The totally off-topic thread

[drron]

My 1974 merc 240D cost $24000 for me to buy new.Got $2000 for it 26 years later.The odometer had stopped at ~750000KM about 7 years before sold but then being driven by our son so doing more KM per year than it was used to.Turned out to be the cheapest car I have owned on a cost per year basis.

 

[vetrade]

That's a pretty poor link. Limited detail about the data wallace found to assess its validity. For example are all those measurement made at the same place, are they averages of all the measurements made in a given year. How was natural ocean variability corrected. I'm not questioning the figure, just saying that it isn't presented in a rigorous scientific way. More about petty point scoring it seems.

but even that is more fun than golf...

I think the take home message is that the science is very rarely "settled". To me the most scurrilous thing any scientist can do is fabricate or manipulate data to "prove" an hypothesis, seemingly because they can't bear to be proven wrong - "ego" can be a dirty word! To challenge a scientist's failure to allow open scrutiny of their methodologies and results shouldn't be labelled as petty point scoring without proof. Reputable scientists make their data available for rigorous review and debate without hesitation and welcome rather than taking offence at such scrutiny because they have nothing to hide. It's perfectly reasonable to challenge any scientist where there is prima facie evidence that they have been less than scientific especially in an era when so many dire predictions have spectacularly failed to eventuate.

 

[drron]

So vetrade I guess you are not interested in this cruise-
https://inspiredadventures.com.au/events/climate-council-kimberley-expedition-2016/

 

[vetrade]

So vetrade I guess you are not interested in this cruise-
https://inspiredadventures.com.au/events/climate-council-kimberley-expedition-2016/

HaHa - that's the stuff of nightmares for me, Ron.

I particularly liked this quote:
"Best of all, by taking part in this expedition, you’ll be stepping up to help provide Australians with a vital source of correct and informed information on climate change".

So apparently just buying a ticket for a Kimberley cruise with Tim Flannery qualifies you to be a climate change researcher.
DIY science for all-comers - what could possibly go wrong?

 

[medhead]

I think the take home message is that the science is very rarely "settled". To me the most scurrilous thing any scientist can do is fabricate or manipulate data to "prove" an hypothesis, seemingly because they can't bear to be proven wrong - "ego" can be a dirty word! To challenge a scientist's failure to allow open scrutiny of their methodologies and results shouldn't be labelled as petty point scoring without proof. Reputable scientists make their data available for rigorous review and debate without hesitation and welcome rather than taking offence at such scrutiny because they have nothing to hide. It's perfectly reasonable to challenge any scientist where there is prima facie evidence that they have been less than scientific especially in an era when so many dire predictions have spectacularly failed to eventuate.

I have no problem with challenge published scientific papers using rigorous scientific review. My point is that the thing you linked doesn't do that, it is petty point scoring - "I'm right and your wrong". But it does not make that point by reference to the data presented, it does not make an explanation of the data presented as to the data points being a valid data set and hence prima facie evidence. It is no more than a serious of dots with nothing to back up how those dots were derived. It certainly doesn't support the take home message in any rigorous way. In fact I think it is clearly evident that man is causing rapid changes to the climate and then we should reduce pollution. That basic fact is not changed by arguments over temperature, Ph, CO2, that change has happened before, or what such changes means anyway. It is also worth remembering that sceptics engage in plenty of their own scientific fraud, including the story that you linked. Sceptics don't even see the need to have any scientific background at all. I have plenty of experience seeing this stuff from the anti-nuclear crowd, plenty of similarities in MO.

I fully acknowledge that the story you linked may very well be based on a peer-reviewed scientific paper that explains all the massive holes. The problem is that backing is not evident.

 

[medhead]

HaHa - that's the stuff of nightmares for me, Ron.

I particularly liked this quote:
"Best of all, by taking part in this expedition, you’ll be stepping up to help provide Australians with a vital source of correct and informed information on climate change".

So apparently just buying a ticket for a Kimberley cruise with Tim Flannery qualifies you to be a climate change researcher.
DIY science for all-comers - what could possibly go wrong?

That's more scientific qualifications that we see from the likes of Lord Monkton or Tony "climate science is cough" Abbott.

 

[TheRealTMA]

Nah, it's really a question of sticking to the facts. Bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef that we were told could never recover because of acidification has been recovering steadily. Significantly, nature is doing quite a good job of repairing the damage which is primarily caused by star fish and storms.

Oceans not acidifying – “scientists†hid 80 years of pH data « JoNova

The alleged fraud was uncovered by Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with nearly 30 years’ experience now working towards his PhD at the University of New Mexico. While studying a chart produced by Feely and Sabine, apparently showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels, Wallace noticed that some key information had been omitted.
Mysteriously, the chart only began in 1988. But Wallace knew for a fact that there were oceanic pH measurements dating back to at least 100 years earlier and was puzzled that this solid data had been ignored, in favour of computer modelled projections.

I can't see Mr Wallace (after 30 years) being granted a PhD if he argues that higher CO2 level in the atmosphere does not result in increasing acidification of oceans. It's basic chemistry. Yes it's possible that some process in the oceans counteracts the acidification but without definite proof or even theory it's just drivel.

If I was the referee for his thesis I don't think he would survive the written or oral viva.

Complete rubbish. Nick Minchen would be proud of you.

 

[amaroo]

HaHa - that's the stuff of nightmares for me, Ron.

<snip>

DIY science for all-comers - what could possibly go wrong?

Dams will never fill, dams will never fill ... LOL

 

[Julesmac]

Masters def only stock 3100 - have to wait til Wed to talk to the Myer dude again. Other specialty bbq retailers all stating no movt on price.

Have you tried Heat N Smoke in Bridge Rd Richmond?

 

[vetrade]

You both seem to have overlooked the main point, which is that conclusions drawn from suspect data must, by extension, also be suspect. I don't take a dogmatic position as you apparently do. I just have a distaste for scientific claims that require "faith" and can't be substantiated with proof in the form of testable facts. I find it odd that you are are inclined to accept, apparently without question, flawed data and conclusions because they align with your beliefs while at the same time you're happy to savage people like Wallace for having the gall to expose the flaws in the data. There is no science which is above critique no matter what side of the climate change debate it supports but it seems you have trouble viewing the information dispassionately and objectively.

Cast sarcastic aspersions on Wallace if you like (in reality he is merely representative of the broad climate debate) but his contribution is valuable because he exposed the fact that the chart produced by Feely and Sabine, which they claimed proved a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and falling oceanic pH levels, was not based on reliable data. Data should prove or disprove an hypothesis on its own merits - there should be no tolerance of science that relies on massaging the data to fit the hypothesis, irrespective of whether you think it's basic chemistry or not.

"Yes it's possible that some process in the oceans counteracts the acidification but without definite proof or even theory it's just drivel".

On that we are in complete agreement, TheRealTMA. So why are you so antagonistic towards someone who advocates the pursuit of that definitive proof without fear or favour as to where that proof will lead? Ecosystems are not test tubes; they are complex and that's why their behaviour can't be distilled down to the simplicity of basic chemistry. Has it escaped your observation that the projections based on climate modelling seldom match subsequent real life measurements? My reaction to that is to ask "Why?" - and it's hard to come to any other conclusion than it's because the science, or the scientists that produced it, weren't up to the task.

When was the last time you asked "Why?".

 

[esseeeayeenn]

You both seem to have overlooked the main point, which is that conclusions drawn from suspect data must, by extension, also be suspect. I don't take a dogmatic position as you apparently do. I just have a distaste for scientific claims that require "faith" and can't be substantiated with proof in the form of testable facts. I find it odd that you are are inclined to accept, apparently without question, flawed data and conclusions because they align with your beliefs while at the same time you're happy to savage people like Wallace for having the gall to expose the flaws in the data. There is no science which is above critique no matter what side of the climate change debate it supports but it seems you have trouble viewing the information dispassionately and objectively.

Cast sarcastic aspersions on Wallace if you like (in reality he is merely representative of the broad climate debate) but his contribution is valuable because he exposed the fact that the chart produced by Feely and Sabine, which they claimed proved a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 and falling oceanic pH levels, was not based on reliable data. Data should prove or disprove an hypothesis on its own merits - there should be no tolerance of science that relies on massaging the data to fit the hypothesis, irrespective of whether you think it's basic chemistry or not.

"Yes it's possible that some process in the oceans counteracts the acidification but without definite proof or even theory it's just drivel".

On that we are in complete agreement, TheRealTMA. So why are you so antagonistic towards someone who advocates the pursuit of that definitive proof without fear or favour as to where that proof will lead? Ecosystems are not test tubes; they are complex and that's why their behaviour can't be distilled down to the simplicity of basic chemistry. Has it escaped your observation that the projections based on climate modelling seldom match subsequent real life measurements? My reaction to that is to ask "Why?" - and it's hard to come to any other conclusion than it's because the science, or the scientists that produced it, weren't up to the task.

When was the last time you asked "Why?".

No one has a bias which predisposes them to be convinced by the science on climate change.
Whereas there are many biases driving those who call themselves " sceptics".
Many (including some participants in this thread) have jobs which in whole or part depend on the fossil fuel industry.
Actually, that includes me!
Others simply don't want to recognise the need to change our economy and way of life.
There is a huge economic inertia behind the fossil fuel economy.
It is laughable when those who accept the science on cliamte change are accused of being biased or having a vested interest.
This debate isn't even a debate in the rest of the world.
It has been articifically prolonged here because it was lent credibility by a rump of dinosaurs in the coalition.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread and leave you to play with the dinosaurs.

 

[Bundy Bear]

Just announced $1 billion loss for Woolworths.

Can't believe everything you read; although it says that part of the loss was from Masters I am sure there are a lot of write downs from Masters included.

 

[TomVexille]

Just announced $1 billion loss for Woolworths.

Can't believe everything you read; although it says that part of the loss was from Masters I am sure there are a lot of write downs from Masters included.

Might be why they closed our local Thomas Dux

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

Might be why they closed our local Thomas Dux

Thomas Dux is dieing a slow death as the leases run out on the stores.

Thomas Dux Port Melbourne is reported to be also closing imminently.

 

[vetrade]

No one has a bias which predisposes them to be convinced by the science on climate change.
Whereas there are many biases driving those who call themselves " sceptics".
Many (including some participants in this thread) have jobs which in whole or part depend on the fossil fuel industry.
Actually, that includes me!
Others simply don't want to recognise the need to change our economy and way of life.
There is a huge economic inertia behind the fossil fuel economy.
It is laughable when those who accept the science on cliamte change are accused of being biased or having a vested interest.
This debate isn't even a debate in the rest of the world.
It has been articifically prolonged here because it was lent credibility by a rump of dinosaurs in the coalition.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread and leave you to play with the dinosaurs.

Would have replied earlier but I've been ROFL.

Please don't anyone tell him Santa isn't real.

 

[coco50]

Sounds like fun. Can you please do that 100 times and post the photos?


Seems like the only people who don't think golf is fun are the people who can't play golf. But that's good. Golf courses were getting overcrowded. Don't want to waste time playing behind a group who have no idea....

I taught my son to play golf from the age of seven. He lives in LA now and plays off four. I could never come near him once he approached teenage years. I used to enjoy the walk around the course with him even though my score off the stick would be approaching 100. They are times that I will never forget - most enjoyable.

 

[JohnK]

Would have replied earlier but I've been ROFL.

Please don't anyone tell him Santa isn't real.

I love greenies. I really do. They expect everyone to have the same passion as them. They expect you to drop everything to fight for their cause. Get lost.

To a lot of people Santa is real. Is that faith/belief in Santa the same as a greenies belief? Don't think so.

 

[coco50]

I love greenies. I really do. They expect everyone to have the same passion as them. They expect you to drop everything to fight for their cause. Get lost.

To a lot of people Santa is real. Is that faith/belief in Santa the same as a greenies belief? Don't think so.

Although a lot of "green" principles make sense, what I find difficult to come to terms with regarding the greens is that they adopt the attitude: it's my way or the highway. Stuff that! All of life is a compromise from the time you are born.

 

[penegal]

The "climate change debate" both here (and in the public domain) has become so emotive. Fact, reason and science have taken a back seat.

It's also important to remember that not all science is created equal, and when quoted out of context you can find a scientific article to prove almost any point. Also most people in the community don't understand science or the scientific method. The systematic observation of the physical world through observation, experimentation and hypothesis testing is not "exact".

Some would say "science is not an exact science".

 

[JohnK]

I taught my son to play golf from the age of seven. He lives in LA now and plays off four. I could never come near him once he approached teenage years. I used to enjoy the walk around the course with him even though my score off the stick would be approaching 100. They are times that I will never forget - most enjoyable.

That's great golf. Wish I was still able to play at that level.

At the moment playing to about 8 handicap in Thailand although my actual handicap is 4. Love those sub 80 rounds on 6,000-6,500 yard courses. It feels great when you have had 3 birdies and 6 pars and shoot 78 on a course your previous best was 85. My wife and golf are about the only things that keep me going in this job. She is there with me in the cart relaxing and giving me advice.

Life can't really get much better. Back in 19 days. Golf in Kanchanaburi the highlight this trip.