Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
jschell wrote:
Specious. In any number of ways.
First overall market demands are not driven by a single decision in any way shape or form.
Second normally on average in the scenario you depicted there is no real right answer. The two presentations will not have a specific winner. Thus one is about the same as the other. When there is a significantly and obviously better solution your fantasy 'Director' will make the right decision because there is a reason that person is a 'Director' in the first place. Or perhaps you are just claiming that everyone making any significant decision is absolutely corrupt and absolutely stupid.Market demand has nothing to do with it. You have proposed that if consumers demand 'better' technology it will come. I have pointed out a simple fictious yet plausable case where a technology would be surpressed, not because it is a worse item but merely because individual humans can and do impact technology. Everyone in the world does not have to be dumb or corrupt to make this true. Only one person.
jschell wrote:
Another fantasy example which ignores the breadth and depth of the market such as automobiles. There are potentially thousands of sources for innovative products. And innovative products do not just appear magically out of nowhere, they rest on a vast infrastructure of existing ideas/products.
Again, you missed the point. Wether this case exists or not is not the point. It is IF it can exist. If it can exist it shows a simple case of where technology can be invented and not brought to consumers. It has nothing to do with consumer demand. That is the point.
jschell wrote:
I see. Presumably all this incredible future technology originated in Area 51 as well. Probably kept secret all these years from foreign nationals by the very same security systems that obscure Area 51 itself.
So because one proposes that an industry is savy enough to lock down market control it brings in all global conspiracies?? Is it so hard to imagine that an industry with more money than most countries would want to ensure their future? Is it so hard to believe that the top executives ethics are questionable that they would not only do this but possible even direct illegal (blackmail, murder, etc) measures to protect themselves? Oh wait.. Thats right, C
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have proposed that if consumers demand 'better' technology it will come.
I didn't say that. I said that if a substantially obvious product exists then market demand will drive to that product. Market desire can also drive to a better product but there is no guarantee that a better product can be created.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I have pointed out a simple fictious yet plausable case where a technology would be surpressed
You posited some outlandish conspiracy cases which do not exist. And ignored large market dynamics in doing so.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Only one person.
Wrong. I do not accept that humans with super abilities exist. And that is the only plausible cause where a single person can impact a large scale global market.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is IF it can exist
You missed the point - it CANNOT exist in a large scale market.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So because one proposes that an industry is savy enough to lock down market control it brings in all global conspiracies??
Yes. Fantasy is fantasy. Large scale conspiracies exist only in the minds of people based on emotion and nothing else. Such 'theories' completely ignores that humans have a vast number of positive and negative traits of which the expression of any one of them make such conspiracies impossible. One need only look to any large population to see example every day of very small conspiracies which fail because some human trait.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So yes, I do believe that the mass of the population is too dumb to know what is good for them ...when price fixing comes into play
People are too stupid to know what is good for themselves yet there are vast numbers able to organize and maintain conspiracies that scale the globe and involve thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people and which span decades? It can't be both ways.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
In the US it works that way, and that's why the country is being demoted to 3rd world
Both simplistic and wrong.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is actually the opposite. You have to find a fact showing that the whole network will need to be rebuilt as you claimed.
I didn't say that.
Ehem...
jschell wrote:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It's a lot easier, logistically speaking, to improve a small handful of power plants, as opposed to going out and upgrading every single vehicle (again)
Sounds good in theory. Completely ignores economics though.
You have to build the power plants. You have to build the distribution networks. You have to build the distribution points (you didn't think you were going to plug into some strangers outlet for free did you?)There is no need to build anything until the demand for power requires it... Ian's point was it is easier to replace a a few power plants or switch from a coal power plant to a wind farm (when the time is right) than it is to continually upgrade and tweak combustion engines. By making them all electrical (which almost every thing is aside from a few gas applicances which mind you also have electric versions, e.g. Stove and Furnace), all systems are on the same interface. What supplies the power is then irrelavant. It can come from slave labor or from the sun. It then is up to society and the politicians as to what type of power plants supply power to their city. You make a claim that you have to build distribution networks. The distribution networks are in place. Only the power plants that are 'clean' need to be built.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have proposed that if consumers demand 'better' technology it will come.
I didn't say that. I said that if a substantially obvious product exists then market demand will drive to that product. Market desire can also drive to a better product but there is no guarantee that a better product can be created.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I have pointed out a simple fictious yet plausable case where a technology would be surpressed
You posited some outlandish conspiracy cases which do not exist. And ignored large market dynamics in doing so.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Only one person.
