Emission Trading and climate change

Page 110 of 377 FirstFirst ... 10 60 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 160 210 ... LastLast
Results 5,451 to 5,500 of 18819
  1. #5451
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I still don't get it.

    Just pretend for a minute that I'm an idiot (shouldn't be too hard, right ).

    So let's go through it slowly:

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    You really should read more closely, in Australia the bulk of carbon emissions come from power and transport. It is the link between the power generators and the power retailers that the carbon tax needs to stike hardest at so we use less coal sourced power and more from lower carbon sources.
    Start with the power I guess. So, these evil dudes get whacked with this massive carbon dioxide tax. They now have a choice, increase their income (i.e. higher electricity prices) or go bankrupt. So they increase prices. The plan is here for people (us) to now cease using electricity due to the "price signal". But now the government gives the tax raised back to us (minus admin costs and shonks commissions) so we can keep using the electricity. We pay this money back to the evil dudes via the higher prices. People and businesses in the middle ground that miss out on the handouts but aren't rich enough go to the wall. Emission reductions irrelevant. Planetary temperature unaffected.

    Anyway, if you've got a different version, I'm happy to hear the one where the Planet cools down at the end of the fairy tale.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    The tax will impact at a lesser level on the general public providing the alternative power can be generated at reasonable rates .
    Did you miss the bits about equivalent renewable base-load energy not existing, let alone at reasonable rates.

    Forgot about that minor detail for a moment. Pretend it does and send me your version of the fairy tale.

  2. #5452
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Oh dear.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It appears that you are still having trouble comprehending the difference between (feeling. preference, bias) opinion and (evidence based) scientific opinion (see Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a basic primer).

    It would seem to me that if you can't comprehend the distinction between (personal) opinion and scientific opinion (or for political bias reason you choose to ignore the distinction) then I very much doubt that that you could possibly comprehend the basics of AGW (let alone mount a scientific case against it) or even begin to understand the scientific method (see Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

    (Sorry for the blunt reply. I should be more leant as you are having such a bad run of late - or much more of a bad run than usual. I suppose it goes with the territory of trying to scientifically refute the scientifically well established AGW.)

    Responding to your comments is like the proverb 'shooting fish in a barrel'.
    I can see this is a sticking point in our relationship.

    In order to save you linking these same Wikipedia links over and over, let's try to clarify.

    In your opinion (personal, scientific or otherwise), please answer yes or no as you please:

    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact?
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact?
    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof?
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof?
    Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality?
    Is personal opinion equal to existential reality?

    (For those unsure, the answers are all NO.)

    No opinion is either fact, proof or reality. No doubt some opinions are more informed than others, but they are still not real, and are still just opinions.

    The AGW hypothesis brigade has to hold onto this point because they have no causation that can be proved. Therefore, they have to rely on people trusting the opinions of the authority figures. If there is no absolute acceptance of these opinions, the next line is looking at the facts, which do not add up. This defence of authority figures opinions is their last line of defence.

    Will you "believe" their opinions based on faith?

    Now as I have stated many times, there are tens of thousands of scientists who have formed the scientific opinion that the AGW hypothesis is not real. There are also many scientists who have formed the scientific opinion that the AGW hypothesis is real.

    Which scientists are right and which scientists are wrong???

    Which are we to "believe"???

    Lucky we don't have to guess.

    In this enlightened age we can all access the facts and use our own brains to figure out that this farce has not been proven.

    There is not a single scientist on the Planet that will tell you that the AGW hypothesis has been proved, because they will be laughed out of the room.

    Every single scientist on the Planet knows that there is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. They all know this because it is a scientific fact.

    Then they all diverge in their opinions of these facts. Some believe and others don't. This is normal for most scientific endeavours. The only difference here is some lunatics think a new tax is going to cool down the Planet?

    What the f--k?

    No seriously people, just think about that for a minute?

    A tax in Australia cooling down the Planet Earth?

  3. #5453
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Just Googol it dude!

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    If - and only if - you can show null temperature change and null sea-level change.
    This is not what the null is.

    It will get very boring if we go through this in detail here, so here is a crude summary. It does not include all of the explanations required for NHST, that is why I suggested you research it. It will save much typing.

    The AGW hypothesis proposes that human CO2 emissions are responsible for measured increases in global temperatures and that this process will lead to catastrophic warming in the near future.

    In this scenario, the null hypothesis proposes that human CO2 emissions are not responsible for measured increases in global temperatures and that this process will lead to catastrophic warming in the near future.

    When the weight of scientific and statistical evidence reaches significance, we reject the null and accept the AGW hypothesis. Until this happens, the null stands.

    Currently, the null stands, so:

    The null hypothesis proposes that human CO2 emissions are not responsible for measured increases in global temperatures and that this process will lead to catastrophic warming in the near future.

    The null is nothing to do with explaining any other attributions of any variables concerned. It does not seek to "explain" or "show" anything. It is a statistical concept to set a high bar for proving causality.

    The AGW hypothesis did not clear the bar. The null stands.

    Very simplified, but your research will no doubt flesh out the details.

  4. #5454
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's hard to quantify something that does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    That'a boy! Don't worry about quantifying anything - just state your biased personal opinion - and dismiss it outright!
    I'm not psychic, and I have no idea what this wacko government will actually come up with in terms of what they will include and will exclude in their CO2 tax guide. The Greens want petrol in, the farmers want agriculture out, except for feed in credits. We can play guessing games till the farting cows come in, but to save some conjecture, how about we wait for the disaster to unfold according to JuLIAR's schedule. But for now, I cannot quantify anything champ, once JuLIAR finishes designing her debacle and releases it publicly, you can be sure I'll comment on it then.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."

    Lord Kelvin
    [Oops, that was a little bit 'below the belt'. I think Bedford might have been trying to get the thread on topic and you and I have mucked it up.]
    That quote is not below the belt, I fully support Lord Kelvin's views. That is why it is disappointing you cannot express your measures in numbers:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    From "very little" to "insignificant".

    Not very scientific mate.

    Is there a decimal or percentage, or this "opinion" or "scientific opinion" at work again?
    your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind



  5. #5455
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Taste this.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I don't suppose that you might have considered that Japan has just came out of winter?

    I think your post is in very poor taste. As too is the Doc's post about nuclear vs wind deaths.
    I think that's a little precious coming from someone who posts Wikipedia links describing Climate Deniers alongside Holocaust Deniers, then regularly calls people here deniers.

    But hey, if you don't like the taste, don't lick the ice-cream.

