achieving the surplus, despite this week’s financial market meltdown…

    “Standing here, I can certainly say to you it’s our expectation that the budget will return to surplus in 2012-13,” she said.

    You must forgive them. Who would have thought that, having blown a massive surplus on junk, the Government would be left with bare cupboards in a downturn?



    It’s just not fair, the way reality won’t cooperate with Labor’s idle dreams.

    No ifs or buts, a Gillard promise is worthless | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Yet they want you to TRUST that they know what the entire economic impact of a massive economy wide Carbon Dioxide Tax will have, down to the cent!

    From the same people who wasted billions of dollars and ended up killing 4 people and burning down hundreds of houses just trying to run a ceiling insulation scheme.

    From the same people who are currently wasting billions of dollars in ludicrous border protection schemes including buying 4000 innocent people from Malaysia in some quasi-sanctioned people buying program.

    Economic idiocy, yet asking for your trust for more economic lunacy.

    For absolutely ZERO environmental difference.

    They are idiots. But who put them there?

  37. #7037
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I thought this meant you didn't want to debate this issue with us uneducated masses:
    I'm not debating the issue of for or against Climate Change or Emission Trading. And, I didn't know you were one of the under-educated populace, I thought you were an highly educated medical or PhD Dr.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Yet here you are "wasting your time", and even asking questions.

    So were you lying before, or are you being a hypocrite now?
    I am not wasting my time because I am not debating the issue of Climate Change or Emission Trading and therefore I am not lying or being a hypocrite.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But your questions and statements again show you have not read the thread, yet you freely comment on it's content. Are you psychic? Like the computers?
    As I posted earlier, I have not read the thread because it is not a rational, scientific debate on the issue of Climate Change or Emission Trading and because of this I do not intend to read it through.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But back to your questions:

    If you read the thread, you would already know this answer, but to save you "wasting" your precious time, you can start here:

    Warmists: 'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules' – Telegraph Blogs

    Then when you're as ignorant and uneducated as the rest of us, then we can start the debate in earnest, assuming you are debating contrary to your own statements.
    As I said earlier, I have not read the thread and therefore I asked you to "Please explain".


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Sure do.

    If you had read the thread, you would know that we have already touched upon these topics several times. Not bad for a bunch of tradies, eh?
    YOU UNDERSTAND "STRING THEORY"? Oh, please explain because I don't understand it at all. I have tried to understand it by reading "String Theory for Dummies" but I still cannot get it. I do know it is not about string lines between posts when putting up a new fence. The Basic Elements of String Theory - For Dummies


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But if you want to debate the areas of contention in these fields, feel free to start another thread and we can go for it.
    Please feel free to comment on my post in the Tool section re: Pole Chainsaw Pruner.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But how about you first read the ETS thread, then when you are up to speed, we can debate the subject as suggested above, rather than continue with your bizarre "I don't debate" debate?
    I repeat; I don't debate Climate Change or Emission Trading. See my earlier post for the reason.

  38. #7038
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Just a little interjection here on science/scientists/and governments....both persuasions.

    Find George Lugg....scientist.........(try any Search engine).....sent to evaluate any damage to personnel at Maralinga. George's answer..."Nope....she'll be right"
    Later Sent to Innisfail on Project Desert.....the use of Agent Orange in Innisfail.George's answer..."Nope....she'll be right"
    Later sent to Vietnam to evaluate the effects of Agent Orange. George's answer..."Nope....she'll be right"

    I worked for George in the 50's...and he was IMHO a raging d ickhead.

    Yet.......all Governments since (of both persuasions) have used George's reports to deny compensation to Maralinga and Vietnam Agent Orange victims. And Still do.

    My point is:

    Scientists may be right.....may be wrong. In George's case....WRONG
    Governments use of Science....and what scientist say...........is always used to the benefit of the policy that the Government is trying to force down our throats. (or take from our pockets).

    I think the Scientists in this case ..(Global Warming).....are right......but the Government taking money out of our pockets or industries' pockets in this country to combat a global problem is about as effective as mammary glands on a chicken's back.

    Science has answers to the problem we are facing.....its just buggered up by the misuse of that information by Governments.

    Now I'll just bugger off back into my under-educated Admin role.

    That'll cost you all ..two cents.

  39. #7039
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default And you people think we make this Watermelon stuff up.

    No link at all, huh?

    The carbon tax fits Gillard to a T because it matches the policy calls she promoted in the early 1990s as she was about to emerge on the national political stage as a very left-wing MP.

