hutch Posted March 20, 2011 and an email attachment Oh no...you have used a link from Tim Blair.....he doesn't agree with AGW or a carbon dioxide tax.....woody will be upset...You are only allowed to quote from members of the IPCC or from the list of scientists that woody has in his top pocket... You will get a warn point if you keep it up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hutch Posted March 20, 2011 You work it out hutch. Unfortunately I know from bitter experience in trying to educate you, that you do not know how to find (or even to read) material that gives the background to the ideology behind the nutjobs who reinforce your own subjective beliefs. I also know that you are resistant to following links that are provided for you so that you do not have to find them yourself. So I've made it easy for you - take just one tour and visit Joe Romm, who has a PhD in physics himself, and who has a reasonable summary of Muller's derailment on this subject. I suspect that you won't make it to the end. And I suspect that if by some miracle you did, you'd not be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Your style is to shoot from the hip first (and stuff asking the questions later) at anything in a fluoro jacket, because dammit it's a duck and if it's not who gives a fuck? That strategy might help with your swagger, but it does nothing for your understanding of supportable fact. But whilst we're talking about fact, let's have look at the fact of the "hide the decline" meme, which was the subject of Muller's high dudgeon. The short of it is that Muller misrepresents the facts behind the matter. If you read through these links (which I'm sure that I've posted before...), you'll discover that the reasons for the tree-ring divergence, and the very fact of separating it out of the graph and superimposing the instrumental record, are actually explicitly given in the paper. Contrary to what Muller says, this is peer-reviewed, and scientifically justifiable because the methodology is explicitly provided. Further, the divergence that causes the post 1960s discrepancy is confined only to some tree-ring proxies, and to none of the non-tree-ring, independent proxies, of which there are many, by the way... This has a number of profound implications, but I will leave it to you to tell us what they might be - I'm curious to see if you can apply logic to the situation. The whole trouble with this subject is that no denialist seems to read the actual paper (or the many subsequent papers that corroborate it) and to cotton on to the underlying fact that there is no scandal. Muller, in his display of petulant umbrage, is obviously counting on this to be the case. If the previous link has too many other linkies for you, perhaps you can settle for a single page that outlines the background. I suspect, hutch, that if the solution to global warming involved having more sex, you'd have a very different ideological response to the science. Your current response seems to involve confabulating the science with the solutions, and as I have said repeatedly the science simply says what the problem is, and not what choice humans should make to address the problem. If the solutions were those that you liked it would probably be a very different story, and you'd probably be much happier in separating the actual data from the disinformation... And seriously, you need to do better than to use Andrew Bolt as your source of science. Bolt's latest effort is to claim that radiation is good for you; that it will reduce cancer risk. same old same old again....insults and slander...and you call yourself a scientist...wouldn't make a scientists arse hole... Oh hang on...yes you would... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hutch Posted March 20, 2011 And seriously, you need to do better than to use Andrew Bolt as your source of science. Bolt's latest effort is to claim that radiation is good for you; that it will reduce cancer risk. How about we have a proper look...Andrew Bolt said nothing except "Ann Coulter says the low levels of radiation emitted by the Fukushima reactor may even be good for the Japanese:" and then followed the article...notice your link is just another opinion piece by another scientist who gets a little huffy at AB for not conforming....you little slanderer you... Oh thats right, your only allowed to read what you say is ok.....cause only your right.... The article... Ann Coulter says the low levels of radiation emitted by the Fukushima reactor may even be good for the Japanese: As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of scientists believe that at some level—much higher than the minimums set by the U.S. government—radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times said, that " these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural defense mechanisms ." Among the studies mentioned by the Times was one in Canada finding that tuberculosis patients subjected to multiple chest X-rays had much lower rates of breast cancer than the general population. And there are lots more! A $10 million Department of Energy study from 1991 examined 10 years of epidemiological research by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health on 700,000 shipyard workers, some of whom had been exposed to 10 times more radiation than the others from their work on the ships' nuclear reactors. The workers exposed to excess radiation had a 24 percent lower death rate and a 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the non-irradiated workers.... In 1983, a series of apartment buildings in Taiwan were accidentally constructed with massive amounts of cobalt 60, a radioactive substance. After 16 years, the buildings' 10,000 occupants developed only five cases of cancer. The cancer rate for the same age group in the general Taiwanese population over that time period predicted 170 cancers. The people in those buildings had been exposed to radiation nearly five times the maximum "safe" level according to the U.S. government. But they ended up with a cancer rate 96 percent lower than the general population. Bernard L. Cohen, a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, compared radon exposure and lung cancer rates in 1,729 counties covering 90 percent of the U.S. population. His study in the 1990s found far fewer cases of lung cancer in those counties with the highest amounts of radon—a correlation that could not be explained by smoking rates. Thats how you win debates....knock down your opposition whether right or not.