    If you want really poor taste, go ask these idiot journalists why they have blanket coverage over this allegedly "dangerous" nuclear reactor issue that has not made a single person sick or suffer unhealthy exposure, and they are virtually ignoring the massive human tragedy of tens of thousands of people dead and hundreds of thousands homeless. I have not seen a single media campaign for donations to survivors, but have seen blanket coverage of idiot greenies running through catastrophic "what if" scenarios and mentioning Chernobyl at every chance.

    The nuclear vs wind deaths was designed to highlight these hypocritical greenie attitudes that are given air time disproportionate to the facts. If you think this was poor taste, I'll remind you of your previous sensitivities soon.

    You'll see why I think you need to redirect your poor taste meter my friend.

  6. #5456
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Remember this?

    Seriously people, don't let the kids watch the you tube ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post


    WARNING: Please don't let the real kids watch!


    Welcome to our little shop of horrors.

    First they hung the kiddies:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Freud








    Then they brainwashed them into divisive anger:



    Now they just blow them up:


    Damn kids have had it coming for a while now. Running around all the time, breathing in and out like carbon dioxide wasn't some type of pollution killing the planet. Selfish little pricks probably dream of having
    [s]kids[/s] polluting units of their own one day too.

    Wait, what do I hear? Oh that's right, the sweet sounds of silence as AGW Theory proponents once again don't speak out against this insanity due to their own insecurities about the weakness of their position.
    Your silence was deafening at the time.

    Is your poor taste meter reset yet?

  7. #5457
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's their last resort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    No disrespect to Japan indended here, simply pointing out that warmth is better than cold. But I guess you knew that.
    They certainly do.

    Mate, it is a good sign when they have to resort to refuting your style.

    It means they cannot refute your substance.

  8. #5458
    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
    In your opinion (personal, scientific or otherwise), please answer yes or no as you please:

    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact?
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact?
    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof?
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof?
    Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality?
    Is personal opinion equal to existential reality?

    (For those unsure, the answers are all NO.)
    Doc, why not put your bias aside for 10 minutes and read up for yourself. I didn't provide the links for decoration.

    A "scientific opinion" is any opinion formed via the scientific method, and so is necessarily evidence-backed. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.
    Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
    Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
    Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is generally expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences. Evidence may involve understanding all steps of a process, or one or a few observations, or observation and statistical analysis of many samples without necessarily understanding the mechanism.


    ...


    Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference (the act or process of deriving a conclusion), that make information relevant to the support or negation of a hypothesis. Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis.
    Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Perhaps, after you have read up a bit and understand it, you may like to correct your erroneous assumption that "the answers are all NO".

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

  9. #5459
    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
    No disrespect to Japan indended here, simply pointing out that warmth is better than cold. But I guess you knew that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    They certainly do.

    Mate, it is a good sign when they have to resort to refuting your style.

    It means they cannot refute your substance.
    So why did you both separately make light of a natural disaster in Japan:

    • The Doc claiming nuclear power is much safer than wind power soon far the reactor failure in Japan (tell that you all those exposed to fall-out);
    • and Rod with his 'warmth is better' comment and a quote about the Japanese survivors (tell the survivors in cold conditions that the world is warming).

    I hardly call that "style" nor is there any "substance" to refute.

    Lift your game guys - that sort of thing is just very poor taste and offensive.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  10. #5460
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Then feel free to answer the questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Doc, why not put your bias aside for 10 minutes and read up for yourself. I didn't provide the links for decoration.

    Perhaps, after you have read up a bit and understand it, you may like to correct your erroneous assumption that "the answers are all NO".

    I've put a lot of time and effort into developing my very well informed and valid bias, so why would I put it aside.

    You've posted these links enough that I think by now everyone has read them a few times, as I certainly have. They have also further informed and weighted my bias, and you can imagine how.

    But hey, the questions were put there for you to answer.

    If you disagree, please provide your own answers:

    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact? Yes/No
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact? Yes/No
    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof? Yes/No
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof? Yes/No
    Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality? Yes/No
    Is personal opinion equal to existential reality? Yes/No

    I'm sure your extensive and accurate scientific training at the University of Wikipedia will hold you in good stead.

    Go on, be brave, it's a simple yes or no.

    Or just keep hiding behind flawed logic and irrelevant Wikipedia cut and pastes.

  11. #5461
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I'll spell it out for you.

    If these semantic distractions are all you have mate, your scientific argument must really be in the toilet.

    But one more time for the camera's:

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    So why did you both separately make light of a natural disaster in Japan:
    Neither one of us made light of the disaster in Japan. I made light of the idiotic scaremongering from greenies who know they are scaring civilians for no reason. There are serious issues to address to maintain safety at these reactors which the Japanese have conducted successfully with no current ill-health effects, and none are likely at current estimates. So why are these idiotic greenies focussed on this when here are the real tragic numbers being ignored:

    The national police agency said 7,653 people had been confirmed dead and 11,746 officially listed as missing - a total of 19,399 - as of 11:00 pm (1400 GMT) Saturday as a result of the March 11 catastrophe.

    Japan disaster death toll, missing edge near 20,000 - Channel NewsAsia
    And from you:

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post


    • The Doc claiming nuclear power is much safer than wind power soon far the reactor failure in Japan (tell that you all those exposed to fall-out);

    This is exactly the baseless scaremongering I refer to. Why don't you validate your baseless scaremongering by describing in detail the exact number of people killed or sickened by this "fall-out" you refer to? This is making light of the tragedy by focussing on greenie scaremongering as opposed to the real deaths and tragedy.

    As for Rod's comments, he didn't make light of the tragedy either. He made light of the AGW hypothesis scaremongering about the Planet "maybe" being a bit warmer.

    If you don't get these nuances, then I guess we can spell this out for you more in the future.


    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Lift your game guys - that sort of thing is just very poor taste and offensive.
    My game is great mate!

    But obviously your taste meter didn't get that well needed reset. Your continued silence on child exploitation remains deafening.

  12. #5462
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Helloooooooo...

    Is there anyone, and I mean anyone, out there that can explain how the Planet Earth will cool down from this economic joke about to be foisted on us all:

    LOW- and middle-income earners will receive tax cuts under a plan by Julia Gillard to compensate families for jacking up the cost of living.

    The Prime Minister will give battlers the tax break to offset the $600 a year hit family budgets will take when the Government imposes a tax on carbon emissions - part of its plan to fight climate change.

    ``I know many people are concerned about prices, but we will be using the money we take from polluters to help families out with tight budgets through generous assistance, as well as protect jobs and invest in climate change programs.