Wrong. I do not accept that humans with super abilities exist. And that is the only plausible cause where a single person can impact a large scale global market.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is IF it can exist
You missed the point - it CANNOT exist in a large scale market.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So because one proposes that an industry is savy enough to lock down market control it brings in all global conspiracies??
Yes. Fantasy is fantasy. Large scale conspiracies exist only in the minds of people based on emotion and nothing else. Such 'theories' completely ignores that humans have a vast number of positive and negative traits of which the expression of any one of them make such conspiracies impossible. One need only look to any large population to see example every day of very small conspiracies which fail because some human trait.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So yes, I do believe that the mass of the population is too dumb to know what is good for them ...when price fixing comes into play
People are too stupid to know what is good for themselves yet there are vast numbers able to organize and maintain conspiracies that scale the globe and involve thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people and which span decades? It can't be both ways.
jschell wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that if a substantially obvious product exists then market demand will drive to that product. Market desire can also drive to a better product but there is no guarantee that a better product can be created.
Lets go back to De Beers then shall we. There is an obvious replacement to Diamonds, yet we still pay through the teeth for genuine diamonds. Hmmmm, Yep you must be right. Wait no. The opposite. I have one single case where you are wrong. Your whole argument is based on broad statements that the market will drive itself. I have provided you a case where it fails. Your argument has failed. You need to learn how to debate better. You have made claims that "it will never rain", and I have showed you a case where it rained. You are wrong but simply can't admit it.
jschell wrote:
You posited some outlandish conspiracy cases which do not exist. And ignored large market dynamics in doing so.
Its not about wether they exist or not. Again, on the above note your whole argument is flawed (you are an easy target). To make a broad claim as you have done, one only need to find a single fact against it, or find a hypothetical situation that is probable. I have done both, just to show you how wrong you are.
jschell wrote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Only one person.
Wrong. I do not accept that humans with super abilities exist. And that is the only plausible cause where a single person can impact a large scale global market.
One, need not super abilities to affect the market. One need only 1 of 2 things. Money or responsibility. There is a tactic in big business that is seen over and over again. They choke their competitors by cutting off the supply. It happens in manufacturing goods as well as consumer goods. For example, there are movie theatre franchises. One bought out by Pepsi the other still independent. The other wants to have pepsi in their theatre (a survey shows that their customers prefer it to Coke). However pepsi wants their self owned theatre to profit more. So they will gradually raise the price of Pepsi and Lays and all candy to the independent movie. Yes market says they can switch to Coke, but Pepsi will penny pinch them out of the market before that happens. Innevitably the
-
jschell wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that if a substantially obvious product exists then market demand will drive to that product. Market desire can also drive to a better product but there is no guarantee that a better product can be created.
Lets go back to De Beers then shall we. There is an obvious replacement to Diamonds, yet we still pay through the teeth for genuine diamonds. Hmmmm, Yep you must be right. Wait no. The opposite. I have one single case where you are wrong. Your whole argument is based on broad statements that the market will drive itself. I have provided you a case where it fails. Your argument has failed. You need to learn how to debate better. You have made claims that "it will never rain", and I have showed you a case where it rained. You are wrong but simply can't admit it.
jschell wrote:
You posited some outlandish conspiracy cases which do not exist. And ignored large market dynamics in doing so.
Its not about wether they exist or not. Again, on the above note your whole argument is flawed (you are an easy target). To make a broad claim as you have done, one only need to find a single fact against it, or find a hypothetical situation that is probable. I have done both, just to show you how wrong you are.
jschell wrote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Only one person.
Wrong. I do not accept that humans with super abilities exist. And that is the only plausible cause where a single person can impact a large scale global market.
One, need not super abilities to affect the market. One need only 1 of 2 things. Money or responsibility. There is a tactic in big business that is seen over and over again. They choke their competitors by cutting off the supply. It happens in manufacturing goods as well as consumer goods. For example, there are movie theatre franchises. One bought out by Pepsi the other still independent. The other wants to have pepsi in their theatre (a survey shows that their customers prefer it to Coke). However pepsi wants their self owned theatre to profit more. So they will gradually raise the price of Pepsi and Lays and all candy to the independent movie. Yes market says they can switch to Coke, but Pepsi will penny pinch them out of the market before that happens. Innevitably the
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
There is an obvious replacement to Diamonds
Then you live in a different world than I do. In my world the primary drivers of the market have nothing to do with any physical attributes of the diamond.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have made claims that "it will never rain",
Nope. I said that because the how broad and deep the market is your single failure case was nonsense. Still is.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
To make a broad claim as you have done, one only need to find a single fact against it, or find a hypothetical situation that is probable. I have done both, just to show you how wrong you are.
