octave

[/url]

 

 

 

 

Gday Geoff

That's a long document, especially if you follow each link. The first thing I do when reading a document is to determine who it is written by and what thier expertise is. This is not about attacking the man but it is important to do this with any assertions made on either side of the debate. We do need to know what the Galileo movement is.

Just picking one item - the so called climategate -

Just generally I think the problem is that anthropomorphic climate change is involves many areas, firstly it is a scientific issue and then a political/social issue. Accepting the scientific consensus does not mean an automatic acceptance of any particular policy such as a carbon tax. Personally I think the world will have to move away from fossil fuels at some point in time, the countries that develop the new technologies will do very well.

My acceptance of the science is not political or philosophical merely confidence in the scientific method, that does not mean it is the right answer that is not how science works but I accept that it produces the best answer with a given set of data at a particular time. This is not to say that scientists are somehow free of biases and other human frailties, this is where peer review comes in. Peer review is often misunderstood, it is not a brotherhood scientists patting each other n the back and saying "we are right aren't we" it is scientists trying to disprove each others work. Imagine what funding and fame would come from overturning climate change science. Just read a scientific journal e.g. new scientist, scientist

challenge each other all the time

Clearly I am not a scientist, just an avid reader, my thoughts on this are shaped not by the popular media or any political group. I have no personal knowledge of whether childhood vaccination causes autism so I rely on the peer reviewed evidence that it does not, I accept this as being the best answer with the available data at this time.

There seems to be 2 different approaches from the doubters, the first is the NASA, CSIRO and almost any reputable organisation you can name are scientifically incompetent the second one is that it is some kind of hoax or conspiracy. If it is shoddy science what other findings should ignore? As for a hoax or conspiracy I would thought in these days of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks that there would be more incontrovertible evidence.

As a recreational pilot my natural interests would be better served by dismissing the evidence and if the theory is scientifically debunked I will be the first dancing for joy in the street.

Anyway I don't really see much point in sending each other links, for me to change my mind would require a large volume of quality peer review evidence and I am not sure what would be required to change your view. Personally I hope in 10 years history will show that you are right.

Throughout this discussion I have tried to put my view in polite and respectful manner so I am hoping that I have not offended anyone.

Regards

octave

data changers? can you be specific about this claim?

"Where did I mention CSIRO, any individual or organisation anywhere?"

so if you did not mean CSIRO who did you mean?

What a coincidence, that exactly my stance about the bulk of the Science community that are rolling in it from grants to spin the case "For GW" line (notice I didn't say Pro-GW because that would be biased) - the exception being that they are on a much better wicket than he is.

so what you are saying is CSIRO are rolling in grants money by "spinning the case for GW"? just clarify how that works, CSIRO in some grand conspiracy with NASA are just making it up so they can get more funds from our government? our government that does not believe the evidence any way, this seems irrational . I would of thought that if the CSIRO is so corrupt surely more funds could be raised by going to the government and big business an "spinning the evidence" the other way.

what does CSIRO say http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROvod/Climate-Change-Greenhouse-Gas-Factor.aspx

my point was that surely if CSIRO scientist are only interested in securing more research funds from the Government would they tell this Government what they want to hear?

so where are the CSIRO getting these millions to study climate change from? certainly not the government, it is an easy accusation to make but probably needs to come with verifiable evidence. I would have thought there would be more money available to someone who could disprove the theory.

According to these people the Antarctic is growing in parts but the Arctic is indeed reducing http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Captain my posting about Ian Plimer was not crucifying him but in your earlier post you said "When evaluating the data that we all receive, we need to bear in mind that the scientists at CSIRO/BOM/UN & elsewhere will do anything for a funding grant or national publicity" so if we are factoring in motivations then my posting is fair and relevant.

as well as being Professor of earth sciences Ian Plimer is quite involved with the mining industry

"Plimer is the former non-executive director of CBH Resources Limited from 1998 to 2010, former non-executive director of Angel Mining plc from 2003 to 2005, former director of Kimberley Metals Limited from 2008 to 2009, former director of KBL Mining Limited from 2008 to 2009 and former director of Ormil Energy Limited from 2010 to 2011.[3][16]

He is currently the non-executive deputy chairman of KEFI Minerals Plc since 2006,[17] independent non-executive director of Ivanhoe Australia Limited since 2007,[18] chairman of TNT Mines Limited since 2010,[11][19] non-executive director of Niuminco Group Limited (formerly DSF International Holdings Limited) since 2011,[20][21] and non-executive director of Silver City Minerals Limited since 2011.[3][16][22][23][24] Plimer was appointed director of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments in 2012.[25]

According to a columnist in The Age, Plimer earned over $400,000 (AUD) from several of these companies, and he has mining shares and options worth hundreds of thousands of Australian dollars.[26] Plimer has stated that his business interests do not affect the independence of his beliefs.[22] He has also warned that the proposed Australian carbon-trading scheme could decimate the Australian mining industry.[6][27]"

The idea that CSIRO is fudging the data to maintain it's funding seems a little odd to me. Given that this government is cutting CSIRO funding would it not make more sense (if our scientist are only motivated by funding) to provide this government with the data they would support the governments position?

Captain - do you perhaps mean Ian Plimer?

Re Cell life I installed solar panels on my house for a stand alone system in 1990. I lived in this house until 2011, I now rent this house out and periodically go to the house to see how the systems functioning and I can tell you the the panels are still functioning well, from memory they did come with a 20 or 25 year guarantee.

The current theme tune for the series is called "Match of the Day" and was written especially for the programme in 1970 by Barry Stoller, and has become so ubiquitous in British culture that it is associated not just with the programme but football in general. It is often incorrectly labelled with the title "Offside", which was actually the name of an alternative commercially-released version in 1970, which was conducted by Mike Vickers.[2] In May 2010, PRS for Music revealed that theMatch of the Day theme tune is the most recognisable in the UK.[13]

I was hoping for specific examples. Rather than just a list of things you personally disagree with.

perhaps some concrete examples of ABC bias?

Gnarly, I don't even know where to start.

"Seriously 'fact-hunter' you actually believe scientific fact is established by consensus? You actually put that out there with no shade of embarrassment?"

First of all scientists seldom use the word "fact" rather they talk of hypothesis, theory, law etc. "Consensus" well peer review consensus is one of the hallmarks of scientific method, if not scientific consensus what do you suggest? cherry picking the 1 in a hundred scientist that tell you what you want to hear?

Vestigial organs - so are you asserting that this is no longer taught in universities?

Climate change - the deniers love to portray this a some whacky belief held by non scientists but it is hard to find any reputable scientific organisation that doesn't accept the theory.

Transitional Fossils there are many http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Just out of interest which other established scientific theories do you not accept? I am guessing that you only doubt the theories that are problematic for your faith.

• cell theory, theory of evolution, germ theory
   
  
• collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory
   
  
• atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, M-theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory
   
  
• climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology)
   
  

Ha ha, you sure about that?

BTW the 98.5% DNA similarity claim figure has since been revised downward by more recent studies, it is now a claimed 95% similarity in one and 86-89% in another. But then they also didn't tell us that chimp genome is still well short of being fully sequenced yet.... in the meantime the original figure makes a good headline.

 

As there are four bases in DNA the starting point is 25% similarity not zero; apparently using the same comparison technique humans are estimated to share 35% similarity to daffodils.

GG can you give a source for this information?

Diploma of nail care? ("Nail Technician")Cert IV cosmetics (DJ's/Myer counter sales for cosmetics...)

 

Yep we are wasting money hand over fist in the TAFE area

TAFE is vocational, it is to prepare workers for employment and to supply business with trained workers, you might think that doing whatever nail technicians do is unworthy but it is a part of the economy and businesses require trained workers in order to run their business and make profit . Plumbers, electricians builder etc are initially trained through TAFE.

Also you do know that it does cost the student a substantial amount to attend TAFE.

Students who enrol in these undergraduate degree courses at TAFE are required to pay full fees and are not entitled to Commonwealth Government supported student fee loans, known as HECS loans, but may access a FEE-HELP loan scheme.[3] While Universities have the ability and power to design and offer their own degree courses, each TAFE degree course must be assessed and approved by the Higher Education Accreditation Committee (HEAC).[1]