    Julia Gillard offers tax cuts for some to offset price on carbon | The Daily Telegraph
    Once upon a time in the land of Oz, a princess called JuLIAR decided:

    Government increases tax on business.
    Business increases price for consumers.
    Government gives tax back to consumers.
    Consumers give tax back to business in higher prices.
    Business continues unabated.

    And then the whole Planet Earth started cooling down and JuLIAR lived happily ever after.

  13. #5463
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default No wonder, the delusion runs deep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Once upon a time in the land of Oz, a princess called JuLIAR decided:

    And then the whole Planet Earth started cooling down and JuLIAR lived happily ever after.
    Guess who else believes the fairy tale:

    ROSS GARNAUT: And in addition, future generations of their family will be protected from dangerous climate change.

    Insiders - 20/03/2011: This week on Insiders - Insiders - ABC

    Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

  14. #5464
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More lies from JuLIAR.

    MANUFACTURERS are mocking the Prime Minister's claim that "low-carbon" goods will cost less, with the carbon tax calculated to add $210 to the price of a new car.

    Grocery processors insist food produced in Australia would cost more than food imported from countries that don't have a carbon tax.


    Julia Gillard said on Monday that "products made with relatively less carbon pollution will be cheaper than products made with more carbon pollution".


    Referring to Ms Gillard's claim of cheaper prices, Ms Carnell replied: "How can it be true? This makes imports cheaper because they are not subject to a carbon charge. Australian manufactured groceries will be proportionately more expensive.


    "Does Australia want a food and grocery manufacturing industry in this country?"
    A spokesman for Ms Gillard yesterday did not provide any examples of products that would be cheaper under a carbon trading regime.


    PM's cheaper cost promise mocked | The Australian
    What a joke!

  15. #5465
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More lies from JuLIAR.

    On Q&A she asserted that it was simply not true that we were the only ones moving to attack carbon pollution (sic). China was closing down a dirty coal-fired power-generation facility at the rate of every one to two weeks, she asserted. And it was putting up a wind turbine at the rate of one every hour, she added.
    The picture she set out to paint was of China replacing dirty coal with clean wind. The truth is, as we've noted through the week, that China is not simply replacing coal with coal but dramatically increasing coal-fired generation.
    Yes, it is closing really dirty coal-fired stations: the ones that pump out those little bits of grit that used to blanket our cities and which Gillard & Co are deliberately seeking to inject into the community's consciousness with their references to carbon pollution.
    Real pollution has long since been banished from our coal-fired power stations and our cities. Smog no longer kills thousands of Londoners every year. But it is still killing thousands in Chinese cities.
    And not just in China. A World Health Organisation report in 2005 noted that more than half the world's population relied on dung, wood, crop waste or coal to meet their most basic energy needs.
    Cooking and heating with such solid fuels on open fires or stoves without chimneys led to indoor air pollution, including small soot or dust particles that were able to penetrate deep into the lungs.
    Every year, this sort of real carbon pollution was responsible for the death of 1.6 million people, WHO wrote in 2005. If anything it would be worse today.
    That is the real carbon pollution. Not the carbon dioxide that is the target (the only target) of her tax; the real pollution that is precisely avoided by our centralised existing clean, yes clean, coal-fired power stations.
    The facts on China are simple and irrefutable. It has a coal-fired system equal to more than 13 times our entire electricity generation. Between now and 2020, it is going to add between 400GW and 500GW to its existing 670GW of coal-fired power generation.
    That's its projections. And that's net. So if they close, say, 200GW of really dirty old stations, they will be building 600GW to 700GW of new ones, all pumping out carbon dioxide, if hopefully not also grit.
    Total power generation in Australia is about 50GW.
    Yes, China might be aiming for 150GW of wind and 20GW of solar by 2020. But that's installed capacity. When the wind don't . . . and the sun don't . . . Real capacity of the two combined will be closer to 50GW by 2020, as against an extra 400GW at least of additional coal-fired generation.


    Why we should be afraid -- very afraid -- of Julia Gillard's fantasies | The Australian
    Gee, I wonder who is actually a real polluter of this soot then:


    Cooking and heating with such solid fuels on open fires or stoves without chimneys led to indoor air pollution, including small soot or dust particles that were able to penetrate deep into the lungs.
    Every year, this sort of real carbon pollution was responsible for the death of 1.6 million people, WHO wrote in 2005. If anything it would be worse today.
    That is the real carbon pollution.






    Nice pollution Bob!



    And that's not steam (H2O) like in the ABC pictures.

  16. #5466
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    To all the warmist out there known and unknown:

    Your brigade tells us they "believe" all this hokum and there is so much "science" supporting it.
    We ask to see this science.
    They present a few scientists opinions.
    We point out opinions are not facts.
    They insist they are.
    We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
    They post graphs showing effects.
    We ask for proof of the causes.
    They insist the effects are the proof.
    We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
    They have a dummy spit and leave because their religious "beliefs" are questioned.
    By Doc Freud
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  17. #5467
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Your brigade tells us they "believe" all this hokum and there is so much "science" supporting it.
    We ask to see this science.
    They present a few scientists opinions.
    We point out opinions are not facts.
    They insist they are.
    We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
    They post graphs showing effects.
    We ask for proof of the causes.
    They insist the effects are the proof.
    We explain that it is idiotic to suggest that.
    They have a dummy spit and leave because their religious "beliefs" are questioned.
    In a nut shell Doc
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  18. #5468
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    If these semantic distractions are all you have mate, your scientific argument must really be in the toilet.

    But one more time for the camera's:



    Neither one of us made light of the disaster in Japan. I made light of the idiotic scaremongering from greenies who know they are scaring civilians for no reason. There are serious issues to address to maintain safety at these reactors which the Japanese have conducted successfully with no current ill-health effects, and none are likely at current estimates. So why are these idiotic greenies focussed on this when here are the real tragic numbers being ignored:



    And from you:



    This is exactly the baseless scaremongering I refer to. Why don't you validate your baseless scaremongering by describing in detail the exact number of people killed or sickened by this "fall-out" you refer to? This is making light of the tragedy by focussing on greenie scaremongering as opposed to the real deaths and tragedy.

    As for Rod's comments, he didn't make light of the tragedy either. He made light of the AGW hypothesis scaremongering about the Planet "maybe" being a bit warmer.

    If you don't get these nuances, then I guess we can spell this out for you more in the future.




    My game is great mate!

    But obviously your taste meter didn't get that well needed reset. Your continued silence on child exploitation remains deafening.
    Nuff said Doc you got it squared up again while I am out enjoying this great WARM march day
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  19. #5469
    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
    But for the new arrivals, a doctor might look at you in the room and say "In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it".

    Do you just cut your leg off, or do you wait for the scans, the blood tests, the x-rays, the second opinions, the third opinions.

    Then after these "expert opinions" and facts do you still not then form your own opinion, rightly or wrongly?

    The AGW hypothesis church says you must believe just their opinion only. Just ignore all the dissenting other opinions, and start cutting CO2 emissions immediately.

    If you had lots of dissenting medical opinions about your leg, would you just start cutting, or would you first consider the other "expert" opinions, and maybe get more "facts".
    The Doc still seems to have trouble distinguishing between opinion and scientific opinion.

    Let's work with the analogy that he has provided...

    In the analogy, we'll be using opinion and medical opinion.

    Firstly, I very much doubt that any doctor will simply "look at you in the room and say 'In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it'" as the Dr Freud has proposed.

    That certainly wouldn't be a 'medical opinion'. In this case, the doctor might examine the leg and form the medical opinion that there is something that ought to be further investigated. The doctor might even have a suspicion that it is something serious, but at that stage they won't be in a position to give a medical opinion that it is cancer.

    The doctor would send the patient off for some more non-invasive medical tests - x-rays, ultrasounds, or whatever. These tests may only confirm that there is something wrong - perhaps a tumour is found, but would not conclusively provide a diagnosis. Even at this stage the doctor wouldn't be able to provide a medical opinion that the diagnosis is cancer.

    The patient would probably undergo further invasive medical tests where (perhaps) a sample of the tumour is taken and sent to a pathologist for analysis. The pathologist determines that the tumour is cancer and sends a report to the doctor. Only at this stage is the doctor able to form a medical opinion.

    Is the distinction apparent? medical opinions (just like scientific opinions) require evidence to substantiate the opinion.

    Let's continue with the analogy...

    The doctor then refers the patient on to a specialist. The specialist informs the patient that the tumour can be treated with chemo/radio therapy and they will have about a 80% chance of surviving another 5 years.

    The patient, understandably concerned, seeks another opinion. The second specialist, who likes to treat aggressively, recommends radical surgery (amputate) as this has a 90% chance for a 5-year survival.

    Both treatment options are valid. Both are acknowledging the existence of the cancer.

    Let's go on with the analogy some more...

    The patient is quite upset and somewhat traumatised by the diagnosis and the proposed treatment options. Naturally, they'll probably go through some of the Kuber-Ross 5 stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining...).

    Convinced that the diagnosis is wrong - it is only a pathologist's medical opinion after all, the patient goes back to the first doctor and asks if the pathology could be wrong. The doctor explains that is is very unlikely to be wrong, but seeing that the patient is having trouble accepting it, agrees to have it repeated. The pathology is repeated and the results are identical to the first test.

    The patient is still in denial, and suspects that the pathology service is incompetent and demands the test be repeated again by another pathology service. The doctor agrees to the additional test. The pathology is repeated yet again and the results are identical to the first test.

    The patient now suspects that the first doctor is wrong - it is only his medical opinion after all. The patent go to yet another doctor and the tests are all repeat. The diagnosis is identical.

    The patient is now convinced that the whole medial system is wrong - it is only a medical opinion after all. The patient declares that 'there is absolutely zero medical evidence that shows absolutely conclusively that I have cancer'. They then seek alternatives. The first alternative medical practitioner, realising it is cancer suggests that the patient return to the original specialist.

    The patient doesn't like this ('opinion' stuff again), so seeks other alternatives. Eventually, they find someone who claims, after a quick look at the leg, that there is nothing wrong with their leg. If there is any cancer it is small and insignificant. In any case, cancer is natural and has been occurring for a long time. It might even just go away by itself. Also, how can a pathologist tell absolutely for sure it is a problem cancer. They explain that the conventional medical system likes to make up conditions such as cancer to keep themselves in the job - and that they are all in on it. Don't worry about it, it is probably nothing.

    The patient is happy as they have finally found a 'partitioner' who has provided a diagnosis that they are comfortable with.

    Most of us would clearly see that the patient is in denial.

    It is quite a relevant analogy for this thread. It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence there is for AGW, some just won't accept any of it and seek out very dubious and fringe sources to support the view that they are comfortable with.

    Just to finish off...
    The astute reader would recognise that the patient in the analogy didn't need more medical evidence, they need grief counselling too.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  20. #5470
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,178

    Default

    Was it his left or right leg?
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  21. #5471
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Was it his left or right leg?
    I'm absolutely, definitely, sure that it was the right leg.

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

  22. #5472
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default 19th hole?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Nuff said Doc you got it squared up again while I am out enjoying this great WARM march day
    A quick 18 holes followed by an icy cold beverage by any chance?

    But stay away from beer and soft drinks, full of pollution apparently.

    I had a lovely afternoon in the sun digging septic tanks out.

  23. #5473
    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
    I had a lovely afternoon in the sun digging septic tanks out.
    How..., How..., How fitting!

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

  24. #5474
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Better cut the right one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Was it his left or right leg?
    IMHO, you always get more trouble from the left.

    My advice to patients to prevent wrongful amputation is simple. Make the surgeon place his initial on the correct extremity while you’re still awake.

    If you know of any wrong-side surgeries, let me know.

    Dr. Gifford-Jones is a medical journalist with a private medical practice in Toronto.

    How to Prevent the Wrong Leg Being Amputated | Health | Epoch Times

  25. #5475
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Yeh, great day.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    How..., How..., How fitting!

    I dunno if it was God or Gaia, but paybacks a b-tch.

  26. #5476
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Let's try again.

    Mate, if you put this much effort into researching causation, you would already know what a crock the AGW hypothesis is.

    I won't go through your whole story in sympathy for the mods, but I'll extract some relevant bits.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The Doc still seems to have trouble distinguishing between opinion and scientific opinion.
    I have clearly (or obviously not) explained the differences between these in much detail, and they both are still not facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Firstly, I very much doubt that any doctor will simply "look at you in the room and say 'In my medical opinion, you have cancer in you leg and we need to amputate it'" as the Dr Freud has proposed.
    It was an analogy to highlight a concept, not a quote. But let's assume there is a dumb doctor out there (trust me, there are lots).

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    That certainly wouldn't be a 'medical opinion'.
    It certainly wouldn't be a good medical opinion, but it is a medical opinion. Remember, opinions are not reality, and can well-informed or ill-informed. At this stage, the medical opinion is ill-informed (other than the training and experience of the doctor).

