Jump to content

monkie

Members
  • Content Count

    2,129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

monkie last won the day on July 18

monkie had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,190 Excellent

About monkie

  • Rank
    Senior Addict
  • Birthday 30/10/1985

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sydney

Previous Fields

  • Year of first Tri race?
    2016

Recent Profile Visitors

1,281 profile views
  1. Castelli top is gone but I still got a load of CO2 and a basic bike lid to shift in addition to.... Mixed flavours, some with electrolytes. Mixed expiry dates (including some in the past). Missing nuts and bolts. Aluminium. Bad photo. Zoggs pull buoy. Speedo combine pull buoy / float. UK Size 8 -9 Centre snorkel Cryocuff complete with knee attachment. For the uninitiated these use ice and water pressure to help relieve swelling. They're real good! About $250 new. All free to a good home but I would prefer not to post as I have a lot on in prep for the move and they're all quite bulky. Collection Chatswood, Sydney CBD or near Central. I won't be checking on here much so please Whatsapp or text on +61437888604. I really don't want to throw this stuff away if possible and that's where it will be going if nobody wants it Cheers! Monkie
  2. There was no evidence found of misconduct. Have you read the link I shared? 9 investigations. No misconduct. If you have a source that shows otherwise then for the second time I invite you to share it. Many of the allegations of impropriety come from taking quotes out of context including "the trick" you yourself referred to. On the second point, again did you read the link? It specifically addressed your concerns. Again if you have evidence other than your hearsay then please do share it, I would be genuinely interested. On the last point you appear to being deliberately obtuse. Low emission vehicles emit less carbon as well as less particulates, the two go hand in hand. My suggestion about plastic reduction was referring to a general decrease in disposable consumption. Reducing frivolous throwaway consumption reduces energy consumption. And yes, eating less meat in the developed world has positive health outcomes... I'm not sure what your point is? And finally where are you going to put all those people from Bangladesh?
  3. If you are talking about UEA email hacking then some further reading would be useful: https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm. None of that amounts to "significant evidence" unless you have an alternative source that is not refuted by the comprehensive resource above? If you do, please share it. I already linked to a resource that addresses the heat islands, it concluded that temperatures increased even controlling for all of that. If you have a resource that disproves it or provides evidence otherwise then again, please share it. "The other is to put our resources into dealing with the consequences which has benefit whether global warming is real regardless of the cause or not." Could you explain this a bit more please? I gave specific examples of where mitigation would also have benefits. By dealing with the consequences do you mean raising Bangladesh by a bit? What would be the benefit of that if climate change is not the issue? Edited: My last sentence was unnecessarily forthright, I have corrected to more polite language.
  4. It's a pointless argument anyway. Of course there was a cost associated with her going there but in her calculations (and I agree) the benefit of the awareness she raised outweighs that cost in the long term. The idea that anybody who thinks that we should, do something about the environment perhaps for example, reduce our reliance on fossil and not be opening up new coal mines should only be listened to if they completely remove themselves from modern society is simply a straw man argument created by people with no better arguments to fall back on.
  5. No there is not. Unless you are claiming that NASA are lying. In which case we're so far into tinfoil hat territory that there is no hope. So the world is currently getting hotter. I have already agreed with all your other points. The causes, the severity, whether it is an anomoly or simply part of natural cycles and what to do about it are all under scrutiny. And you are incorrect to say that science is not about consensus. Of course it is. It is about using the collection of data to form opinions that are based on the balance of probabilities. There are no 100%s in science because we live in a probabilistic world and hence you will always have dissent, the trouble is that that dissent is then seized upon by those who use it as "evidence" that the rest is all wrong and incorrect. It's exactly the same as the anti-vax movement. Scientists will never say vaccines are 100% safe, because there are no certainties in the real world. In the same way scientists will not say that the current warming is 100% due to human behaviour. The majority will say that on the balance of probabilities this is the most likely explanation and a minority will disagree. That's the way of the world. This is also much more than "scientists saying" stuff. There is research and data and rigour behind the work that they do. Furthermore, not all scientists or scientific organisations are equal. You will claim that "Climate Scientists" have an inbuilt bias and desire to prove their own theories, I would counter that with the suggestion to look at where the funding is coming from for a lot of the people on the other side of the fence. No science is completely without bias, again, one has to take the balance of probabilities. The solution to the problem requires global thinking, it will involve a combination of technology and lifestyle changes. Many of those changes are simple and easy to achieve. They also have benefits outside of climate change. Lower emission vehicles improve air quality and hence health outcomes, reducing disposable plastic use reduces pollution in our oceans which means there's more beautiful wildlife for us to enjoy and cleaner beaches, reducing meat consumption (not removing it, just reducing it) improves health outcomes. It won't necessarily be easy, but then very few things that are worth doing are. The tired argument of "there's no point in us doing it if China keep doing that" is now outdated. China is already moving on a path to reduce carbon, they already generate 25% of their electricity through renewable resources. I'm using China here as a proxy for "Africa" & "Asia". As technologies improve there will be no need for those countries to replicate the carbon intensive growth that developed countries did. Why would countries building new power stations now use technology that is 50 years old? They won't they will use the most modern tech and hence will achieve similar economic prosperity without either the same level carbon cost or the other environmental costs. E2A: Could you please provide a link to the sources for the evidence that temperatures are being overstated? I would genuinely like to see it and a Google for "evidence that temperature increase is being overstated" doesn't bring up anything useful. Edit to further add I found this: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf which is very interesting and I think references what you are referring to. It still finds that the earth has warmed by 1.5 degrees over the last 250 years.
  6. Indeed. That's the problem with anecdotes. The world is heating up at the moment, there can be no disputing that as a fact. There is some dispute around the causes of this, the effects of this and weather this is anything but usual cycles. The significant majority consensus in the scientific community is that it is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the effects whilst currently manageable will be severe and significant if allowed to go unchecked. There is then a perfectly sensible debate and discussion to be had about what we do about it but that cannot happen until people stop denying the existence of the issue in the first place.
  7. I think most of that is targeted at Ms Thenburg. I am more than happy for somebody to present credible evidence that contradicts the vast majority of scientific research that exists. It has to be a bit more than "There's still snow in Australia" though.
  8. Indeed. The confusion between weather and global climate is one that is made too often as well as the use of the terms Global Warming and Climate Change interchangeably which appears to be either a wilful attempt to cloud the issue or a determined ignorance of the changing awareness of the local impacts of man made carbon emissions. There is also the desire to take a collection of personal anecdotes and somehow use that as a credible argument against vast amounts of actual data collected by actual scientists. The greatest indicator of the worthiness of what Ms Thunberg has to say is the collection of folk lining up to attempt to discredit her. If she really is a "Petulant Child" then she should be ignored, that's what you do with petulant children. What she is is a threat to the established order and they're running scared. To FP's comment about solutions, there are solutions but none of them are free. They will require everybody to make changes to their lifestyles (not necessarily for the worse, but people don't like change) and as a global society we're not ready for that yet. See comments in this post as evidence or look back at the outraged frothing over the plastic bag ban. We live in democracies which means that change will only happen with the consent of people, for them to give that consent they first need to be made aware, and then be persuaded of the facts. Once that is done then we can begin to look at solutions. This is the first step in a long journey.
  9. monkie

    Brexit

    Armando Iannucci claims he stopped making British political satire because he was becoming too good at predicting the future!
  10. I'm also pleased that they have updated the rules about Aerobars and made it very clear what the conditions are. Basically if you're looking for a time there's no advantage to going on a roadie unless you are wanting to practice riding it in a group as you can use your aerobars when it suits you and jump into a pack at other times.
  11. You're cutting down on my excuses... maybe!
  12. So I just ran two models looking at the above. In both models I used a dummy variable set to either 0 or 1 for whether the gun control reforms had been implemented in Australia. I set this to 0 for any year before 1998 and to 1 for 1998 onwards. I also included Real GDP Growth, Unemployment and Overall Death Rate. In the first model the null hypothesis was that "Gun control has no effect on suicide by firearm in Australia." The dependent variable in the model was Suicide by Firearm per 100,000 of Population. The independent variables were GDP Growth, Unemployment Rate, Death Rate, Gun Control Reform and Suicide Rate. The results were: Adjusted R Squared: 0.9149 Therefore we reject the null hypothesis at the 100% confidence level. For the second model the null hypothesis is: Gun control reform has no effect on overall suicide rates i.e. people who would have committed suicide with a firearm substitute that method for an alternative. The dependent variable was the suicide rate and the independent variables were GDP Growth, Unemployment Rate, Death Rate and Gun Control Reform. The results were: Adjusted R Squared: 0.2698 Therefore we do not reject the null hypothesis. Unemployment does have an impact on the suicide rate at the 95% confidence level which is supported in the literature see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20652218. I did this in an hour so I wouldn't hang my reputation on it but certainly an interesting area to explore. Caveats are that using "Gun Control Reform" is a bit of a blunt instrument and doesn't take into account changing societal views about guns following mass shootings. There may also be other factors at play not included in the model but unless they have significant co-linearity with the dummy Gun Control Reform variable then that should not have an impact on the analysis. I ❤️ data.
  13. I sincerely hope this is as clever a pun as I have given it credit for!!
  14. Interactive Link Interactive Link Brief conclusions: Suicide by firearm were on a downward trend anyway. There appears to be a particularly sharp drop in 1998 (the key year) but there was also a particularly sharp drop in 1989, it would be interesting to know what happened then. Suicide average remained fairly consistent up to 1998 where it entered a sharp decline. I now have to do some actual work and run home but I'll dig in some more later as this has got my nerd juices flowing. Data from herE: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ViewContent?readform&view=productsbytopic&Action=Expand&Num=5.7.1
×
×
  • Create New...