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hutch Posted March 21, 2011 How much radiation would you get from standing for a day in a town near the Fukushima plant?And how much would that represent of what’s thought to represent a health risk? This diagram explains the relative risk - and why the screaming, braying, lying, hyperventilating, fabricating, panicking media coverage is probably likely to kill you first instead. Here’s a detail: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanika Posted March 21, 2011 No matter what you believe, I think all of us wish for and can help create a cleaner future. It's not all about global warming... Los Angeles New Dehli Cairo Beijing Mexico City Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Santiago Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hutch Posted March 21, 2011 Thats not in dispute... will a tax on us solve the problem? I don't live or have any desire to go any where near a dirty stinking city unless I have too.. One of the first things that improved when I tree changed was my asthma.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanika Posted March 21, 2011 You are right Botanika but a tax will not help anyone outside of the politicians. I don't know if it's that black and white. That's like saying smoking tax and laws have ONLY helped politicians or that campaigns to reduce speeding ONLY help police revenue. Naturally I would rather see the tax on the heavy industries that support the markets and majority of emissions but if there is an environmental price to pay we are all going to eventually cop it - whether by tax or environmental degradation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FancyPants Posted March 21, 2011 Why shouldn't we as end-users pay something in exchange for digging up irreplacable fuel/resources? Like I said before, industry (and particularly the biggest net profit earners), and those who profit from it directly (ie CEOs, Board of Directors etc) shouldn't be passing off all the tax down to us, but I certainly don't think we shouldn't pay nothing for it. We're in a far better position economically to implement such taxes than other countries. Those other countries should be doing their bit for the environment, too, whether that means they should limit reproduction rates or whatever is in their power to do, we all need to do our bit. It's incredibly childish to just sit back with our thumbs up our butts waiting for someone else to make the first move. It's only going to get exponentially more expensive the longer we leave it, Global Warming or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
botanika Posted March 21, 2011 Your view, I accept it, but to me it is black and white, Aussies need to standup and say NO, Eureka Stockade 2 my friend, we need to fight the system but this time do it right. Hemp stockade... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mac Posted March 21, 2011 you have to admit a tax will cut our (the everyday publics) emissions but it defeats the purpose if big commercial company's (or those who can afford it) can simply buy carbon credits to pollute as much as their bank balance & profits will allow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted March 21, 2011 Where's the smog in the LA photo? At the back? The tax is a sham, I am not saying we don't need to do something to make this place better but the TAX is a SHAM. Don't think for onr minute that they haven't carefully worded everything they say to get the largest number of people into an accepting frame of mind, they have, Don't get worked over by these idiots in power, that's all, they want to control everything and everything we let them control gives them power over us. Look at the dwug plant thing the numbers will be against you and it will happen because they are working the population, and they will do it with this tax - we don't have to blindly accept it though - it's jsut a tax and you will pay and pay and PAY. It will never end, your great grandchildren and their great grandchildren will still be paying. Basically speaking, it's a game of cat and mouse between domination and evolution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weedRampage Posted March 21, 2011 any scheme of taxation is a natural extension of the law making function. Just as the laws prohibit undesirable means of deriving profit the tax system can make certain economic activities more profitable by taxing them less. I have just purchased a copy of Greenhouse : Planning For Climate Change, Edited by G.I.Pearlman, CSIRO, 1988 The book was written at a time when the issue had zero hype and almost zero public interest. It is a full 800 pages of studies ranging from the shifting of ecological zones in Australia, changing hydrology, etc etc. The point that I am getting at is that the science is irrefutable. Of course interested parties will try to turn the situation to their own advantage. Everyone acknowledges by now that the TV/Print Media constitute some grotesque parasite boring holes in your brain. Less talked about is the fact that many of those functions have shifted into online sources. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mac Posted March 21, 2011 Why shouldn't we as end-users pay something in exchange for digging up irreplacable fuel/resources? Like I said before, industry (and particularly the biggest net profit earners), and those who profit from it directly (ie CEOs, Board of Directors etc) i agree in part FancyPants Any tax should only be applied to those who profit, not the end user or householder who already pays top dollar for all their utility's fuel etc etc ohh Plus GST the profiteers will only increase electricity gas fuel charges & we will still pay one way or the other Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WoodDragon Posted March 21, 2011 Oh no...you have used a link from Tim Blair.....he doesn't agree with AGW or a carbon dioxide tax.....woody will be upset...You are only allowed to quote from members of the IPCC or from the list of scientists that woody has in his top pocket... You still don't get it, do you hutch? All I care about is that people quote reliable sources - you know, sources whose science can be objectively and impartially tested, and be demonstrated to have reality-beased scientific credibility. As you implicitly acknowledge, Tim Blair is a charlatan and a fraud, and most especially he is scientifically bogus. It is upon that basis that I don't credit Blair with any reliability. Anyone is free to rely upon him if they so choose, but don't expect to be taken seriously for doing so. same old same old again....insults and slander...and you call yourself a scientist...wouldn't make a scientists arse hole... "Insults", coming from someone who lets rip as hard as anyone on the Corroboree? Who's the princess now? And "slander"? For any of my statements to be slander, you (or the people whom you like to quote for their pseudoscientific claims) need to demonstrate that the denialist stance actually has any credibility. I have asked you time and again to pick your best point, your killer fact, your irrefutable law of physics, your unassailable science, in order to defend your claim that mainstream climate science has it wrong. And you always come up with... nothing. Come on hutch, you're playing in the science sand pit now. Put in your own words what you think is the best science that supports your position. In fact, put in your own words what your position on the veracity of the climate science actually is. Maybe we can get to the crux of the matter most quickly that way... How about we have a proper look...Andrew Bolt said nothing except "Ann Coulter says the low levels of radiation emitted by the Fukushima reactor may even be good for the Japanese:" and then followed the article...notice your link is just another opinion piece by another scientist who gets a little huffy at AB for not conforming....you little slanderer you... Hutch, the fact that Bolt put the piece up with no contradiction is sufficient to associate him with it. Dog-whistling is one of his well-recognised tactics, and it sure works well, because he has you barking and yelping at every turn. And my link is more than an "opinion piece" - it links to serious biologists who deconstruct Coulter's (and by association, Bolt's) misrepresentation of 'hormesis'. You might be inclined to support Coulter (or Bolt's exposure of her) but before you do let me point out to you that I am not clueless about radioactivity and radioisotopes: in my years doing medical research I used, amongst other things, 3H, 14C, 32P, 51Cr, 57Co, 101Rh, and 125I. I understand radiobiology, and I can tell you now that Bolt's comment that "the low levels of radiation emitted by the Fukushima reactor may even be good for the Japanese" is tosh, and anyone promoting the idea is nuts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted March 21, 2011 The point that I am getting at is that the science is irrefutable. "Global Warming" > "Climate Change" > "Global Climate Disruption" Yeah, it looks irrefutable... i agree in part FancyPants Any tax should only be applied to those who profit, not the end user or householder who already pays top dollar for all their utility's fuel etc etc ohh Plus GST the profiteers will only increase electricity gas fuel charges & we will still pay one way or the other It won't happen. We are always at the bottom of the barrel to the ruling classes. Government rules out rainwater charges Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Genius Posted March 21, 2011 ENOUGH!!! I dont take this intentional thread wrecking and trolling anymore! Hutch, next time i have to step in your out. Like for a long time. You guys can go on with this discussion if you like but i dont want to see any insults here, because from now on, i´ll be handing out warn points like theres no tomorrow. And mine arent the kind of warning points you got in school. I dont care who started what and i wont argue about ducks or taxes. Im sick of this shit and this is where i draw the line. I tried to give you a fair chance to be a part of this community and you repaid me by wrecking at least two threads in a few days, Hutch. Dont test me caus im really pissed now and im way beyond the point where you can reason with me. I am giving you this final chance and if you dont use it, i´ll suspend you in a milisecond without even hesitating once. Help me helping you and do something good with your profile. You can do better than what you transformed into. bye Eg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hutch Posted March 21, 2011 ENOUGH!!! I dont take this intentional thread wrecking and trolling anymore! Hutch, next time i have to step in your out. Like for a long time. You guys can go on with this discussion if you like but i dont want to see any insults here, because from now on, i´ll be handing out warn points like theres no tomorrow. I dont care who started what and i wont argue about ducks or taxes. Im sick of this shit and this is where i draw the line. I tried to give you a fair chance to be a part of that community and thats how you repay me, Hutch? Dont test me caus im really pissed now. This is not a test.... Funny, thought this was my thread....as was the duck one so how am I trolling? If you feel the need to give me my final warn point then I can't and really don't want to stop you, I can bring to your attention way worse than anything I have said...and I mean way worse..... but if you are that sensitive then do what you need to do to make yourself feel better and to protect those whose opinions you value over mine...it obvious mate...this is a green web site and I'm just not green enough for