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    In this case, the doctor might examine the leg and form the medical opinion that there is something that ought to be further investigated.
    Yes, this is another possible medical opinion, there are many possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The doctor might even have a suspicion that it is something serious, but at that stage they won't be in a position to give a medical opinion that it is cancer.
    If he is a great oncologist who has seen thousands of those cases before, he may give the patient the medical opinion that it is "very likely" to be cancer. This great doctor would obviously order confirmation tests.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The patient would probably undergo further invasive medical tests where (perhaps) a sample of the tumour is taken and sent to a pathologist for analysis. The pathologist determines that the tumour is cancer and sends a report to the doctor. Only at this stage is the doctor able to form a medical opinion.
    See, this is where your confusion crosses the line to factual error. Once a biopsy is conducted, we have scientific empirical evidence that the tissue sample is cancerous or not. This is where black and white thinking is appropriate. The test will be factual, scientific and requires no opinions.

    The patients personal opinion is now irrelevant, the doctors medical opinion is now irrelevant, and the pathologists scientific opinion is now irrelevant. The biopsy will give the patient a YES or a NO. No opinion required. This is now a scientific fact, and a medical fact. The doctor can have a medical opinion as to the best treatment, and the patient may have a personal opinion that homeopathy is better (hope not).


    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Is the distinction apparent? medical opinions (just like scientific opinions) require evidence to substantiate the opinion.
    Yes, the doctors evidence was the clinical examination leading to his medical opinion the patient "very likely" had cancer. The biopsy was empirical evidence that proved the patient had cancer, rendering all opinions irrelevant.

    If the doctor had no biopsy facility, he would still have given the patient his medical opinion based on whatever evidence he could gather (fatigue, loss of appetite, temperature, headaches etc), but the patient runs the risk here that he's relying only on his medical opinion, without the diagnosis being proved by the biopsy facility.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Convinced that the diagnosis is wrong - it is only a pathologist's medical opinion after all
    It is not the pathologist's medical or scientific opinion, it is a scientific fact. The patient could run the test a million times and he'll get a million results exactly the same as the first. This is scientific fact, this is empirical evidence, all opinions are now irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The patient is still in denial, and suspects that the pathology service is incompetent and demands the test be repeated again by another pathology service. The doctor agrees to the additional test. The pathology is repeated yet again and the results are identical to the first test.

    The patient now suspects that the first doctor is wrong - it is only his medical opinion after all.
    The denial and repeat tests are fine and normal, but it is not "only his medical opinion", it is a scientific fact based on a scientific test. Most scientists only dream of the definitive accuracy of a biopsy in their fields.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The patent go to yet another doctor and the tests are all repeat. The diagnosis is identical.
    Yes, scientific fact is determined by reliability and validity through statistical rigour.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The patient is now convinced that the whole medial system is wrong - it is only a medical opinion after all.
    No, it is not "only a medical opinion", it is a scientific fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The patient declares that 'there is absolutely zero medical evidence that shows absolutely conclusively that I have cancer'.
    The patient is wrong, there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The patient doesn't like this ('opinion' stuff again), so seeks other alternatives.
    It is not "opinion stuff again" it is a scientific fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Eventually, they find someone who claims, after a quick look at the leg, that there is nothing wrong with their leg. If there is any cancer it is small and insignificant. In any case, cancer is natural and has been occurring for a long time.
    This "someone" is an idiot, as are they if they listen to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Also, how can a pathologist tell absolutely for sure it is a problem cancer.
    Because they have a definitive scientific test called a biopsy.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    They explain that the conventional medical system likes to make up conditions such as cancer to keep themselves in the job - and that they are all in on it. Don't worry about it, it is probably nothing. The patient is happy as they have finally found a 'partitioner' who has provided a diagnosis that they are comfortable with.
    So, they went with homeopathy after all. They are both idiots for ignoring valid and reliable scientific facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Most of us would clearly see that the patient is in denial.
    The patient is an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It is quite a relevant analogy for this thread.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It doesn't matter how much scientific evidence there is for AGW, some just won't accept any of it and seek out very dubious and fringe sources to support the view that they are comfortable with.
    There is absolutely zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

    Are you now using the word "for" to hide from the lack of causality. You should have stuck with "explaining", it sounded much more credible.

    I have said several times throughout this thread, that it was only after reading the IPCC reports that I realised this whole sham was farcical.

    Is the IPCC one of these "fringe sources" you refer to?

    And I am very comfortable with my view, it is based on scientific facts.
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 21st Mar 2011 at 02:48 AM. Reason: Insert "the patient".

  27. #5477
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default From a believing physicist.

    This is a physicist who believes that the AGW hypothesis is real, and is disgusted at the lies and deception run by core climate scientists as highlighted via Climategate:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller[/ame]


    Did you spot the difference between science fact and science fiction?

  28. #5478
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Mate, if you put this much effort into researching causation, you would already know what a crock the AGW hypothesis is.

    I won't go through your whole story in sympathy for the mods, but I'll extract some relevant bits.



    I have clearly (or obviously not) explained the differences between these in much detail, and they both are still not facts.



    It was an analogy to highlight a concept, not a quote. But let's assume there is a dumb doctor out there (trust me, there are lots).



    It certainly wouldn't be a good medical opinion, but it is a medical opinion. Remember, opinions are not reality, and can well-informed or ill-informed. At this stage, the medical opinion is ill-informed (other than the training and experience of the doctor).



    Yes, this is another possible medical opinion, there are many possible.



    If he is a great oncologist who has seen thousands of those cases before, he may give you the medical opinion that it is "very likely" to be cancer. This great doctor would obviously order confirmation tests.



    See, this is where your confusion crosses the line to factual error. Once a biopsy is conducted, we have scientific empirical evidence that the tissue sample is cancerous or not. This is where black and white thinking is appropriate. The test will be factual, scientific and requires no opinions.

    The patients personal opinion is now irrelevant, the doctors medical opinion is now irrelevant, and the pathologists scientific opinion is now irrelevant. The biopsy will give you a YES or a NO. No opinion required. This is now a scientific fact, and a medical fact. The doctor can have a medical opinion as to the best treatment, and the patient may have a personal opinion that homeopathy is better (hope not).




    Yes, the doctors evidence was the clinical examination leading to his medical opinion you "very likely" had cancer. The biopsy was empirical evidence that proved you had cancer, rendering all opinions irrelevant.

    If the doctor had no biopsy facility, he would still have given you his medical opinion based on whatever evidence he could gather (fatigue, loss of appetite, temperature, headaches etc), but you run the risk here that you're relying only on his medical opinion, without the diagnosis being proved by the biopsy facility.



    It is not the pathologist's medical or scientific opinion, it is a scientific fact. You could run the test a million times and you'll get a million results exactly the same as the first. This is scientific fact, this is empirical evidence, all opinions are now irrelevant.



    The denial and repeat tests are fine and normal, but it is not "only his medical opinion", it is a scientific fact based on a scientific test. Most scientists only dream of the definitive accuracy of a biopsy in their fields.



    Yes, scientific fact is determined by reliability and validity through statistical rigour.



    No, it is not "only a medical opinion", it is a scientific fact.



    The patient is wrong, there is.



    It is not "opinion stuff again" it is a scientific fact.



    This "someone" is an idiot, as are they if they listen to them.



    Because they have a definitive scientific test called a biopsy.



    So, they went with homeopathy after all. They are both idiots for ignoring valid and reliable scientific facts.



    The patient is an idiot.



    Thanks.



    There is absolutely zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis.

    Are you now using the word "for" to hide from the lack of causality. You should have stuck with "explaining", it sounded much more credible.

    I have said several times throughout this thread, that it was only after reading the IPCC reports that I realised this whole sham was farcical.

    Is the IPCC one of these "fringe sources" you refer to?

    And I am very comfortable with my view, it is based on scientific facts.
    Wow Doc you have excelled here mate.

    I cant believe anyone could dispute this breakdown you are far far to patient IMO.

    Well they could but they would be totally wrong or plan mischievious, blinkered or a bloody idiot.

    Nice work.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  29. #5479
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Heat stroke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Wow Doc you have excelled here mate.

    I cant believe anyone could dispute this breakdown you are far far to patient IMO.

    Well they could but they would be totally wrong or plan mischievious, blinkered or a bloody idiot.

    Nice work.
    Thanks mate.

    Shovelling sand in the sun cooked the noodle a bit.

    It's probably the dehydration talking.

  30. #5480
    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
    The patient is an idiot.
    I thought I'd be rude if I explicitly took the analogy that far, but if you insist, I won't disagree.

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

  31. #5481
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Thanks mate.

    Shovelling sand in the sun cooked the noodle a bit.

    .

    We wont be rude and disagree.

  32. #5482
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I've put a lot of time and effort into developing my very well informed and valid bias, so why would I put it aside.

    You've posted these links enough that I think by now everyone has read them a few times, as I certainly have. They have also further informed and weighted my bias, and you can imagine how.

    But hey, the questions were put there for you to answer.

    If you disagree, please provide your own answers:

    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact? Yes/No
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact? Yes/No
    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof? Yes/No
    Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof? Yes/No
    Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality? Yes/No
    Is personal opinion equal to existential reality? Yes/No

    I'm sure your extensive and accurate scientific training at the University of Wikipedia will hold you in good stead.

    Go on, be brave, it's a simple yes or no.

    After ten days or so of doing something useful....I'll take bite on the nonsense candy:

    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific fact? No....since there are very few facts in Science (or even Life) and a great many opinions.

    Is personal opinion equal to scientific fact? No....for the same reason.

    Is scientific opinion equal to scientific proof? No.....because a proof is the demonstration of a valid hypothesis to a confidence interval of 95% or greater (which means that if you repeat an experiment 100 times then the same result will be obtained on more than 95 attempts). Therefore, opinion...doesn't enter into it.

    Is personal opinion equal to scientific proof? No....for the same reason.

    Is scientific opinion equal to existential reality? Yes. Because opinions and the experience of reality is unique to the individual

    Is personal opinion equal to existential reality? Yes....for the same reason.


    In the end, Freud (and others)...what you are buggering up is the difference between a proof and a hypothesis. And then smearing politics over the lot...

    In simple terms:

    Anthropogenic climate change (as in the impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere) has been demonstrated as real and observable in repeated analysis of the data in a number of papers, many of which have been refered to in this thread over the years.

    What remains in contention is the many hypothesis about how the impacts of that anthropogenic climate change will be manifest right across the biosphere. We know impacts will occur (ice retreat, sea level rise etc etc) but we are not very certain about how much and where and what we can do about it. They could be great or they could be unmeasurable....it could be realised in a few decades or a few centuries. We might have taken it too far to have a chance of preventing any impact or they may still be decades. Either way there's plenty of material out there already to support every possible alternative of those three you could care to dream up.

    Why the truck most of you sceptics don't focus on this part of the problem is a thorough mystery to me....instead you meander around slinging ignorance & conspiracy theories and generally discrediting yourselves on the rocks of fundamental physics that have defined & demonstrable since the 17th Century. If you actually focussed your energies on the stuff that genuinly requires frequent and logical scepticism then the World would be a much much better place.

    The basic problem with understanding potential impacts arising from AGW is that there only two ways to find out - the first is tinker with the Earth (like a patient in a medical trial) except there's only one planet which kind of increases the risks associated with ballsing it up. The other is to plug what we know about the way our planet works into hundreds of different computer models containing all the knowledge and assumptions we have....and pretending to run the planet in a million different ways to see what happens most often...and then compare that to what we see in real life....and repeat ad infinitum.

    The first option is slow to give an answer (and it could be definitive in a negative trajectory) and comes with ridiculously high risks. The second gives you many answers, even more questions but a lot of hints as to which direction the answer might be heading....but no definitive answer on way or the other

    A bit like most weather models - if 8 out of 10 models say that there's a better than 50% chance of 50mm of rain tomorrow then that's a pretty each way bet that you might need an umbrella if you are going out....but not enough to stake a million bucks on a 20:1 shot of getting 75mm exactly.

    If a bet has to be made (using risk to my life as the stake) then I much prefer each way bets in the absence of real knowledge about the proverbial horse......

    Says the Goat to his flock of Sheep....<sigh>
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  33. #5483
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    See, this is where your confusion crosses the line to factual error. Once a biopsy is conducted, we have scientific empirical evidence that the tissue sample is cancerous or not. This is where black and white thinking is appropriate. The test will be factual, scientific and requires no opinions.

    The patients personal opinion is now irrelevant, the doctors medical opinion is now irrelevant, and the pathologists scientific opinion is now irrelevant. The biopsy will give the patient a YES or a NO. No opinion required. This is now a scientific fact, and a medical fact. The doctor can have a medical opinion as to the best treatment, and the patient may have a personal opinion that homeopathy is better (hope not).

    Yes, the doctors evidence was the clinical examination leading to his medical opinion the patient "very likely" had cancer. The biopsy was empirical evidence that proved the patient had cancer, rendering all opinions irrelevant.

    I can easily disagree with Frued's supopsed refutation.....and so would I suspect most medical doctors. Or anybody else with a whiff

    Pathology reports (or any other lab or field based observation of an event) are not simple or definitive YES or NO answers. They are observations of presence/absence, poopulation size etc with confidence levels based on the observation methodology and the degree to which that methodology was followed. They require interpretation which is derived from the training and experience of both the pathologist AND the doctor involved. If they required no interpretation then why the hell do we need doctors...we could simply rely on the yes/no answer from the technician. No thanks.

    Observations that are repeatable to a 95% confidence intervals (what Freud appears to blithely call a 'fact') can not, do not and never will render opinions irrelevant. If that were the case then neither scientists nor sceptics in any and every field would have nothing to be sceptical about...which is clearly not true.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  34. #5484
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Pathology reports (or any other lab or field based observation of an event) are not simple or definitive YES or NO answers. They are observations of presence/absence, poopulation size etc with confidence levels based on the observation methodology and the degree to which that methodology was followed. They require interpretation which is derived from the training and experience of both the pathologist AND the doctor involved.
    I find it somewhat amusing and somewhat ironic that 'Dr Freud' can somehow accept pathology reports as black-and-white (some that simply involve staining some cells and look at them under a microscope. Let alone the possible mix ups in taking, labelling and shipping samples and reports). Whereas AGW science has to be proved to the same level as the proof of the irrationality of the square-root-of-two, and agreed to by every living scientist in the world, before he'll even consider it.

    Unfortunately, the superfluous and ambit argument over the existence of AGW is distracting us for some of the more relevant issues and matters such as those raised by Bedford.

    It seems that SBD's prophecy might just be right.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  35. #5485
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Dont tell me another AL Gore Prediction has bitten the dust.

    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  36. #5486
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Here you go boys something for you to take apart. Be sure to go to the link now!

    Ten Major Failures of Consensus Science

    By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
    INTRODUCTION The US congress sub-committee on Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on whether to restrict in some way the EPA’s regulatory authority relative to greenhouse gas emissions.
    There were 7 scientists invited to testify. Three of the four who argued not to restrict the EPA played a key role in the last IPCC report (and will also in the next one) and generally started with the position that IPCC science was sound and there was a consensus of all real scientists.
    In the attached analysis we take a look at the IPCC based science. We are going to ignore all the many 'gates' that were uncovered like the Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rain forests, how many real scientists there were who authored the key summaries and all the issues as to whether the summaries truly reflected the scientific information in the chapters and despite claims to the contrary, how a significant percentage of citations were not peer reviewed.
    We will not attempt to address the issues of sensitivity for CO2 or solar and cloud and water vapor feedbacks relative to the models. We will also ignore the many model shortcomings - like inability to forecast regional patterns, ocean oscillations, etc.
    We will focus on how actual data compares to the consensus science, model based virtual world view of climate.


    Link part 1 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf

    Link part 2 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_...es_part_II.pdf

    empirical evidence is mounting against you LOL
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  37. #5487
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More semantic distractions.

    Lads, it still amazes me how much effort you put into arguing about analogies rather than the lack of evidence proving your farcical theory.

    If you put that much effort into the AGW hypothesis, you would likely have proved it by now.

    I'll response to your bizarre fixations with biopsies above tomorrow, as I wasted my valuable posting time watching Q&A. Rest assured your incorrect assertions above will be highlighted in detail.

    But good on you Rod for continuing to fight the good fight while I wrestle with these semantic distractions.

    And as luck would have it, I have a work commitment during the anti Carbon Dioxide Tax rally now.

    I'm trying to get my mum to go instead.

  38. #5488
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    To believe D'Alio you have to accept his view that the data from the major climate centres is falsified because the only way he can run his bull dung is to ignore the data which does not support his conclusions. In his case that is most of the available data, although there is plenty of proof that D'Alio is not arguing a supportable proposition. It doesn't stop those who want to suspend there own belief in reality from referencing him, in the relentless pursuit of a preheld view in the hope that the ever expanding brown haze surrounding skeptics in general will hide the fact that they actually don't like facts at all.

    You can read this article that gives both sides of the d'alio view. Right-wing media forward conspiracy theory that NASA, NOAA manipulate climate data | Media Matters for America

  39. #5489
    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
    I wasted my valuable posting time watching Q&A.
    If you managed to tune in early, you might have also managed to see Media Watch too.

    Media Watch: Balancing a hot debate (21/03/2011)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    And as luck would have it, I have a work commitment during the anti Carbon Dioxide Tax rally now.
    Too bad, Doc. Maybe you'll be able to make it to the Flat Earth rally instead?

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

  40. #5490
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Here you go boys something for you to take apart. Be sure to go to the link now!

    Link part 1 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf

    Link part 2 http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_...es_part_II.pdf

    empirical evidence is mounting against you LOL
    [/size]
    Errrrr......no it isn't. These ten 'failures' relate to exactly the problems | was talking about earlier in my last diatribe. In summary, you and way to many of your ilk are being 'sceptical' about the wrong end of the stick.

    As for being a failure of 'consensus' science....what is the alternative that the author is proposing? 'Dictatorial Science'? 'Lets Vote On it Science'? 'No Science'? 'Religous Science'? 'Let The Market Decide Science'? My predicition is that is is 'Politically Driven Ignorance'....as in "the Politicians are smarter than the Scientists so you the [s]Voter[/s] Sheep should trust us". Thuck Fat (as my Vietnamese friend used to say).

    None of these 'failures' identified have anything to say about whether AGW is happening or not. They all refer to predicted impacts as a result of AGW......with the apparent expectation that if the impacts don't occur then AGW is equivalent to the Tooth Fairy. However, D'Aleo's analysis does show that impacts are occuring in some of the indictors assessed but they are not necessarily tracking in exact lock step with modelled predictions. This doesn't constitute a refutation of AGW....it is merely a refutation of a selection of some of the model findings.

    Those of us familiar with models and modelling are so unsurprised by this finding. Have been for ages. Models only predict a trend (+ve or -ve) and a rate of change with a lower and upper confidence limit. Humans (scientists mostly but media does it too) then use those predictions to create simplified numbers that might be palatable for a wider audience.

    Models are only as good as the combination of the available data, the available knowledge about the behaviour of the systems being modelled, the rigor behind the assumptions included in the model and the rigor of the analysis of the modelled output. They are about providing a simple sense of how complex systems might behave. That they don't mimic real life is extremely well understood and accepted.

    However, the general public, politicians want certainty.....empirical results...before taking a tentative step forward.

    Sorry.....that will never happen. Observations only happen in real time. There is no forewarning - we can only see a trend by tooking back.

    Let me ask....would you prefer to observe an earthquake firsthand? Or would you prefer to use the observations you have to date to try to predict that one might be coming with sufficient timeliness to allow you to get out of harms way? Earthquake predictive modelling and climate change predictive modelling are basically the same thing applied to two different fields.....and nether produce perfect results - but both have form (in the modern day) in using available data to suggest probabilities that poo will happen.

    D'Aleo's analysis and many of his findings are perfectly valid. One could quibble over his selective choice of timeframes and many of the details but his general thrust of criticism over modelled predictions compared to the actual data collected in the years following publication of those predictions is perfectly valid. It is all grist to the mill in terms of making our predictive capacity better into the future. But it does not counter the reality of AGW....nor does it suggest that the world climate isn't changing under its influence (or that of its other drivers). It does suggest that we still aren't smart enough to descibe it as exactly as we'd like but it also suggests that neither are we smart enough to take even a hint of the warning on offer....


    Forewarned is forarmed so the story goes. The rest is up to you.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  41. #5491
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    And as luck would have it, I have a work commitment during the anti Carbon Dioxide Tax rally now.
    I can see it now....

    HEADLINE

    Perth Anti Carbon Tax Rally suffers 10% fall in attendance due to Intrusion Of Real Life.

    Significance of this blow is lost on those few remaining truly committed to the Cause.

    The Faceless Men now considering pushing Pensioners to the Front to face the Challenge.

    What you are saying, Freud is that your Job is far more important than what last week was, to you, the most dangerous social, economic and political implement that Australia has faced.....ever. And that your Mum will fix it instead.

    THAT is the funniest thing I reckon I'll read all year....

    Freud's New Catchcry: Mum will fix it!!
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  42. #5492
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    To believe D'Alio you have to accept his view that the data from the major climate centres is falsified because the only way he can run his bull dung is to ignore the data which does not support his conclusions. In his case that is most of the available data, although there is plenty of proof that D'Alio is not arguing a supportable proposition. It doesn't stop those who want to suspend there own belief in reality from referencing him, in the relentless pursuit of a preheld view in the hope that the ever expanding brown haze surrounding skeptics in general will hide the fact that they actually don't like facts at all.

    You can read this article that gives both sides of the d'alio view. Right-wing media forward conspiracy theory that NASA, NOAA manipulate climate data | Media Matters for America
    Like this Johnc?
    NASA GISS Busted: 'GISS reports that the average temps in Tromo, Norway during July and August, 1922 &ndash; were a cool 14.8 and 11.9 C' | Climate Depot
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  43. #5493
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default


    Busted on the strength of a single paragraph from a newspaper, of course papers never get it wrong, do they?

    An impartial reader would wonder what coroborating evidence is available to lead to a sensible opinion, a skeptic just grasps for the one that supports their view, nothing new there.

  44. #5494
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    How's for the Homily of The Day......

    Denial v's Progress


    From Denial vs. Progress. | Indexed
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  45. #5495
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The Doc still seems to have trouble distinguishing between opinion and scientific opinion.
    Skipping piously over the pretense of the post and the condescending and patronising content and wording of the "analogy" by our very own part time amateur tree hugger and AGW cheer leader Chris ......rrrrrrrr (drum roll)

    Lets try another analogy

    Suddenly and out of the blue, governments around the world start advertising that a
    Horrible calamity is upon us.
    A virulent strain of Zegoaroo flue has been unleashed by the Javanese bush fires that has pushed this creature from it's habitat up in the mountains of Bongo Bongo. The flu pandemic has spread to the volunteers helping out and they have brought it back to their countries.
    Everyone needs to vaccinate. Scientific proof of the virus strain is clear from the many people that show flue like symptoms during flue season. There has been a 0.3% increase in the number of ill people and this proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Zegoaroo flue strain is going to decimate human population in 2013, the horizon level is going to rise at least 13 meters and hair growth particularly in middle aged men is going to be a thing of the past. Pubic hair is already falling off as we speak in massive proportions and the bacteria count on the Arctic ice is so high that no amount of anti-idiotic spray will be able to stop it.

    All-Gore & Co, the only drug lab in the west able to provide the massive number of vaccines in time for this pandemic is ready and able to deliver. Millions oblige and que up for the shot despite its cost of $1,957.50.

    Suddenly the interest for the remedy takes off. Germany is trading the vaccine on the share market, in Spain it is sold in the black market during siesta time and in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, large shipments of fake vaccine is ready to cross the frontier.
    Politicians of all persuasions stand on their respective podium, pontificating on it's necessity and virtues, for the sake of humanity and the planet. Their paid scientist draw graphs that look like a hokey stick with the projection of flue case numbers going viral.

    However problems soon start becoming public. The vaccine seems to trigger an immune reaction that leaves some people paralysed, others dead. The first cases are hidden, others are given a different diagnosis in their death certificate. Most only point at the problems as PROOF that the virus is deadly and that we must vaccinate without hesitation. The world must know of our determination to save the planet!

    It does not take long for Wikileaks to releases email among the scientist involved in the discovery of the Zegoaroo virus strain acknowledging that the death and paralysis are undeniable and that thy are an inconvenience for the science behind the flue vaccine and must be hidden at all cost. New cases are denied, proof is deleted and the debate for the need of a vaccination continues.

    Russia and China announce to provide the vaccine and let their citizen pay in kind with 10 hours of community service a week. Europeans pay reluctantly, the US provides people on low income with coupons to offset 50% of the cost and the Labour government in Australia announces that Centrelink will pay a refund of the total price via one off cheque for every citizen in their database regardless if they have received the vaccine or not. Refugees will get two cheque.






    [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mark/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
    Zegoaroo in the Javanese jungle
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  46. #5496
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Sheeit...I think I just caught that.

  47. #5497
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Sheeit...I think I just caught that.
    Which leg?
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  48. #5498
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    :b:

    Blush

  49. #5499
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Piaget specialised in researching childhood psychology, primarily by studying his own children. These case studies led to very impressive leaps in understanding human psychological development.

    It is tragic that you have misapplied his concept this badly.

    Issues that exist on a spectrum require abstract thought. For example, one of the examples similar to your link is the construct of happiness. Humans obviously are not either happy or unhappy, but exist somewhere along this spectrum from being morose to being blissfull.

    Issues that are categorical require black and white thinking. For example, if you were changing some wiring in your house, you need to know whether the power is off or on. This is black and white.

    Both abstract and concrete thinking have their places in science and in the everyday world. Some say wisdom is knowing which one to use and when.

    But that's enough psychobabble, any more and I'll start billing you.
    Thanks Doc. I appreciate your searchlight on the truth.

  50. #5500
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Sheeit...I think I just caught that.
    And I just caught a bus to Canberra
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


Page 110 of 377 FirstFirst ... 10 60 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 160 210 ... 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
  •