Re: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

Sep 21, 2011 200 Replies
K

o

the

ke Dr

eople

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.

t

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..

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

**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.

**Cite the source of bias from Scientific American.

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
K

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)

es

re

r
e
a

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.

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
A

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

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

**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

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

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

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
J

Oh you mean like 97% of all climate scientists, all 79 of them?

formatting link

"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."

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"

formatting link

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?

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

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?

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.

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:

formatting link
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.

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

formatting link

**Strawman noted.

**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.

**Which is precisely what the IPCC researchers have done.
**No. Uneducated swill need to either become educated or shut the f*ck 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 f*ck off.
**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

**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'.
**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.

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

In this case you seem to believe, without question,

**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.
**This is also a useful read:

formatting link

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

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
A

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

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
J

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):

Looks like about 45,000 members (excluding students and associate members). About 27,000 in the USA:

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:

using data from: WGIII:

WGII:

and WGI:

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.

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:

shows that at:

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":

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):

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:

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.

# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

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

Calling

**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

**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.
**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

formatting link

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
J

formatting link

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

sense

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".

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

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

You mean like the crap John Cook promulgates on SKS that you referenced in prior posts?

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.

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
J

I keep seeing the claim "97% of all climate scientists" made in all sorts of places. 97% may agree, but you certainly can't prove it by this poll. If you look at the questions that were asked, I would probably agree, there is some degree of human influence on climate, so what is the worth of this poll, other than propaganda?

That is one of my problems with climate science, the data quality is extremely poor, yet we get a degree of certainty which is undoubtably not justified. Perhaps 6 months or so ago I read an analysis of the probable errors in the intrumental temperature record by a metrologist, he had some very interesting insights. For example, mercury an alchohol thermometers need to be read differently; one you read at the top of the meniscus, the other at the bottom. His estimated uncertainty was .6 degreees C. Yet we get "the warmest year on record" by perhaps .02 degree C. Oh, and the record is only about 150 years old.

Climate science comes off better than some of the other ecological studies, I thought. Things like species extinction seemed to be nothing but "expert" opinion. I love expert opinion, tell me is coffee good or bad this month according to expert medical opinion? Trevor may believe experts, but my experience has been that experts know an awful lot about very little, and can be blind to anything outside their area of expertise.

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

formatting link

**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.

sense

**I did. Lacis parrotted Spencer's claim. Which is bogus. Spencer lied. Lacis promulgated that lie.
**I cited what was written. Nothing more.

**What are the IPCC's political goals? Supply supporting evidence to validate your claims.
**It implies belief in the supernatural, rather than science:

formatting link

Mostly, that involves some kind of God or Gods.

There is no place for religion or God in science.

**What "crap" would that be?

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

-- Trevor Wilson

formatting link

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
A

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

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

**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

formatting link

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
A

Summed up in very few words in fact quite accurately a disrespectful know-nothing wannbe

X-No-Archive: Yes
Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
K

...

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 and the only thing we can trust is right wing rhetoric. -- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
A

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

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

**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

formatting link

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
J

Unfortunately for you, Trevor, the idiots seem to be IPCC employees.

Go case by case and prove them not idiots, beware the fundamental problem of times arrow in the causality claims, any failure in temporal order breaks the case. That is science.

?-)

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required