atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
- From: Rod Stuart <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 20:33:14 +1000
It may be just conjecture to you Christine, but unfortunately civilisation
itself is at stake. There are no opinions in science; only evidence.
On 21 May 2013 19:24, Christine Kent <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Kiddies, there is no point in this.****
>
> ** **
>
> There are scientific reductionists and there are (w)holistic thinkers.
> The two groups are incompatible and one group will never convert the other.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> We all get to know who is right if/when the pudding being proven blows
> up. Until then it is all conjecture. ****
>
> ** **
>
> And until then I will personally do all I can to reduce my environmental
> footprint because it is simply common sense that we have to.****
>
> ** **
>
> End of story.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rod Stuart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:13 AM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: OT: Climate change and fossil fuels****
>
> ** **
>
> OT****
>
> Hi Petra****
>
> I learned something called “The scientific Method” nearly fifty years ago
> when I received my first parchment that says “Bachelor of Science”. ****
>
> The scientific method has been with us for about 1000 years. Most
> attribute it to a Persian whose name was Alhazen. Throughout the
> millennium, it has served mankind well, dispelling illogical concepts
> including witchcraft, animal and human sacrifice, and in fact, slavery. **
> **
>
> The scientific method is elegant in its simplicity. Fundamentally, if
> someone has an idea, or an explanation of some observed occurrence of
> experience, it is called an hypothesis which stands until it is disproved.
> Once disproved, there is space for another hypothesis which stands until it
> is disproven, and so on, down through the decades.****
>
> There are several tennets involved, however. One is called “Occam’s
> Razor”, attributed to William of Occam, which is sort of a rule of thumb
> which says the simplest hypothesis is always the best. Something like
> Pareto’s Rule. Another is that, in science, NOTHING is ever “proved”. In
> the discipline of science, an hypothesis is always disproved.****
>
> Another tennet has to do with something called “the Null Hypothesis”.
> Virtually every observation has a null hypothesis, in that it is a natural
> process. Only when the null hypothesis is disproved can another alternate
> hypothesis be postulated. ****
>
> Now, in terms of this thing you call ‘global warming’, it is postulated
> that global mean surface air temperatures have risen inordinately. There is
> no evidence to support this theory. While it is a very complex task to
> determine a parameter such as this at all, after fifty years’ experience in
> determining the accuracy of measurement, I am particularly sceptical that
> this parameter can be computed to the nearest tenth degree, since most of
> the measurement apparatus is no more accurate than that at its best.
> Nevertheless, it is pretty well accepted by all and sundry that this rise
> in temperature since the industrial revolution has been about 6 or 7 tenths
> of a degree. There is nothing at all unusual about this. We are, after all,
> fortunate enough to be in an interglacial period, during which the
> temperature has fortunately been rising sporadically for nearly 20,000
> years since the last Ice Age. Even the argument that the increase I the
> last two decades of the twentieth century is bogus. The record of the
> period from 1920 to 1940 had not only higher temperatures, but a greater
> rate of increase.****
>
> Since there is no evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, in this case
> that the observed data is well within normal natural variations, to
> postulate another hypothesis at all is an affront to science and the
> scientific method. ****
>
> Nevertheless, there is a fairy tale that insists that carbon dioxide is
> responsible for the rise in temperature. While this has never been formally
> postulated, it is based on another hypothesis called “the Greenhouse
> Effect”. While it is true that Earth’s surface temperatures are higher than
> would be the case if there were no atmosphere, the substance responsible
> for this is water! While it is true that substances such as carbon dioxide
> and methane might have some role in this greenhouse effect, it is pure
> conjecture. In fact, a recent paper published by NASA (the people that send
> astronauts into space) which maintains that the so called “greenhouse
> gases” other than water actually INCREASE the rate at which heat energy is
> transferred to space, therefore having a COOLING effect. That is why
> nothing is ever proven in science. An idea stands until it is DISproved.**
> **
>
> So far as climate change is concerned, no one dares dispute the fact that
> climates have been dynamic for about 4.5 billion years. What mechanism
> could possibly relate what you call “human induced climate change” if it
> weren’t the non-existent ‘global warming’?****
>
> Furthermore, the rate at which the warmists are leaping off the alchemy of
> climate change is astounding. Several papers are being published every week
> that not only demonstrate that it is not warming we need be concerned with
> but COOLING. Since the release of “Die Kalte Sonne” in German, papers which
> relate natural changes to solar cycles, Milankovich cycles, and orbital
> mechanics are coming fast and furious. There is even some evidence that we
> have dropped a degree since 2006. Cold kills far more people than warm. We
> are very fortunate as a species to have lived in an interglacial, and the
> last three generations have been fortunate to live through the last of the
> warm periods which occur regularly every thousand years; the Egyptian Old
> Kingdom, the Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming, the Medieval warming and
> the late twentieth century warming.****
>
> It’s a hoax, and one that has cost the human race dearly. Santa Claus and
> the Tooth Fairy are myths, because there is no evidence. The Lost City of
> Atlantis, Sasquatch, and UFO’s are myths, but at least there is some
> anecdotal evidence. For catastrophic anthropenic global warming, there is
> no evidence; it’s a myth. There is no evidence to support ‘catastophic’.