you...You may not agree with me but there is not a lot I can do about that....but maybe you could explain just how you have tried to give me a fair go as you said, cause if I don't know about it then how would I even know I'm supposed to be repaying you.... And please don't threaten me with expulsion just because your really pissed with me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Genius Posted March 21, 2011 Hutch, you´d already be out of here if it werent because of me. I could have booted you twice already but i was trying to give you a fair chance to be a part of this community. But obviously i was wrong, because you continue to act like a dick. And please don't threaten me with expulsion just because your really pissed with me... Hutch, im not threathening. I promise. Next time you lack the necessary social skills and insult someone in a forum i moderate, your gone for good. End of Discussion! You can either accept the hand im offering you or not. Its your choice. bye Eg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Genius Posted March 22, 2011 I know it was his thread, dworx. I can see that by clicking on the front page of the thread. Believe it or not, its possible to degenerate your very own thread. Its not even this thread alone but its the general "shit stirring aura" that i get from reading his posts recently. We are not in the Bitches Forum here and i am not willing to take thread wrecking shit talk in this forum any longer. I already had to move one thread to the bitches forum (The Duck Hunt Thread i think) that was moved to chill space just a few hours before. And this one is the second thread that i actually should have moved there. That makes two threads in a few days and thats a lot more than i am willing to tolerate. Hutch has already been warned many times and this is his wakeup call. I dont want to suspend him but i will do if he continues to post like this. By the time i was stepping in, his profile was already so full of warning points that it appeared to me we have a new red blinking color theme. I know its not his fault all alone but i´ll deal with the others later. This issue is my top priority for now because i still have hope hutch does something good with his profile and partakes in a positive way. I might move this topic to the Bitches forum sometime but for now, i´ll keep it here because i want this thread to be back to chill space standards. bye Eg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hutch Posted March 22, 2011 Hutch, you´d already be out of here if it werent because of me. I could have booted you twice already but i was trying to give you a fair chance to be a part of this community. But obviously i was wrong, because you continue to act like a dick. And please don't threaten me with expulsion just because your really pissed with me... Hutch, im not threathening. I promise. Next time you lack the necessary social skills and insult someone in a forum i moderate, your gone for good. End of Discussion! You can either accept the hand im offering you or not. Its your choice. bye Eg Well next time Mr Genius may I humbly suggest you at least send to the person you are trying to be so fair to a PM advising them of their status in your eyes before threatening them with your form of red neck justice publicly...Interesting how your post has changed some what from the original...glad I responded to it so at least I have the version you started out with. You hate insults and I hate people editing their words..... Something I don't believe in doing...You put it up you keep it up I say....and I DO.... Not every one is treated the same here IMO...sorry, not only my opinion but others I have spoke to as well....a little bit more tolerance is given to those who fit in with the agenda... I am allowed my opinion..your a moderator, I don't have to agree with you.. mod·er·ate [adj., n. mod-er-it, mod-rit; v. mod-uh-reyt] Show IPAadjective, noun, verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.–adjective1.kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; notextreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.2.of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income.3.mediocre or fair: moderate talent.4.calm or mild, as of the weather.5.of or pertaining to moderates, as in politics or religion.–noun6.a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extremeviews and actions, especially in politics or religion.7.( usually initial capital letter ) a member of a political partyadvocating moderate reform.–verb (used with object)8.to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe,intense, or rigorous: to moderate the sharpness of one'swords.9.to preside over or at (a public forum, meeting, discussion,etc.).–verb (used without object)10.to become less violent, severe, intense, or rigorous.11.to act as moderator; preside. I will endeavor to turn the other cheek and work on my lack of social skills, as you call them but I guess that means you better start doing your job a little more fairly...and not just to those you disagree with...should I be attacked for my view in your domain with insults and derogatory links I would expect you to do something about it from this moment on...if not, well..what more could I say.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Genius Posted March 22, 2011 I edit my posts constantly, hutch. It has less to do with me changing the actual message but the fact that i need more time to articulate my thoughts because of my foreign background. I do this all the time during the first 30 minutes or so and it has nothing to do with you. It may seem unfair to you but i am not. I will have personal talks with anyone who was involved in this discussion afterwards and i already had a chat with one. I had to do this openly because if there isnt a drastic improvement, there wont be anything left to talk about. I think i have said it all and now i move this topic to the bitches section in the hope, this will be the last one i have to move there in the next few weeks. bye Eg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
