Plimer and Silicon Chip

[terryc]

**Not entirely the case. Here are a couple of examples of influential
people and organisations who are thinking:

http://greens.org.au/node/792

That is just as bad and meaningless as a Rudd speech. Pile of self
contradictatory claptrap. As well, an elected member of The Greens has NO
freedom to act in the best interest of their constituents.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/australias-population-

fairytale-20090927-g7o5.html

Tom Keneally is a blinkered fool who doesn't know what he is talking
about. He fails to understand the great difference between Australian
before WWII and after and why more people are not going to be good for
this country.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/its-the-ecosystem-stupid-20090922-

g0h1.html

Ross Gittins is an economist who thinks everything can be fully measured
and valued by its dollar worth.

 

[terryc]

**Your inability to present any evidence to support your claims is duly
noted.

Whereas your total evidence is a report by career bureaucrats?.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Whereas your total evidence is a report by career bureaucrats?.

**My evidence was supported by science.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

That is just as bad and meaningless as a Rudd speech.

**Nope. It is policy. Please feel free to compile a full list of Federal
political parties that have any reference to population policy.

Pile of self

contradictatory claptrap. As well, an elected member of The Greens has NO
freedom to act in the best interest of their constituents.

**Yet. Give it time.

fairytale-20090927-g7o5.html

Tom Keneally is a blinkered fool who doesn't know what he is talking
about. He fails to understand the great difference between Australian
before WWII and after and why more people are not going to be good for
this country.

**Huh? The cited article SPECIFICALLY refers to the conflicting issues of
population growth and CO2 emissions. It demostrates PRECISELY my point.
Keneally may, or may not be a "blinkered fool". That is not the point. He
raises some very important issues which need to be discussed.

g0h1.html

Ross Gittins is an economist who thinks everything can be fully measured
and valued by its dollar worth.

**Factually untrue. Gittens is one of the few economists who sees past the
immediate Dollar.

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

**My evidence was supported by science.

Actually it is supported, in the main, by bureaucrats and academics
whose jobs depend on the AGW scam. If and when the scam collapses there
will be thousands of them made jobless. In addition to the bureaucrats
and academics feeding directly at the trough there are now numbers of
lawyers, accountants and sundry consultants who see a living to be made
in promoting the scam.

I am not optimistic that those feeding at the trough will ever
acknowledge that they are wrong even as the ice caps creep down over
Canada and northern Europe. I am more optimistic however that the
general public, who are the inevitable losers as this scam continues,
will distrust the exaggerated claims of the warmers as these become
increasingly strident and bizarre. When this happens the politicians,
or at least the smarter ones among them, will figure out where the votes
lie and what is needed for re-election.

R

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Actually it is supported, in the main,

**Not once, not EVER have you supplied any shred of evidence to support
these recent claims of yours:

"much as your rants on firearms of a few years ago."


" More recent and more detailed study shows that CO2
always lags temperature."


"There are more than 500 cites in the first third of Plimer's book."

"Are you the Trevor Wilson who used to post loony ideas about gun control?

If so have you switched your loony tunes?"

Supply your cites or retract your claims. You have failed, despite repeated
requests, to supply any evidence to support your nonsense.



by bureaucrats and academics

whose jobs depend on the AGW scam.

**As opposed to liars like Lindzen (paid more than US$2,500.00/day by fossil
fuel intests) and Plimer (who has worked for many mining companies over the
years)? Bollocks. Find me ONE CSIRO scientist who is paid more than
$2,500.00/day for research into AGW. Just ONE scientist. Bet you cannot. The
fossil fuel industry is huge and very wealthy. They can afford to corrupt
scientists like Lindzen and Plimer to write lies in place of real science.

If and when the scam collapses there

will be thousands of them made jobless.

**Scam? Place you science here:

---



---
Given your inability to supply anything remotely approaching fact, I won't
hold my breath.

In addition to the bureaucrats

and academics feeding directly at the trough there are now numbers of
lawyers, accountants and sundry consultants who see a living to be made in
promoting the scam.

**As opposed to this man:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainAtThePump/story?id=1841989

Or these guys:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aJqpyEwim0Fw

You're living under a rock. The really big money is in fossil fuels.

BTW: Note how I supply cites to justify my statements. Note how you do not?

I am not optimistic that those feeding at the trough will ever acknowledge
that they are wrong even as the ice caps creep down over Canada and
northern Europe.

**Prove that the ice caps are expanding.

I am more optimistic however that the

general public,

**I'm not. Like you, they are scientific illiterates.

who are the inevitable losers as this scam continues,

will distrust the exaggerated claims of the warmers as these become
increasingly strident and bizarre. When this happens the politicians, or
at least the smarter ones among them, will figure out where the votes lie
and what is needed for re-election.

**All while the planet warms.

 

[David L. Jones]

No David, your solar air heater is not different or any better than
the scores of others that are detailed on the Web and other places. You
know as well as I do that designs similar, if not identical, have been
around
in local libraries for years before 2005. Here are a few:

And to think less than 6 months ago you were actually citing my design in
Renew:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/a...482e6c/2f71e846b6866150?#doc_25e72e519b42fd95

Go figure.