> There is no evidence to support anthropogenic. There is no evidence to
> support its existence. (Unless you think a little more than a half a degree
> in 150 years is somehow significant). Certainly nothing of significance in
> the last quarter century.****
>
> So just as with alchemy and witchcraft, all of the arguments in favour of
> a CAGW catastrophe are logical fallacies. With no evidence the only thing
> the warmist community has is ad hominem, ad publicum, ad ignorantum, etc.
> One of the most factual presentations you could watch is at ****
>
> < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c>****
>
> ** **
>
> On 21 May 2013 15:11, LIVERANI Petra <
> Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:****
>
> Hi Rod,****
>
> ****
>
> I've just attended a 3 day weekend conference, Beyond Coal and
> Gas<http://www.beyondcoalandgas.org/>,
> that included a session on climate change given by Ian Dunlop, former Chair
> of the Australian Coal Association. It was the only session I didn't attend
> as I feel I know enough about climate change and it only depresses and
> alarms me to learn any more about it. Yes, I felt offended by your
> reference to 'mythical 'global warming' but I can live with it, it's not as
> if I haven't encountered it before.****
>
> ****
>
> Whatever people's acceptance of the climate science, I hope everyone can
> agree that getting off fossil fuels is important. Digging nine mega mines
> in the Galilee basin for exportation of millions of tonnes of coal,
> drilling coal seam gas wells all over the country, etc is wrong from
> multiple points of view, not least simple economics.****
>
> ****
>
> Regards,****
>
> Petra****
>
> ****
>
> *Petra Liverani*****
>
> Technical Writer / UX Designer****
>
> petra.liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <petra_liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>***
> *
>
> Transport Management Centre****
>
> Transport NSW****
>
> *25 Garden St, Eveleigh NSW 2015 | PO Box 1625, Strawberry Hills
> NSW 2012**
> **P: 8396 1617 | F: 8396 7950 | X: 81617 *****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rod Stuart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 May 2013 11:17 AM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: This does not make sense****
>
> ****
>
> I suppose that is it in a nutshell. There is no 'science' about it at all.
> To you it is political, and to to Petra religious intolerance. ****
>
> ****
>
> On 21 May 2013 11:14, Michelle Hallett <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Hi Rod,****
>
> ****
>
> I would say your comment about the word ‘glurges’ was on topic. Your
> comments about the ‘mythical’ nature of climate change were not. We all
> have differing political viewpoints, what we share in common is our
> profession and, I presume, our love of language.****
>
> ****
>
> Regards****
>
> Michelle****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rod Stuart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:55 AM****
>
>
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: This does not make sense****
>
> ****
>
> I thought it was pretty much on the topic that Bob had started i.e. "heat
> glurges to the surface"! ****
>
> If the All Bull Corp announced some other mythical phenomenon as fact,
> such as "Santa's reindeer glurged into the air" would that not be on
> topic???****
>
> ****
>
> On 21 May 2013 10:50, LIVERANI Petra <
> Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:****
>
> Hi Rod,****
>
> ****
>
> Can you please label any posts where you express an attitude towards the
> phenomena of global warming or human-induced climate change as OT.****
>
> ****
>
> Regards,****
>
> Petra****
>
> ****
>
> *Petra Liverani*****
>
> Technical Writer / UX Designer****
>
> petra.liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <petra_liverani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>***
> *
>
> Transport Management Centre****
>
> Transport NSW****
>
> *25 Garden St, Eveleigh NSW 2015 | PO Box 1625, Strawberry Hills
> NSW 2012**
> **P: 8396 1617 | F: 8396 7950 | X: 81617 *****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Rod Stuart
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 May 2013 10:22 AM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: This does not make sense****
>
> ****
>
> Here is one for you. On the ABC news site <
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-20/global-warming-could-be-slower-than-first-thought-report/4701010>there
> is the usual BS about the mythical 'global warming' etc. in which this
> little gem is dropped, much like excrement for the rear end of a bull: ***
> *
>
> ****
>
> "For example, an El Nino is when the heat stored in the ocean temporarily
> *glurges* out so the surface warms up but the total amount of heat in the
> system doesn't change."****
>
> ****
>
> Apart from being total nonsense, it really belies the source of the ABC's
> stories:****
>
> ****
>
> World English Dictionary****
>
> *glurge** * (ɡlɜːdʒ) ****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> — <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> *n <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>*****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> stories, <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> often sent by email, that are supposed to be true and
> uplifting, but which are often fabricated and sentimental
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> On 21 May 2013 06:45, Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> We all moan about the falling standards in grammar these days, but
> something strange is happening. Forget the standards, as some things don’t
> even make sense.<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> An ABC TV newsreader said “a high day of drama”.
> Suely, it should be “a day of high drama”? Maybe the writer was a bit
> high when they wrote this.
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> Later in the same news broadcast, we were told about thieves in Cannes who
> stole “the safe in a hotel room packed with jewels”.
> Why would anyone steal the safe when the room was packed with jewels? Now
> I am really
> confused.<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> Then I relaxed with some good news as I read about “a suspected boat of 83
> asylum seekers …”
> At least the asylum seekers had been accepted as genuine and only the boat
> was a suspect. I am still wondering what would the boat be suspected of.
> Maybe someone suspected that it was a boat but wasn’t
> sure.<http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
> Bob Trussler <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
> ****
>
>
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> --
> Rod Stuart
> 6 Brickhill Drive
> Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
> <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> * <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>*
> ------------------------------
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
> legally privileged information and is intended only to be read or used by
> the addressee(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify
> the sender by return email, delete this email and destroy any copy. Any
> use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this email by a person who is
> not the intended recipient is not authorised.
>
> Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, and are
> not necessarily the views of Transport for New South Wales, Department of
> Transport or any other NSW government agency. Transport for NSW and the
> Department of Transport assume no liability for any loss, damage or other
> consequence which may arise from opening or using an email or attachment.
>
> Please visit us at http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au or http://www.131500
> .com.au <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
>
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
> --
> Rod Stuart
> 6 Brickhill Drive
> Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
> <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543
> <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html>****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> --
> Rod Stuart
> 6 Brickhill Drive
> Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
> <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543 ****
> ------------------------------
>
> This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
> legally privileged information and is intended only to be read or used by
> the addressee(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify
> the sender by return email, delete this email and destroy any copy. Any
> use, distribution, disclosure or copying of this email by a person who is
> not the intended recipient is not authorised.
>
> Views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender, and are
> not necessarily the views of Transport for New South Wales, Department of
> Transport or any other NSW government agency. Transport for NSW and the
> Department of Transport assume no liability for any loss, damage or other
> consequence which may arise from opening or using an email or attachment.
>
> Please visit us at http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au or http://www.131500
> .com.au****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Rod Stuart
> 6 Brickhill Drive
> Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
> <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543 ****
>
--
Rod Stuart
6 Brickhill Drive
Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543
Other related posts:
