Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - Page 6

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 14:28:59 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

What strawman?  A straw man is a component of an argument and is an
informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
How does citing a petition signed by 31,487 alleged scientists
constitute a misrepresentation of YOUR position.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No never answered my question.  What would you consider to be the
minimum qualifications necessary to have an opinion in the matter?  A
college degree?  Ability to understand the data massaging?  Carnal
knowledge of statistics?  

Incidentally, the last time I checked, representative democracy only
requires that the voter be able to read (but not necessarily
understand) the ballot, and sign their own name.  There's no minimum
standard for intelligence, logic, political experience, or even that
they understand English.  If the founding fathers wanted the
government run by academics, they would have done things quite
differently.

My guess is at least half the list of signers are bogus.  That's not a
wild guess.  That's from experience working with the local elections
officials counting petitions and ballots (before computers made voter
fraud easy.  At the time, a typical local ballot petition would
require about 25,000 valid signatures.  There was not enough time or
resources to check everyone, so we picked out a few "sheets" of
signatures, each of which had either 20 or 40 signatures.  Based on
the ratio of valid to signatures on a sheet, we extrapolated the total
number of valid signatures.  If it exceeded 25,000, the petition was
deemed valid.  If low or close, we grabbed another few more random
sheets and did it again.  From experience, at least half the
signatures were bogus.  On politically volatile issues, which tends to
invite fraud, we were lucky to get 20% of the signatures valid.

So, using 20-50% valid, would 6,300 to 15,700 valid signatures be
sufficient?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
True.  Quantity is not a great substitute for quality, but in this
case, I think it's sufficient to demonstrate that not everyone is a
true believer in the IPCC view of global warming.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Apparently, you haven't had much dealings with the medical profession.
My experiences have been that much of the medical profession leans
towards useless procedures, defensive medicine, and padding the bill.
If I want to know something about medicine, I will ask the medical
profession for their opinion, do my own research, and then decide for
myself.  Throwing oneself to the mercy of the medical profession is
suicide.

Same with climate experts.  These are often the same people that can't
predict tomorrows weather successfully, but are expected to do the
same 100 years in the future.  Yes, I know that there's a difference
between weather prediction and climate research, but if you look
carefully, you'll see that almost everyone with weather experience is
now also considered an expert on climate (because that is where the
funding goes).  Passing our economy and our lifestyle into the hands
of the climatologist is equally dangerous.  Following their lead, we
may solve or delay global warming, but at what price?  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please show me where it has been discredited?  I did some digging and
all I could find was a bunch of unsubstantiated rubbish and word
games, such as:
<http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition
If you use the same criteria that the elections commission uses for
petitions, and samples the signatories, the petition would be anywhere
from 20-50% valid, which I consider good enough.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have a calculator, with a substantial collection of known bugs.  Duz
that make the calculator useless?
<http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/articles.cgi?read73%5
Of course not.  Even if half the buttons were broken, there would
still be enough functionality left to make the calculator usable. Same
with a petition.  Even if half the signatures are bogus, the remainder
is sufficient to make the petition useful.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Please show me where it has been discredited.  Finding a few invalid
names does not magically discredit the entire petition.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You avoided my question.  Precisely what qualifications do you believe
are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?  That doesn't
mean an uninformed opinion, but rather one that you would consider to
be authoritative?  Do they need to have a degree?  Experience in
writing papers?  Well known in their specialty?  Involved in weather
or climate in some manner?  

Wisdom does not come from experts.  It comes from those who question
the experts.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So, you only listen to those who completely agree with your values? If
I ran background checks on my favorite scientists, politicians, and
engineers, I would find a very mixed bag of religions, party
affiliations, philosophies, and mystical practices.  The mistake
you're making is that you're judging the person, not the content.  Man
has fought many revolutions and wars in the name of freedom of speech,
thought, religion, philosophy, and economics.  Now that almost anyone
has the right to an opinion, without risk of official retaliation, you
offer the principle that only those that are academically qualified,
politically correct, and follow the correct religions, are considered
authoritative.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm not sure what you mean by "target".  Assassination is not a useful
method of argumentation.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Some do, most don't.  One of the reasons you see a large number of
names as authors on global warming papers is that the effort usually
involves a team of specialists.  Sometimes its in collaboration with
other climatologists, but usually some of the names are statisticians,
professional writers, proof readers, and editors.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not directly.  Try reading the book "Disconnect" by Devra Davis:
<(Amazon.com product link shortened)>
The author is an epidemiologist, and one of the authors of the IPCC
working group III (Mitigation) report.
<http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp35%3
In her book, she details how some cell phone research reports were
allegedly edited to conform to the position of those paying the bills.
By the time the various reports were published, they had allegedly
been edited sufficiently that even the authors would have difficulty
recognizing their own work.  In one case, the summary and conclusion
were changed to show a result different from what the data
demonstrated.  These anecdotes were meant to alarm the readers, but is
really a fair description of how things are done in research.


--
Jeff Liebermann     snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It's a strawman, in the sense that you were previously referring to a
completely different situation, concerning 1,000 scientists. 30,000
scientists, which do not necessarily have any experience, knowledge or
interest in climatology is pretty much irrelevant, given that there are
MILLIONS of science degree holders. In fac, 30,000 is a drop in the
ocean, by comparison.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**ANYONE is entitled to an opinion. Regardless of educational
qualifications. 30,000 people who have no experience, nor knowledge of
climatology means nothing. The Oregon Petition is an exercise in
complete futility.


   A
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Your guess is duly noted. I have no idea how many are bogus. I know
that at least one MD is dead and is still on the list. I don't know how
many more are dead, bogus or just disinterested bystanders.


   That's not a
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**For the most part, here in Australia, dead people don't get to vote.
They are removed from the electoral rolls.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Dunno and I don't care. 30,000 people who have no experience of, nor
interest in climatology means squat.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It is sufficient to prove that an ALLEGED 30,000 scientists (out of a
total of MILLIONS) have ALLEGEDLY signed a petition. That is all it
means. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I've had a little.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Then you have several issues:

1) A nonsensically expensive medical system, which is geared to provide
huge profits to large corporations (HMOs), that has almost no control by
government authorities.
2) No trustworthy local doctor.

Where I live, I am able to rely upon the same doctor I've used for the
last 30 years. He has never steered me wrong and has always provided
honest accurate and economical advice. Moreover, like many fair skinned
Aussies, the most serious problem I've had in my life, has been the
appearance of pre-cancerous skin problems. My doctor has a very keen eye
(gained by hard years of study and 40 years' of experience) and has
treated many of these growths by freezing or small surgical procedures.
A goodly number have been on my back. A hit with the liquid nitrogen or
the scalpal and I am back at work, losing a mere 40-odd minutes from my
day and, maybe $20.00 from my wallet. Can't complain about life-saving
procedures at that price. All your internet searches would be worth
diddly under such circumstances. The system we have here in Australia is
tightly regulated by the government and HMOs do not have the ability to
gouge consumers in the way they are in the US. Last time I looked,
Australia's health system cost the nation around 9% of GDP, whilst the
US system cost the US people around 13% of GDP. Even better, our system
is truly egalitarian. Some years ago, Australia's richest man (now
deceased) suffered a major heart attack and was rushed to hospital. The
surgeon who operated on the man was the best in the counbry. The very
next day, that same surgeon may well have operated on a homeless person,
or a plumber, electrician, whatever. Everyone in the nation has
(theoretically, at least) access to the best (life-saving) health care.
At low cost.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Like I said: You have a serious problem with the medical system where
you live.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Points:

* No they're not, though SOME are.
* Weather prediction has reached quite a high standard of accuracy.
Somewhere around 90% for 24 hours. 80% for 48 hours and so on.


, but are expected to do the
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not the same thing. Weather prediction is not the same as predicting
climate changes in 100 years.


   Yes, I know that there's a difference
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**If you had taken the time to read IPCC AR4, you would already have the
answer to that question. The risk is that the cost of inaction may be
impossible to fund.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Sure: First off, here are the precise words that the alleged
scientists allegedly signed their names to:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Pretty 'rubbery' stuff. No outright claims that the climatologists are
wrong. Just a claim that "catastrophic heating" will not occur.

Here is another claim from the delightful liars at the Oregon Petition:

"Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a
branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual
measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend.
Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their
highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly."

These words constitute an outright lie. And here is what Scientific
American found:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories
claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were
able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with
the petition---one was an active climate researcher, two others had
relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation.
Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember
any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated
messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core
of about 200 climate researchers---a respectable number, though rather a
small fraction of the climatological community."




   I did some digging and
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It may be, but it is still irrelevant, unreliable and nonsensical. As
I have stated, ad nauseum: It doesn't matter what a an orthopaedic
surgeon (allegedly) claims about global warming. That surgeon has not
published any credible science, relating to AGW anywhere that I can
find. Can you?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**ONE bug can make a calculator utterly useless. It depends on the bug.
I just selected a name that would be easy for me to research. No other
reason. The results I turned up were disturbing. Not conclusive. Just a
reminder that the Oregon Petition is just that: An informal petition of
dubious usefulness.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Indeed. What it does show is the lack of rigorous standards applied to
how the petition was conducted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No, I did not. By ANYONE, I mean ANYONE. Science degrees or not.


   Precisely what qualifications do you believe
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**None, whatsoever. I believe I already clearly stated that.


   That doesn't
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Appropriate education in some form of climate science is appropriate.
Something like atmospheric physics, for instance.



   Do they need to have a degree?  Experience in
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not always. Sometimes, idiots need to shut the fuck up and listen.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Absolutely not. However, ANYONE that embraces Creationism has serious
problems with their ability to think critically. Critical thinking is
essential for any scientific discipline. Ever wondered why we no longer
see major scientific advances from societies mired in religious
fundamentalism?


  If
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Partly, yes. Spencer, however, has been proven wrong many times.


   Man
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And I support a person's right to be an idiot. Spencer is an idiot. Or
do you, too, embrace Spencer's idiotic religious compulsions?


   Now that almost anyone
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Of course. ANYONE who embraces Creationism is a fool and may be
summarily disregarded, as a serious scientist.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**"Target", in the sense that he is easy to dispute, due to his
preference of religius belef over science.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
<(Amazon.com product link shortened)>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**YOu would need to prove that the science presented in the IPCC reports
has been seriously altered from the original work, to make your claim stick.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au





Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Trevor is largely correct in what he says, after Medicare rebate you
would only pay about $20 for such a visit, and I am also fortunate to
have a doctor that is of similar good standard to what he describes.
Unfortunately plenty are not that good.  Google "Jayant Patel" for an
extremely bad example, and note also how the state government covered
up for him for years and referred to as "racist" anyone who tried to
report his lethal incompetence which he has been convicted for now in
court.

What Trevor doesnt say is that in Australia, there are not enough
doctors outside capital and major cities, and where there is one, he/
she is not likely to be taking any more new patients as they are full
already.

Also a significant number of doctors - both in public health and
private practice are not Australian, but from India, so I guess we
have India's medical schools to thank for these skills.  While I
personally have had no bad results from Indian doctors in public
health, I do feel we should be doing more to develop the talent of our
own young people in this and other areas.

As for public health dentistry, unless it is what they consider an
"emergency" (ie - excruciating pain) - you can wait many years for an
appointment. A friend of the family who is a dental technician who
does public health work said that they are 2 years behind due to lack
of staff and contractors not being paid on time. Another problem that
was a pet hate of his is the people who guzzle coca-cola at every
opportunity, and don't brush their teeth often, if at all, (usually
living on government handouts) creating preventable problems that add
to this workload.

There are many cases where people are made to wait months and
sometimes years for operations in public hospitals, I personally know
people who have been in this predicament of being on endless waiting
lists. One was a friend's elderly mother who was not treated due to
the waiting list, instead basically shoved in a regional hospital (due
to there being no nursing home beds available) that had no doctors,
only nursing care and left to eventually die about 3 months later.

Having said this, I have had no problems personally with the health
system, but I have not had any serious illness, only minor things to
be treated, and these have been ok.  A few suspect moles (as Trevor
has had) have been removed under local anaesthetic by my GP,
fortunately they all turned out to be benign when tested.  Skin Cancer
is a serious issue in Australia, and if you don't keep an eye on it
you are asking for trouble.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I would be very careful quoting from any corporate owned media on
this.  They are not unbiased, and due to this fact, any content they
have should be treated in the same way as "paid advertising" is..


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Make no mistake: The Australian health system is a very, VERY long way
from perfect. It is, IMO, a disgrace. However, compared to the system in
the US, it is superb. In the US, HMOs gouge their subscribers to an
obscene level. They regularly fail to allow subscribers access to the
best drugs available. Many tens of millions of Us citizens have no
effective access to decent health care, simply because they can't afford
insurance (which is many times more expensive that private medical
insurance in Australia). I don't recall the precise figures, but
something like 60% of all personal bankruptcies are because people
sacrifice everything for expensive drugs and medical services. In
Australia, personal bankruptcies due to medical bills are virtually
unheard of. In fact, such things are virutally unheard of anywhere in
the world, except in the US. HMOs, doctors, hospitals and drug companies
in the US are well aware that people will pay almost anything to
maintain their health. They gouge, gouge and gouge. At the present rate
of gouging, the costs of health care sits at 16% of US GDP. Australia
sits at 8.7%. And, here's the really insane stuff:

* An Australian's life expectancy is 81.4 years.
* An American's life expectancy is 78.1 years.
* The total percentage of government revenue spent on health in
Australia is 17.7%
* The total percentage of government revenue spent on health in the US
is 18.5%.

This all despite a largely socialised medical system in Australia. The
very same system that the US rejects at every opportunity.

Weird.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Cite the source of bias from Scientific American.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The stuff you say about the US health system seems mostly correct from
what I have heard over the
years from US colleages and friends.

Also forgot to mention that Australia has the PBS that limits the cost
of
most prescription medicines to affordable levels.  (by the government
bulk buying drugs and medicines and getting a better deal IIRC)



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Logic.


If any publication is owned by some entity, it will over time tend to
reflect the interests of that entity or its owners.
I would be confident in saying that in the US, just about every major
publication would be owned by a mega-corporation that would have
financial interests it would want protected.


Of course there are spins - like "labor" and "liberal" biased
publications that package propaganda in such a way to make it resonate
with their particular audience.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have to say that I find this a rather disturbing position. As I understand
it, Creationism spans a very wide range of beliefs. Are you saying that any
devout Christian - of which I guess there are many millions worldwide - is a
religious nutter, because they believe in their religion's holy book ? The
bible tells of a universe created by a divine being. Whether that's right or
wrong, it is a belief that is strongly held by many sane and rational people
and, I would wager, more than a few of the climate scientists that you put
so much faith in.

My dear old mum, bless her now-departed soul, had a firm belief in the
bible, and of a God that created the earth that she lived on and everything
on it. Do you think that she was a Creationist and a religious nutter for
holding those beliefs? I can assure you that she was one of the most
practical and sanest people that I have ever known. She just came from a
time when Christianity in one form or another was practiced to a greater or
lesser degree, by most families in this country.

Arfa
 


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Not specifically, though ANY PERSON who holds any kind of religious
belief, which requires the suspension of science, has some very clear
problems with the ability to think critically. However, in Spencer's
case, I was being very precise in that his belief system actively
disputes the fact of evolution and the theory of Natural Selection, as
espoused by one of the most formidable scientists of all time - Darwin.
Creationism is a specific subset of Christianity (and probably other
religions) where huge swaths of biology, geology, physics and
astro-physics are completely disregarded, in preference for a primitive,
childish approach to the universe.