You posited fantasy scenarios and, presumably, a very bad analogy (in many ways) which does not apply. Other than that nothing.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
One, need not super abilities to affect the market. One need only 1 of 2 things. Money or responsibility. There is a tactic in big business that is seen over and over again. ...
Again backed by fantasy scenarios and bad analogies. For a single business to impact the market then the single business must own the market. And continue to own the market. DeBeers is an example of market that is ownable. Automobiles and more broadly vehicles is not a market that is ownable. Nor is it owned - it isn't close to being owned.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It only takes a few charismatic individuals in key roles to take advatage of the market. Price fixing happens from just a few companies sending in a few executives to determine best pricing. How is this massive amounts of people....
You are either ignorant or are choosing to ignore the enumerable examples of price fixing. Which always fail. Which often fail even when they are going on. Which never involve large numbers of people. Which never last long term.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If you answer that they will try and market it you are either lieing or you are blind to human nature of greed.
Far as I know if someone knows how to make a better product and they have a substantial investment in the company that makes the product then "greed" would be exactly the factor that would drive them to have the company make
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
There is an obvious replacement to Diamonds
Then you live in a different world than I do. In my world the primary drivers of the market have nothing to do with any physical attributes of the diamond.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You have made claims that "it will never rain",
Nope. I said that because the how broad and deep the market is your single failure case was nonsense. Still is.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
To make a broad claim as you have done, one only need to find a single fact against it, or find a hypothetical situation that is probable. I have done both, just to show you how wrong you are.
You posited fantasy scenarios and, presumably, a very bad analogy (in many ways) which does not apply. Other than that nothing.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
One, need not super abilities to affect the market. One need only 1 of 2 things. Money or responsibility. There is a tactic in big business that is seen over and over again. ...
Again backed by fantasy scenarios and bad analogies. For a single business to impact the market then the single business must own the market. And continue to own the market. DeBeers is an example of market that is ownable. Automobiles and more broadly vehicles is not a market that is ownable. Nor is it owned - it isn't close to being owned.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It only takes a few charismatic individuals in key roles to take advatage of the market. Price fixing happens from just a few companies sending in a few executives to determine best pricing. How is this massive amounts of people....
You are either ignorant or are choosing to ignore the enumerable examples of price fixing. Which always fail. Which often fail even when they are going on. Which never involve large numbers of people. Which never last long term.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If you answer that they will try and market it you are either lieing or you are blind to human nature of greed.
Far as I know if someone knows how to make a better product and they have a substantial investment in the company that makes the product then "greed" would be exactly the factor that would drive them to have the company make
jschell wrote:
Then you live in a different world than I do. In my world the primary drivers of the market have nothing to do with any physical attributes of the diamond.
We do live in 2 different worlds. Mine is called reality. I have nothing else to say to this because it quite honestly sounds like 2 points merged into one... Simply put, it makes no sence.
jschell wrote:
Nope. I said that because the how broad and deep the market is your single failure case was nonsense.
Still is.Do you have anything to say to anyone other than they do not understand the market? I have given you solid examples and fictional yet probable examples and you simply say 'fantasy' and 'conspiracy'. You have not produced any references or even opinions other than your own. Yet you claim you understand the market. Move a long and leave the debating to the big kids if you can't produce.
jschell wrote:
You posited fantasy scenarios and, presumably, a very bad analogy (in many ways) which does not apply. Other than that nothing.
Actually I posted real and 'hypothetical' scenerios. The purpose of hypothetical situations is not to analyze wether it is plausable probable or impossible but to analyze the effect if it existed. The fact that you do not understand that leads me to believe you are simply regurgitating brainwashing material. Think for yourself.
jschell wrote:
Again backed by fantasy scenarios and bad analogies.
For a single business to impact the market then the single business must own the market. And continue to own the market. DeBeers is an example of market that is ownable. Automobiles and more broadly vehicles is not a market that is ownable. Nor is it owned - it isn't close to being owned.You said it not me. It is close to being owned. When the eF do you think s41T starts going wrong? After a single owner beat competition to a pulp? Or is it more likely years before when the owner figured out how to beat the competition to a pulp. Or possibly.. Just maybe (ohoh I am going 'fantasy' here) it is when the competitors group together (ever hear of price fixing????) and drive out 'new' ventures. What the heck do you think Microsoft did during the 90s? You keep talking about my 'fantasies' but you are clearly living in bizaro land if
-
What was insulting about that? You guys were the ones doing the piling on. The fact is that you're not a climate scientist and ultimately your opinion on any raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. Unfortunately, only one of us recognizes this. Toodles, champ!