    For example, one of the Gillard (editorial committee) titles, The Greening of the Red, a recipe for left-wing totalitarian control via environmental activism, calls for re-regulating the exchange rate, reintroducing tariffs and reducing imports and foreign investment.

    In view of Gillard and the Greens' recent stirring about the media that coincided with disagreeable (to them) coverage, it is wise to heed what Gillard and others in the Socialist Forum wanted the media to look like in this country.

    They advocated public funding for media outlets to be run by co-ops and community groups rather than businesspeople, on a non-profit basis.

    The following quote reveals the extent of social engineering these lefties believe in: "Mechanisms which have been proposed for value change range from enhancement of 'green' education to revival of those religions which respect Nature.

    "Fundamental reconstruction is required in our cultural consciousness and information systems for the longer term, though beginning as soon as governments can be talked into commencing the necessary reforms." (Page 120, The Greening of the Red)

    There are absurd offerings, such as the recommendation to put duties on luxury goods, energy imports and "products deemed unnecessarily consumerist".

    Their wish list includes an overseas shipping line, restrictions on new loan raising by private (and public) enterprise, directional control over the investments of financial institutions and no tax concessions for corporate debt.

    These are the economic prescriptions advocated by Gillard and her socialist chums. They were ridiculous then, as they are ridiculous now.

    Australians are scratching their heads to work out how we have arrived at our current destination: a nanny-state land where competitiveness is eroded by taxes, public funds are disastrously wasted and the Greens rule, not OK.

    The real Julia is true to her socialist forum past | The Australian
    Gee, I wonder where the Carbon Dioxide Tax came from?

  40. #7040
    Member Jack-the-Hammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere in Oz, just in case the lunatic comes after me.
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Gee, Watson you beat me to it. I was going to cite the cases of Australian troops being use as human guinea pigs at the Maralinga atomic testing and for the Agent Orange testing for Daniel. Cheez! I feel I have been deprived of a good reply.

    Anyway, there many other cases of human guinea pigs being use in experiments. This is a link to one relating to the US government and military. A History Of US Secret Human Experimentation Please take note, Daniel.

  41. #7041
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    That'll cost you all ..two cents.
    I thought we were trading in Tim Tams on this thread???
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  42. #7042
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default They have no idea what they're doing.

    These clowns are just making this up as they go along:

    AT FIRST it was thought the carbon tax would apply to 1000 of Australia's biggest polluters, then it was 500, and now the climate change department says it's "more like 400".

    Julia Gillard originally said the price would be paid by the top 1000 polluters in the country.

    “(Now) the number of emitters that we think will be covered is more in the order of more like 400.”


    Mr Comley was giving evidence in Canberra to a parliamentary inquiry into the proposed carbon tax.


    But the 400 figure is somewhat rubbery.


    Counting down: the shrinking carbon tax | The Australian
    Given all these changes combined with the massive economic uncertainty in currently in Australia and globally, it would probably make sense to ensure The Treasury was regularly consulted about implementation, to ensure maximum chance of success?

    Earlier, it was revealed the federal government had not sought advice from Treasury as to whether it should reconsider introducing a carbon tax next year given the current global market turmoil.


    Liberal senator Mathias Cormann asked Treasury officials if the department had been asked to provide advice on whether the start date should be reconsidered “given current global and financial circumstances”.


    Senior official David Gruen told the parliamentary inquiry the answer to that question was “No”.
    Rubbery figures.

    Flying in the dark.

    During massive economic uncertainty.

    From a proven incompetent government.

    It should go off without a hitch, eh?

  43. #7043
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    Hello, for the benefit of the uneducated, could you list some of the other scientific failures. That the science is not always right.
    You can help by identifying the additional cases that you are aware of.


    There are a lot of scientific failures, as you are well aware.
    I think you are on the wrong track, science as you put it is continually evolving, some things are certain others are uncertain while we lack complete information. Watsons example is a good one, there are some who are simply wrong, through ineptitude or an incorrect conclusion.

    The science of climate change is one where some things are quite certain, quite a lot is becoming clearer and eventually if we act soon enough those working to resolve the imbalances will give us the information we need to make the right decissions. However now at this time we know we have to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce to give earths balancing mechanisms a chance.

    We all have to decide if we are going to act like scared little leemings and follow those like Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Lord Monckton and other non scientists or put our faith in the scientific community and use that information to make the decisions necessary. The main point I would ask you to ponder is that enviromental improvements usually lead to more efficient manufacturing processes and as a result cheaper production. We are currently at the pointy end with resistance to change quite high but as long as the political climate remains stable there is every reason to expect that the fear of change some feel will pass and eventually we will see acceptance. This is probably the next technological shift and those countries that ride that wave will make a lot of money from the processes developed.

  44. #7044
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default They hate being asked about "the science", don't they.

    There seems to be a pattern of late that all the people who "believe" in this farce continually refuse to debate any aspect of it, especially their so called "science".

    Why is this? Is it because they know they're on the verge of full public ridicule?

    IF you read the Gillard government's $4 million mail-out last week about what a carbon price means for you, one lingering question remains unanswered. How will a carbon tax on the Australian economy combat global warming?

    But not once does the government inform us by how much the carbon tax will reduce global temperatures. The reason for the silence is simple. The carbon tax will make no difference to global temperatures.

    And that explains why the debate about a carbon tax is far from over.

    Far better than the government's 18-page spin document, real information was forthcoming when the Spectator Australia magazine and the Institute of Public Affairs conducted an Oxford-style debate where the motion was "a carbon tax is needed to combat global warming".

    Perhaps Lawson's rational analysis of global warming and the carbon tax explains why the usual taxpayer-funded talking heads, who support a carbon tax, declined to front the debate. Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and gung-ho Greens leader Bob Brown and his deputy, Christine Milne, were busy. So was Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery, paid handsomely by taxpayers to convince us that we need to combat global warming. So was Ross Garnaut and climate scientist Will Steffen , who sits on the Prime Minister's Independent Climate Change Committee. So was climate change propagandist Clive Hamilton. Even head GetUp! guy Simon Sheikh was unavailable.

    Arguing in favour of a carbon tax was former Liberal leader John Hewson, climate scientist Ben McNeill and former Labor leader Mark Latham.

    When the climate scientist rose to speak in favour of a carbon tax, McNeill told the audience he would not talk about the science. The audience murmured a quiet "huh?". And herein lies the problem. The climate change scientists prefer not to engage dissenters about the science.

    Carbon debate has just begun | The Australian
    Imagine that? Scientists who won't even discuss their "science" with the public because it has so little credibility that it cannot even stand up to the scrutiny of a public forum.

    But they keep coming back for more funding.

  45. #7045
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,403

    Default

    As I posted earlier, I have not read the thread because it is not a rational, scientific debate on the issue of Climate Change or Emission Trading and because of this I do not intend to read it through.

    You're right there, it's mostly nothing but a collection of cut and pastes from the Murdoch press and a few denier blogs, there is no meaningful posts that contain any scientific discussion at all.

  46. #7046
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More failed green dream schemes.

    This is apparently already "commercially viable" according to the definitionally challenged:

    THE firm behind geothermal energy in Geelong has reaffirmed the credentials of the project despite multi-million dollar government grants going begging due to a lack of private investment.

    On Monday Greenearth was one of four geothermal companies to announce it had passed up the Federal Government's funding offer because it was unable to secure matching amounts from the private sector.


    Due to the expiration of Canberra's Geothermal Drilling Program, the Gillard Government rolled over the untapped money into the $126 million Emerging Renewables fund for hot-rock, wind and solar projects.


    Geothermal company vows to carry on | Geelong, VIC, Australia
    A RADICAL plan to power campus airconditioning and heating from hot aquifers under the University of Western Australia has collapsed after the company at the centre of the project pulled out yesterday.

    The Green Rock Energy company said it could not meet federal government demands to raise $7 million to match commonwealth funding for the project in the current economic times.

    The university told The Australian it was disappointed the project was dead, but would continue its acclaimed geothermal research despite the setback.

    $16m geothermal cooling plan collapses | The Australian
    More wasted taxpayer money!

    Let's just keep throwing money at failed green dream schemes and surely some magical baseload power source will just appear before we shut down our fossil fuel energy sources?

  47. #7047
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What is the rest of the world really doing?

    Aussies should look forward to going this alone:


    Not Joining-in

    China questions the role of man-made CO2 in determining climate effects and is now the largest CO2 emitter, having surpassed the USA in 2006, and is now greater than the USA by more than 40%. China completes a new coal-fired power plant each week. China has made the gesture of being willing to link the intensity of its emissions to be dependent on its GDP growth. In effect this is no concession at all [3].


    India has set up its own climate institute to re-examine the claims and policy recommendations made by the IPCC and grew its emissions by ~9% in 2009. It too has said that it will comply with the intensity criterion. Also in effect this is no concession at all.


    The well-developed nations Russia, Canada and Japan have already withdrawn support for the Kyoto accord.


    Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia are the larger developing nations do not support action on Man-made Global Warming, and they will continue their rapid growth of CO2 emissions.


    The “Rest of the World” (200+ Nations), ~19% of world CO2 emissions and ~40% of the world population, mainly consist of some 200+ underdeveloped or developing nations. They are not interested in limiting their emissions nor in restricting their slowly improving standards of living. But they are expecting to be the financial beneficiaries at the expense of the ‘developed nations’ of the ‘western Climate Change process’.


    In the USA the Republican congress, is re-examining:

    • the scientific inconsistencies of the Man-made Global Warming assertion
    • the reliance of the Environmental Protection Agency on the reports of the UN IPCC
    • and thus to terminate any USA response to mitigate Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    • The USA congress has just mandated that all support for “Green” international activities should be terminated[4].

    A failure to commit by USA adds about 18% to the current world emissions not falling under the influence of any CO2 controls. The withdrawal of the USA would then mean that about 85% of world emissions and 92% of the world population were no longer involved in any action on controlling CO2.
    Joining-in

    An opt-out by the USA leaves the European Union, Australia and New Zealand isolated in their continuing adherence to the Man-made Global Warming assertion.
    It is only in the EU, (including the UK, ~1.7% of World CO2 emissions or ~11% of EU emissions), as well as Australia and New Zealand where their governments have committed action on CO2 into legislation.
    These isolated nations are about 8% of the world population and only~14% of the world’s CO2 emissions at present.


    The failure of universal action entirely negates the unilateral action of any individual nation.


    So the realistic apparent position based on current published CO2 emissions is shown below.




    Worldwide CO2 emissions and the futility of any action in the West | Watts Up With That?
    But we'll feel really good about ourselves sitting in the dark, having short cold showers and sleeping with our pets to keep warm.

    While China and India burn all our coal at will to become even bigger economic powerhouses.

  48. #7048
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    THE firm behind geothermal energy in Geelong has reaffirmed the credentials of the project despite multi-million dollar government grants going begging due to a lack of private investment.

    On Monday Greenearth was one of four geothermal companies to announce it had passed up the Federal Government's funding offer because it was unable to secure matching amounts from the private sector.


    Due to the expiration of Canberra's Geothermal Drilling Program, the Gillard Government rolled over the untapped money into the $126 million Emerging Renewables fund for hot-rock, wind and solar projects.


    Geothermal company vows to carry on | Geelong, VIC, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    More wasted taxpayer money!
    Huh? The money was "untapped" - how is that a "waste"? They didn't manage to match, so they didn't get any government money.

    Are you letting your political bias cloud your reading comprehension as well as your understanding of science?
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  49. #7049
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The world's largest economy.

    That was then:

    You've heard it before, but it's worth repeating as a reminder of just how puffed-up Barack Obama got back in 2008:
    I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment--this was the time--when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.
    What's he talking about now:

    Yesterday the president gave a speech in Holland, Mich. Get a load of the headlines it generated:
    New York Times: "Obama Urges Voters to Scold Republicans"

    Associated Press: "Obama: Something Is Wrong With Country's Politics"

    Los Angeles Times: "Obama to GOP: Put Country Before Party"

    CNN: "President Obama: 'I'm Frustrated' "

    Washington Post: "Obama to America: You Must Pressure Congress to Pivot to Jobs"

    The Hill: "Obama Grasps for Anti-Washington Anger"

    Like a leaky balloon, Barack Obama keeps getting smaller. "The president is declaring to the world that he is simply too weak to govern,"

    The Great Deflation - WSJ.com
    He promised to change the way the entire Planet Earth functions.

    Now he can't even change the minds of a few politicians in the USA.

    And JuLIAR says the USA will follow if we act first. Sure thing JuLIAR, they'll raise their debt ceiling again from $17 trillion to $20 trillion, just to invest in useless windmills. Not like they've got other economic issues to contend with, huh?

  50. #7050
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Aussies should look forward to going this alone:
    ALONE???? Are you uninformed or are you being deliberately deceptive?



    Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

Page 141 of 377 FirstFirst ... 41 91 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 191 241 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •