tomasso
7/17/2011 3:46:00 AM
"tomasso" <tom@asso.com> wrote in message
news:hbWdnT6GTdbHx7_TnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>
> "Addinall" <addinall@addinall.net> wrote in message news:4e20c157@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:02:40 +0000, DM wrote:
>>
>>> Addinall <addinall@addinall.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:20:08 +0000, DM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Pricing carbon in an economy allows its market to deal with carbon
>>>>> dioxide pollution.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that explains why you have never managed a science degree.
>>>
>>> I never managed a science degree because I never formally studied
>>> science.
>>
>> It shows. And yet, you don't seem to have a problem calling CO2 'pollution'. The new
>> left mantra which has no basis in science.
>> High school would have done, you don't really need a degree to
>> understand that CO2 is the base for ALL life on this planet.
>> YOU are built from CO2. You exhale it at 50,000 ppm fifteen times
>> a minute.
>>
>> Since we both live in QLD, has it escaped your notice that for the
>> last four years it has been colder than much of all recorded history?
>> -7C up your way just a few days ago.
>>
>> Is this a result of 'runaway' Global warming?
>>
>> Near everyone in the world is now a wake-up to the AGW scam. It was a little difficult
>> for me over the last two decades pointing out that the hypothesis was wrong, but now I
>> seem to have collected some supporters.
>>
>> The datasets look less in favour of the AGW hypothesis than they did a decade ago, and
>> then they were on VERY shaky ground. So much so, that
>> B. Brown needed to re-define statistical 'significance' to follow his
>> path through 'science', and when I challenged Flannery I got the
>> response "I am not a stats guy, so I can't comment on your findings,
>> but the evidence is clear..."
>>
>> SPIT.
>>
>> The first question any scientist should ask is
>>
>> "Show me"
>
> That's the second question.
>
> The first question is "how do you know that"? To which you get an
> answer (amounts to a protocol for obtaining evidence and analysing it). Ie, an outline
> of the approach and reasoning.
>
> If that stands up, the second question is "Show me"? Ie, the data and
> the steps...
And I forgot the zeroeth question: "What is your motivation"?
T.
If thermodynamics can have a zeroeth law, I can have a zeroeth question.
> T.
>
>> If you can't, it is not science, nor engineering, it is
>> religion.
>>
>> I am shocked and dismayed that you have swallowed this
>> (AGW) Kool-Aid bullshit.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have formally studied business though and the economics is
>>> pretty clear.
>>
>> What is clear?
>>
>> Mark Addinall.
>>