  The bible tells of a universe created by a
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**And I would challenge any climatologist holding such childish beliefs.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I don't know. Possibly, she was just ignorant. Like my own mother, she
may have lacked a decent education and had no real grounding in science.
My mother has an unshakable belief in the supernatural (she's a
Methodist). Spencer has no excuse for his childish beliefs. He has a
decent education. For him to reject science, in preference for religious
nuttery is a sad indictment of his ability to think critically.


  I can assure you that she
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Sure. Same as my mum. Doesn't make it correct. It just makes it clear
that many people lack a decent education.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think that you are moving onto shaky ground here Trevor. Calling people
ignorant and childish for holding core Christian beliefs, ain't gonna win
you any friends. My mother was neither poorly educated, nor ignorant, like
many millions of other Christians worldwide, and I actually take exception
at your self-righteous suggestion that she was. Whilst she had no 'formal'
grounding in science, she had a lifelong interest in many aspects of
science, and was an avid reader of science-related material, and watcher of
scientific and factual TV programming.

If you believe that your own mother is a religious nutter for embracing her
variety of Christianity - and you must do because based on the fact that she
is a Methodist, and has an "unshakable belief in the supernatural", she
qualifies admirably for your definition - then I think it may be you that
has some serious issues here ...

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Well, we are very off-topic. I did not bring mothers into the
discussion. It was a needless distraction.


  Calling
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I don't give a crap. Religion is a blight on society. It is wasteful,
unnecessary, divisive and has held back the progress of humanity for far
too long. Of course, there have been positives associated with religion,
but, IMO, the downsides make it not worth bothering with.



  My mother was neither poorly educated, nor
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**So be it. I call it the way I see it. Religious thinking is
inconsistent with science. Creationism (like that espoused by Spencer)
is not only inconsistent with science, but it ACTIVELY disputes solid
science. Spencer has the temerity to deny the brilliance of Darwin and
his life-long work. NO ONE should attempt to dispute what is generally
regarded as one of the greatest pieces of scientific investigation of
all time, without supplying some pretty serious supporting evidence.
Spencer supplies nothing. He just denies it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I argue with my mother regularly. She knows not to bring up the topic
of her religious beliefs in my prescence. I will not tolerate such
nonsense. She is also rapidly learning that when she attempts to argue
that the planet is not warming, that she will be sharply rebuked. Sadly,
parents reach a point where they need to be treated like children.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, all I can say is that I hope my children never end up treating me with
such disrespect as you clearly have for your parents, or having such dogged
intolerance of the beliefs of others ... :-(

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Again, this is well and truly off topic. I have no issue for the
sacrifices that my parents made for me, nor the values that they
instilled in me. I was raised to be free to express my opinions and
beliefs at all times. Family dinners often resulted in robust
discussions. Particularly, since both my parents shared different
political views to mine. At all times, we conducted such discussions
without rancour and with respect for the views of the opponent. Not the
issue. When we discuss science, my mother is ignorant of the facts. She
lacks the education and the critical thinking required. I remind her of
that.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, that's not actually quite what you said, is it ? I really don't think
that "Sadly, parents reach a point where they need to be treated like
children" constitutes having 'robust discussions'. It actually demonstrates
an astonishingly patronising attitude to someone who has half a life more
experience than you do. But given the other content of this thread, and some
of your responses, maybe not quite so astonishing, on reflection.

Arfa


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Sadly, some elderly people lose a considerable amount of their ability
to reason. This often becomes worse, as they age. I've seen this with my
mother over the last decade or so. I challenge her whenever I can, as
research suggests that challenging the elerly is the best approach to
keep their brains operating at optimum. Just recently, I purchased a new
printer for my mother. Whilst I looked on, I insisted that she should
install the printer. She did so, quite successfully. Not only do such
activities assist with her brain, but she felt a sense of
accomplishment, when she finished the job. I will always assist my
mother, when she needs help, but I will not 'molly-coddle' her.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Summed up in very few words in fact quite accurately
a  disrespectful know-nothing wannbe

--
X-No-Archive: Yes


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
...

I liked the part about "gogged intolerance of the beliefs of others".
And not even a hint of irony. LOL.

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.  It proves that all science is lies
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Oh you mean like 97% of all climate scientists, all 79 of them?
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed /

"First I'm going to address a common response to this study. In this
post at The Hockey Schtick, it is pointed out that the 97% statistic
is based on only 79 climatologists, and that those participating were
self-selected. There are two concerns here. The first is sample size.
While climate science isn't a massive field, 79 participants is fairly
small. To claim definitely that 97% believe this or that you would
need to poll significantly more people. The second concern is the fact
that the scientists were self-selected by an online survey. This may
not have led to a representative sample."


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm *only* an engineer, but I certainly can recognize crap science
when I see it. For example here's Andrew Lacis doing an "experiment"
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/09/atmospheric-co2-the-greenhouse-thermostat /

This is a *thought* experiment, not a real one. Climate models have
not been verified nor validated, yet we're supposed to believe this
proves CO2 entirely controls the temperature.

Why did we bother to build the LHC? It would have been much cheaper
just to buy physicists a couple of super-computers and let them run
this same kind of "experiment". The standard model of particle physics
is certainly well understood. Could it be perhaps that we want to
actually observe reality?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope, if the "experts" can't convince us ordinary people then we need
better experts. Or better science.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ad hominem argument. Spencer's religious beliefs, or Jeff's religious
beliefs, or even *your* religious beliefs are not the question.
He's reached different conclusions than you, so that makes him an
idiot? So anyone that disagrees with you is therefore an idiot?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And I would argue that *you* prefer your religious beliefs over actual
science too. In this case you seem to believe, without question,
whatever crap "climate science" and other greenies claim, ass long as
they dress it up in something that resembles science.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Jeff, one of the concerns many people have about climate science is
that they do their statistics. They invent new and novel statistical
methods that may or may not be either useful or valid.
See the Wegman criticisms of Mann's statistical methods, for example.

Judith Curry's site: http://judithcurry.com/ is a useful read. Also,
if you haven't yet read it, Lombergs "The Sceptical Environmentalist"
is an excellent book. I can understand why the enviros at Unscientific
American thought they needed a special issue to try and refute it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
<(Amazon.com product link shortened)>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed /
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Strawman noted.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Why? I would be far more concerned about the lies in the article you
just cited. In that article, this claim is made (by that religious
fruitcake, Spencer):

"..there was a very clever paper published in Science this past week . .
. in an attempt to prove that carbon dioxide is the main driver of the
climate system."

Spencer lied. NO climatologist would ever make such a bogus claim. The
Sun is the main driver of climate on this planet.

I suggest you choose your cites with more care in future. Try to avoid
cites from religious nutters (like Spencer). Stick to science.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Which is precisely what the IPCC researchers have done.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. Uneducated swill need to either become educated or shut the fuck
up. My plumber doesn't understand anything about electronics. He is,
however, smart enough to not try to tell me my business. Those who don't
understand climate science (and cannot be bothered reading the IPCC
AR4), have no excuse. They should either attempt to read and understand
the information, or fuck off.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. Fact. Spencer believes in 'Creation Science'. He disputes
evloution and Darwin's beautiful explanation in, what is regarded as one
of the greatest scientific works of all time. Spencer is, therefore, a
complete fool. ANYTHING he has to say about any scientific matter is
seriously suspect, due to his inability to think critically and rationally.


  Spencer's religious beliefs, or Jeff's religious
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Yes, they are. Spencer's religious beliefs are a clear indication of a
brain that is unable to think critically and rationally. Unless, of
course, you happen to agree with 'Creation Science'.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**No. He is an idiot, because he believes in 'Creation Science'.


  So anyone that disagrees with you is therefore an idiot?

**No. Jeff disagrees with me and I do not regard him as an idiot. OTOH,
anyone who embraces 'Creation Science' is, by definition, an idiot.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Really? What religious beliefs do you imagine I possess?



  In this case you seem to believe, without question,
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Incorrect. I've read the arguments for and against AGW (including IPCC
AR4). Whilst I do not find absolute certainty in the IPCC AR4, I find
that it presents far more credible science than the position espoused by
Spencer and the fossil fuel lobby. Further and for the record: I have no
interest in what "greenies" claim, UNLESS their opinion is backed by
solid science.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**This is also a useful read:

www.ipcc.ch

Have you taken the time to read it (all)?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed /
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Strawman? You "97%" figure comes from a deeply flawed poll. You are in
deep denial.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
sense
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I suggest you read climate etc and see what Lacis actually claims.

You persist in ad hominem argument, it makes you look like a
"religious nutter".

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You really are delusional. The IPCC has no researchers, it reguritates
whatever scientific studies it's permanent staff thinks will bolster
its political goals.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Your belief in CAGW and the poor science behind it. Religion doesn't
imply a belief in God, BTW.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
You mean like the crap John Cook promulgates on SKS that you
referenced in prior posts?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If I want to read political posturing I can find plenty of it on my
own.
The IPCC is *not* a science organization, it's a political
organization.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed /
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It's a strawman, because the Oregon Petition is:

* Severely flawed.
* A petition of 39,000 scientists (from a pool of several MILLION).
* Not a poll.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
sense
Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I did. Lacis parrotted Spencer's claim. Which is bogus. Spencer lied.
Lacis promulgated that lie.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I cited what was written. Nothing more.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**What are the IPCC's political goals? Supply supporting evidence to
validate your claims.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**It implies belief in the supernatural, rather than science:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Mostly, that involves some kind of God or Gods.

There is no place for religion or God in science.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**What "crap" would that be?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

**I understand now. You decline to read the most comprehensive study on
the topic.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:21:10 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That begs the question of how many climate scientists are there on the
planet.  Presumably, they would all be members of the AGU (American
Geophysical Union):
<http://www.agu.org
Looks like about 45,000 members (excluding students and associate
members).  About 27,000 in the USA:
<http://www.agu.org/membership/

I'll resist the temptation to count signatures on the IPCC AR4 report
as a count of IPCC climatologist.  Many are economists, statisticians,
biologists, and chemists.  I couldn't find a breakdown of IPCC
membership by specialty, but did find reports that claims to have that
information:
<http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
using data from:
WGIII:
<http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/wgiii-but-is-it-science.html
WGII:
<http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html
and WGI:
<http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/people-in-greenhouses-throwing-stones.html
If these author/reviewer breakdowns are correct, then the number of
qualified climatologist involved in the various IPCC committees is not
more than about 60.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, to their credit, most such research publishes the raw data for
anyone to use.  The problem is that when I tried to use some of it, I
started finding oddities that made me very suspicious.  For example:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
shows that at:
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_timescales.html
there are SEVEN different ways of dating the ice cores.  The most
commonly used method (GT4) shows a radical difference between "ice
age" and "gas age":
<ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/gt4nat.txt
Nowhere in any of the CO2 data or descriptions, can I find a
corresponding temperature (deuterium) data, or much of an indication
as to how the historical temperature data was derived (even though
it's discussed in the associated readme files):
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html
With what little time I've put into this exercise, I've either missed
something obvious, or found a smoking gun.  Hard to tell right now.

To be slightly fair, the infamous "Harry ReadMe" file was heavily
laced with problems dealing with corrupted, erratic, and missing data.
Producing pristine data by "repairing" the trashed original data
doesn't seem quite right, but does require the services of a
knowledgeable statistician:
<http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The book has been hotly debated since 1998.  I read it in about 2003.
There's very little in the book on AGW, but plenty on the "true" state
of the ecology and man's effects on the ecology.  Much of the book
refutes conventional wisdom and political consensus.  I'm not
sufficiently knowledgeable on the wide range of topic covered to offer
an opinion.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.

Site Timeline