Dave.

 

[Davo]

Actually it is supported, in the main, by bureaucrats and academics
whose jobs depend on the AGW scam. If and when the scam collapses there
will be thousands of them made jobless. In addition to the bureaucrats
and academics feeding directly at the trough there are now numbers of
lawyers, accountants and sundry consultants who see a living to be made
in promoting the scam.

I am not optimistic that those feeding at the trough will ever
acknowledge that they are wrong even as the ice caps creep down over
Canada and northern Europe. I am more optimistic however that the
general public, who are the inevitable losers as this scam continues,
will distrust the exaggerated claims of the warmers as these become
increasingly strident and bizarre. When this happens the politicians,
or at least the smarter ones among them, will figure out where the votes
lie and what is needed for re-election.

R

I don't have an opinion either way, but where is the ice cap creeping
down? I was under the impression, given by photographic evidence, that
glaciers are receding.

Additionally, I don't think they call it global warming, but climate
change, depending on what the ocean currents do.

 

[terryc]

**Nope. It is policy. Please feel free to compile a full list of Federal
political parties that have any reference to population policy.

It isn't a definite population policy. It just includes population as
another buzzword. The greens will NEVER post the population policy they
believe it.

Pile of self

**Yet. Give it time.

No, as an elected member of the greens, you must follow what the caucus
decides. They have no capacity for independent action on any issue.

He raises some very important issues which need to be discussed.

Nope, he argues for greater population for Australia for the benefits it
will bring.

 

[terryc]

Additionally, I don't think they call it global warming, but climate
change, depending on what the ocean currents do.

Climate change is the normal state of the climate on this planet; i.e.
the only constant is change. It is just the time factor seems slow to
humans.

Global warming is more correctly the amount of energy flowing around the
planet. More energy pumping through the climate means greater chance of a
climate extreme and more weather extremes on the way.*

The ice will creep down on Europe again if the gulf stream flips/stops.


* A shor term analogy might be the economy; when the money flowing picks
up and gets real wild, market distortions happen, then something breka
ands a crash happens, the money disappears from circulation and the
economy slows down, to gradually build up again.

 

[David L. Jones]

Which is fine only as long as the tax department agrees it is a
hobby. And that may well be the case for most people.
Claiming blanket coverage for all contributors as a "hobby" however is
incorrect.

Yep, that's why I said "most".

The main definition is IIRC something like "no reasonable expectation to
make a profit. I'd be most perplexed if anyone can claim having made a
profit from an SC article alone! Perhaps if you did it as part of similar
regular income work or some such.

Dave.

 

[Mr.T]

Yes, tax free. For most people it can be classified as hobby income, unless
you are silly enough to deliberably say it's not. SC even gave me a form to
fill out stating that the income I was receiving was for hobby purposes, to
cover their backside too I guess...

Which is fine only as long as the tax department agrees it is a hobby. And
that may well be the case for most people.
Claiming blanket coverage for all contributors as a "hobby" however is
incorrect.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

The 7 Billion selfish humanoids could very well be helping it along.
Bastards!

"COULD", you are joking that they may NOT be right?
And population is projected to reach 9 or 10 Billion by the middle of the
century or so. And nobody is even sure if it will decrease then or just keep
climbing.
Australia's current record level of population increase is certainly not
consistent with government claims we need to do something about climate
change, that's for sure! Still no sign of an end to Howard's baby bonuses or
immigration levels either!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

No actually, overpopulation and nuclear weapons are.

Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem IF
they are used. Disposal of radioactive material is a problem of course, but
probably more of it comes from nuclear power plants I will bet.

But as to the thrust of your main argument, NOT everyone cares about seeing
their name in print enough to waste their time generating income for someone
else!!!
Personally I would rather put such articles on-line for everyone to see for
nothing, and NOT have other people profit from MY endevours.
You are entitled to make your own decisions however, but *not* necessarily
criticise those not willing to do the same, IMO.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

**Not entirely the case. Here are a couple of examples of influential people
and organisations who are thinking:

http://greens.org.au/node/792

This rather contradicts that :

"Australia has an obligation to accept humanitarian migration including that
resulting from climate change"

So being unable to control other countries population growth, that obviously
locks us into unsustainable growth of our own.

The Greens unfortunately have no idea which way to go on climate change, but
at least they do admit it :

"there are complex issues involved in population policy"


MrT.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Mr.Turd "

"David L. Jones"


Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem IF
they are used.

** The possibility that they WILL BE USED increases every day.

That possibility IS the single, greatest threat facing mankind.

How typically asinine of Mr Turd to so grossly misinterpret Dave's comment.

But as to the thrust of your main argument, NOT everyone cares about
seeing
their name in print

** Seeing one's name in print is not the point - the telephone directory
does that. Having ones efforts and ideas judged worthy of publication in a
national magazine is what generates a sense of achievement.

enough to waste their time generating income for someone else!!!

** Time spent that benefits both oneself and others is never wasted.

What an utter ass Mr Turd makes of himself for saying it is.

Personally I would rather put such articles on-line for everyone to see
for
nothing,

** Nothing is all any of your demented ideas is worth.

and NOT have other people profit from MY endevours.

** Fat chance of that, no matter what a vile Turd like you did.



...... Phil

 

[terryc]

The main definition is IIRC something like "no reasonable expectation to
make a profit. I'd be most perplexed if anyone can claim having made a
profit from an SC article alone! Perhaps if you did it as part of
similar regular income work or some such.

Yep, the way it works is you keep all those receipts for parts, books,
etc that you used in developing the project. so Income = $10, but
expenses = $1,000, equals deduction of taxable income of $900.

 

[David L. Jones]

Overpopulation, YES. However nuclear weapons are only a major problem
IF they are used.

And that's the point. If something CAN happen or be used, it's a threat.
How can being able to almost completely wipe out the human race within a
matter of hours or days at the push of a button, NOT be the biggest threat
facing this planet?
The only equivalent threats would be cosmic borne catastrophes.

But as to the thrust of your main argument, NOT everyone cares about
seeing their name in print enough to waste their time generating
income for someone else!!!

As Phil and KR have mentioned, there are many other benefits (and the
occasional problem) with getting something published. So you aren't just
"generating income for someone else", far from it.
Phil summed it up nicely when he said "Time spent that benefits both oneself
and others is never wasted."

Personally I would rather put such articles on-line for everyone to
see for nothing, and NOT have other people profit from MY endevours.

You can have your cake and it eat it too.
You can put a project up on your your webpage as well as getting it
published. And getting it in SC or some other mag gives you large direct
exposure to people who otherwise generally won't find your stuff unless they
went specifically looking. And SC will pay you too, not a large amount, but
a nice bonus.

While it may be a profit generating magazine, there are those who like to
think of the aussie electronics magazine scene as a more of a "community"
they grew up with, and therefore like to give something back in return for
what they have gained over the years. Thinking you are just helping a
magazine make a profit is a very narrow minded view IMO.

You are entitled to make your own decisions however, but *not*
necessarily criticise those not willing to do the same, IMO.

Sure, I agree.
But you have to look at my critisim in context to "Peter K"s post at which
my comments are directed.
He criticised the magazines content, of which he claims to be quite capable
of contributing to. He even mentioned he would be happy to contribute, but
then chucked a hissy when he found out SC won't pay his consulting like fees
(LOL!). Anyone who just criticises something but is in a position to help
change for the better, deserves a serve in my book.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

Nukes seem to me to be a necessary evil and the nuclear weapons club
will only grow.

Yep.
No thanks to G W Bush and his insane post 9/11 nuclear policies, and those
who followed.
Also no thanks to Regan who had the best chance ever to stop all the madness
at Reykjavik, but insisted on the stupid Star Wars fiasco that left poor
Mikhail scratching his splotch.

Since the Iraq WMD fiasco, and the illegal invasion, other nations
that are not (now) friends with the US (IE: Iran)
have found that nukes are necessary if you are to survive and avoid
invasion or annihilation.

If and when this US economic/currency collapse occurs, and the
"protection racket" that we are on the receiving end of from the US
falls over, Australia might regret not having been in the nuclear
weapons club.
Worse still would be places like South Korea and the middle eastern
nations that are "protected".

Yes indeed.
Those interested in such things should read Jonathan Schell's The Seventh
Decade. I'm just finising it off, a great read on the subject of weapons
buildup.

In the past I don't recall any nation that had nukes being invaded.
When push comes to shove, it seems its the only form of protection
that has a deterrent effect. EG: China, North Korea, Former USSR,
etc.

There is Pakistan of course that is unfolding, that could get
interesting.............

Pakistan are only but one of the issues.
Japan are sitting on a stock of something like 50tons of Plutonium, enough
to make thousands of weapons. And the capacity to make untold more, like
80tons projected in the next year or two (that's more Pu than the entire US
arsenal). They are the new Pu global powerhouse. Once they go nuclear (and
their aversion to nuke weapons is shinking to zero), the whole deck of
playing cards starts to fall.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

"COULD", you are joking that they may NOT be right?

Of course.
Only a fool thinks we are not damaging this planet in untold ways.

And population is projected to reach 9 or 10 Billion by the middle of
the century or so. And nobody is even sure if it will decrease then
or just keep climbing.

There has to be some sort of resource-induced sustainable limit somewhere,
but no one knows where or how.
The problem is the developing countries are starting to find out how good
we've got it, so they want their big house, plentiful high quality food,
SUV, big screen plasma and broadband internet as well.

Australia's current record level of population increase is certainly
not consistent with government claims we need to do something about
climate change, that's for sure! Still no sign of an end to Howard's
baby bonuses or immigration levels either!

It's insane, no other word for it.
The problem is governments run countires like they run big businesses, you
gotta show that mythical X% compounded growth every year otherwise you must
be doing something wrong!

Dave.