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing.
The fact is that you are not a psychologist either, so "It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people [they] are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it." is also worth nothing. (Otherwise: The less one knows about people, the more one is likely to over estimate one's knowledge of them, would also hold true.) Pip, pip, Doc!
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
This rules out Einstein then, no?
I'm going to have to stop you there. Albert Einstein was awarded a PhD in physics in 1905 by the University of Zurich.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing.
The fact is that you are not a psychologist either, so "It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people [they] are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it." is also worth nothing. (Otherwise: The less one knows about people, the more one is likely to over estimate one's knowledge of them, would also hold true.) Pip, pip, Doc!
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
Good point, I missed that. In fact Fistedchuff, by hios own admission, is actually totally useless at everything except that which he studied for his degree. Sex, cooking, being a father, gardening, DIY, computers, fixing his car, music, wines, etc etc etc ie
============================== Nothing to say.
-
This was before he worked in the patent office as a clerk was it?
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
This was before he worked in the patent office as a clerk was it?
No. He worked from the patent office at least from 1903 to 1909, and he was awarded his PhD and then published his papers on Brownian motion, Special relativity, mass-energy equivalence and the photoelectric effect in 1905.
-
jschell wrote:
Then you live in a different world than I do. In my world the primary drivers of the market have nothing to do with any physical attributes of the diamond.
We do live in 2 different worlds. Mine is called reality. I have nothing else to say to this because it quite honestly sounds like 2 points merged into one... Simply put, it makes no sence.
jschell wrote:
Nope. I said that because the how broad and deep the market is your single failure case was nonsense.
Still is.Do you have anything to say to anyone other than they do not understand the market? I have given you solid examples and fictional yet probable examples and you simply say 'fantasy' and 'conspiracy'. You have not produced any references or even opinions other than your own. Yet you claim you understand the market. Move a long and leave the debating to the big kids if you can't produce.
jschell wrote:
You posited fantasy scenarios and, presumably, a very bad analogy (in many ways) which does not apply. Other than that nothing.
Actually I posted real and 'hypothetical' scenerios. The purpose of hypothetical situations is not to analyze wether it is plausable probable or impossible but to analyze the effect if it existed. The fact that you do not understand that leads me to believe you are simply regurgitating brainwashing material. Think for yourself.
jschell wrote:
Again backed by fantasy scenarios and bad analogies.
For a single business to impact the market then the single business must own the market. And continue to own the market. DeBeers is an example of market that is ownable. Automobiles and more broadly vehicles is not a market that is ownable. Nor is it owned - it isn't close to being owned.You said it not me. It is close to being owned. When the eF do you think s41T starts going wrong? After a single owner beat competition to a pulp? Or is it more likely years before when the owner figured out how to beat the competition to a pulp. Or possibly.. Just maybe (ohoh I am going 'fantasy' here) it is when the competitors group together (ever hear of price fixing????) and drive out 'new' ventures. What the heck do you think Microsoft did during the 90s? You keep talking about my 'fantasies' but you are clearly living in bizaro land if
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The purpose of hypothetical situations is not to analyze wether it is plausable probable or impossible but to analyze the effect if it existed.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Your "hypothetical" scenarios cannot exist in the real world as it applies to the automobile market.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is close to being owned.
The automobile market - not even close. Far, far from close. Please name the people who owns the following companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#By_manufacturer[^] Then name who owns these companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car_brands[^]
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Do you not recall when Microsoft was forcing Dell and all PC manufacturers to pay for Windows
Which would be relevant if it contradicted what I said. I ALREADY said that price fixing exists. What I SAID was that for your example to work it would have had to been done in a market that was owned (or involved thousands of people) and it would have had to exist for decades at least. And that NO ONE knows about it. And guess what your example proves every single point that I made. At the time that it occurred Microsoft owned the market (ignoring the rest of the world by the way in which there were competitors not impacted.) It did not last for decades. And it is certainly known about - because you know about it. Excluding Ford in early 1900's no automotive company has owned the world wide market. No one has even come close.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If a battery lasted that long why would anyone go buy more?
Incredibly simplistic and so many things wrong with that statement. 1. I didn't say anything about life time. I said if they made it 'better'. 2. The battery market has increased significantly in the past 30 years. There are MULTIPLE companies. If my battery wins the market REGARDLESS of why, then I have the revenue from ALL Of the companies. Do the math. 3. Ba
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The purpose of hypothetical situations is not to analyze wether it is plausable probable or impossible but to analyze the effect if it existed.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Your "hypothetical" scenarios cannot exist in the real world as it applies to the automobile market.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is close to being owned.
The automobile market - not even close. Far, far from close. Please name the people who owns the following companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#By_manufacturer[^] Then name who owns these companies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car_brands[^]
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Do you not recall when Microsoft was forcing Dell and all PC manufacturers to pay for Windows
Which would be relevant if it contradicted what I said. I ALREADY said that price fixing exists. What I SAID was that for your example to work it would have had to been done in a market that was owned (or involved thousands of people) and it would have had to exist for decades at least. And that NO ONE knows about it. And guess what your example proves every single point that I made. At the time that it occurred Microsoft owned the market (ignoring the rest of the world by the way in which there were competitors not impacted.) It did not last for decades. And it is certainly known about - because you know about it. Excluding Ford in early 1900's no automotive company has owned the world wide market. No one has even come close.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
If a battery lasted that long why would anyone go buy more?
Incredibly simplistic and so many things wrong with that statement. 1. I didn't say anything about life time. I said if they made it 'better'. 2. The battery market has increased significantly in the past 30 years. There are MULTIPLE companies. If my battery wins the market REGARDLESS of why, then I have the revenue from ALL Of the companies. Do the math. 3. Ba
jschell wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Your "hypothetical" scenarios cannot exist in the real world as it applies to the automobile market.Are you seriously that dence. What part of "Hypothetical" do you not understand? It is not wether it is real or not. It is about what happens if it is... Let me put this in idiot terms. IF you were smart, would you continue to come back here with no facts and no argument? Well I think it is clear this is also fantasy, but it can still be answered. That is the point of using Hypothetical cases[^]. If you do not understand this then do not respond to the case with "that can't happen".
jschell wrote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is close to being owned.
The automobile market - not even close. Far, far from close.
Please name the people who owns the following companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry#By_manufacturer[^]
Then name who owns these companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car_brands[^]Not sure why you are quoting me... I was quoting your statement. You said it. Not me. No more point in arguing that one. You gave in already :)
jschell wrote:
I ALREADY said that price fixing exists. What I SAID was that for your example to work it would have had to been done in a market that was owned (or involved thousands of people) and it would have had to exist for decades at least. And that NO ONE knows about it.
And guess what your example proves every single point that I made.
At the time that it occurred Microsoft owned the market (ignoring the rest of the world by the way in which there were competitors not impacted.)
It did not last for decades.
And it is certainly known about - beca -
Erudite__Eric wrote:
This was before he worked in the patent office as a clerk was it?
No. He worked from the patent office at least from 1903 to 1909, and he was awarded his PhD and then published his papers on Brownian motion, Special relativity, mass-energy equivalence and the photoelectric effect in 1905.
So, he had a teaching diploma, then published a paper, and was then awarded a phd, and at the same time published four more. (No doubt the research behind these four papers streched back beforfe he had a phd. Therefore, according to Fistedchuff, he was actualy unqualified to know anything about the subject of his first paper, and only slightly qualified to know anything about the subjects of the next four. :) Clearly, a load of crap, and a good indication that having a phd is not a prerequisite to knowing a subject.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
So, he had a teaching diploma, then published a paper, and was then awarded a phd, and at the same time published four more. (No doubt the research behind these four papers streched back beforfe he had a phd. Therefore, according to Fistedchuff, he was actualy unqualified to know anything about the subject of his first paper, and only slightly qualified to know anything about the subjects of the next four. :) Clearly, a load of crap, and a good indication that having a phd is not a prerequisite to knowing a subject.
============================== Nothing to say.
What are you talking about? Fisticuffs didn't say that a PhD was a requirement. I mean, he for one has an MD, but I certainly wouldn't consider him unqualified to talk about medicine. He appreciates the value of a formal education because he's been through one of the toughest, and deals all the time with people who think that reading a bit about it on the Internet is as good.
-
What are you talking about? Fisticuffs didn't say that a PhD was a requirement. I mean, he for one has an MD, but I certainly wouldn't consider him unqualified to talk about medicine. He appreciates the value of a formal education because he's been through one of the toughest, and deals all the time with people who think that reading a bit about it on the Internet is as good.
-
What are you talking about? Fisticuffs didn't say that a PhD was a requirement. I mean, he for one has an MD, but I certainly wouldn't consider him unqualified to talk about medicine. He appreciates the value of a formal education because he's been through one of the toughest, and deals all the time with people who think that reading a bit about it on the Internet is as good.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
he for one has an MD
This is the Internet, how would we know?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I certainly wouldn't consider him unqualified to talk about medicine
If his bedside manner is anything like his web site manner, I certainly wouldn't consider him 'qualified' to practice it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
He appreciates the value of a formal education because he's been through one of the toughest
Ooh. Will I be cured if I touch the hem of his garment? Come on - he's just a Maintenance Engineer with a bigger set of manuals.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
and deals all the time with people who think that reading a bit about it on the Internet is as good.
So do (in my case, did) we all. However, some doctors are happy to encourage patients to understand their illness and its treatment. My daughter's neurologist, for example. (Pre-Google though, she had to reference dead tree libraries.) It saved her from being prescribed contraindicated drugs by his assistant. (Surprisingly, that young man didn't mind being corrected by a 16 year old 'non-scientist', perhaps he skipped the Arrogance modules in Med. School.) BTW: I, like many others on this site, have worked with scientists. Also, I have had some 10 or so GPs (family doctors). From this very small sample, I can unscientifically say that GPs ain't scientists - as I said: Maintenance Engineers, with bigger manuals. (And nowadays, they can pretend to be reading your records, whilst desperately Googling your symptoms. ;) )
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Decided to turn up did you? Ready for those salient facts? :) Here is one: We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times. During that time the earths temperature has risen by (accoring to the IPCC) 0.6`C Even if you attribute all that rise to CO2 (which is difficult since you have to discount the natural forces that raised temperature for the previous 150 years) then that rise is in line with laboratory experiments, which show a doubling of CO2 will lead to a 1`C rise in temperature. Since this rise is well below the stated danger limit of 2`C there is no need for action, and in fact, along with CO2 increasing crop yields, should be welcomed. (Note that computer models use positive feedbacks to quadruple the effect of CO2, and effect clearly not evident in the rise to date). So lets sumarise. Warming of the globe is a very different thing to the catastrophic warming touted by some scientists. Yes, the globe has been warming (since 1750) and will probably continue to do so. This is not refuted except by complete lunatics. However also note that the globe has been cooling for 10,000 years (Greenland and Vostock ice core data). OK, that is two salient facts. Perhaps three. But I am sure you can see themn as irrefutable. :) (Oh, and one further thing. The BEST study, which has validated the NOAA, HADCRUT and GISS surface station station series has not dealt with the very obvious fact that many surface stations are badly sited.) ==edit== I see Mr Bigmouth stil hasnt got the cojones to respond. Perhaps the salient facts are making him choke? :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Could someone explain something to me please.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times.
If that is the case then - and here's the question - has the Earth's atmosphere increased in volume; i'e is it thicker now than it used to be OR has the composition of the atmosphere changed; i'e has the amount of oxygen/nitrogen reduced as the amount of C02 has increased? This is something that has had me pondering for a long while.
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
-
Could someone explain something to me please.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times.
If that is the case then - and here's the question - has the Earth's atmosphere increased in volume; i'e is it thicker now than it used to be OR has the composition of the atmosphere changed; i'e has the amount of oxygen/nitrogen reduced as the amount of C02 has increased? This is something that has had me pondering for a long while.
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
Volume is dependent on the energy in the atmosphere, aparently the height the stratosphere extends to varies, based on this. However, by taking carbon from the ground and putting it in the air we must have increased its mass.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair has concluded.
The study is by Berkeley Earth Project[^], an 'independent' group who were set up and funded by climate change sceptics. Who'd have thunk it.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Could someone explain something to me please.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We have added about 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since preindustrial times.
If that is the case then - and here's the question - has the Earth's atmosphere increased in volume; i'e is it thicker now than it used to be OR has the composition of the atmosphere changed; i'e has the amount of oxygen/nitrogen reduced as the amount of C02 has increased? This is something that has had me pondering for a long while.
Why can't I find a signature that I can stick with? Are they all gone?
Well, if we take carbon and burn together with oxygen from the atmosphere it creates the same amount in molecules of CO2 as the amount of O2 it uses. If you know the Ideal Gas Law[^] you know that the volume will stay the same if the temperature stays the same. So the weight of the atmosphere will go up. But whether the volume goes up or down is a political question you'll have to answer yourself. ;-)
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions