Could this have anything to do with dodging anti-science policies of the American far right?
No. It has to do with the FDA making absolutely positively sure that a treatment is safe, or at least that we know all the possible risks associated with each treatment. This takes years to complete for each and every treatment, which means that during those years, any treatment under investigation or medical trials will be unavailable in the US.
And Switzerland is well known as a hot-bed of crazy risk taking
It also comes from the US hospitals being very conservative when it comes to offering new procedures.
But, but, duriing the health care "debate" we were told that all inovation came from the wonderful free market American system and the socilist eurofags would be screwed if they couldn't steal American ideas.
If you're so well informed about the unreliability of Levy why did you say this:
I'm not sure where you took that quote from. It fits with neither anything I'm aware that Israel has done, nor anything I'm aware that my (not always smart) leaders have said. Care to give the precise origin?
I'm not sure where you took that quote from. It fits with neither anything I'm aware that Israel has done, nor anything I'm aware that my (not always smart) leaders have said. Care to give the precise origin?
According to Haaretz it was Dov Weissglas who said it.
I'm going to end it here because your trolling has become repetetive.
I never proposed a "null hypothesis" because I'm interested in science, not statistics. After Popper the accepted scientific method is to propose theories that fit the data, make predictions based on those theories and reject theories that fail to predict correctly.
We know that climate changes. We assume that all such changes have a cause. Examining the data available to us appears to show that the largest cause of the current episode is an increase in atmospheric CO2. The evidence is that that increase is caused by human activity.
This is absurd. Because there were forest fires before the advent of humanity we know that all forest fires have a non-human cause.
No, what that means is that when we see a forest fire, the *default* assumption is that it was caused by non-human forces. You need to *prove* that humans caused it, you can't just assume that as default.
If we can't find the matches and the can of kerosene.
So...anytime we find matches and a can of kerosene, AGW is true...not sure if that's really a useful falsifiable hypothesis of AGW.
Care to try again?
The problem with your null hypothesis is that it is not a hypothesis. You've decided on a null hypothesis that is not falsifiable.
I've told you how to falsify AGW - falsify W or G or A. Shoul be easy enough. Start the experiments now.
How about this for the null hypothesis - "each observable change of climate had a non-human cause". We know this to be true because we had climate change well before the advent of humanity.
This is absurd. Because there were forest fires before the advent of humanity we know that all forest fires have a non-human cause.
Now that we've established the null, what is your falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW?
If we can't find the matches and the can of kerosene.
A successful scientific hypothesis is falsifiable, and there are ruthless, unsuccessful attempts to look for those falsifications.
Evolution can be falsified by finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian. How would you falsify AGW?
Pretty well defined by the name:
Either show the global temperature is not rising or find a non-anthropogenic cause.
(For the second you'd also have to come up with a workable theory of why the anthropogenic rise in CO2 is having no effect, or show the rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic, or not happening).
If these guys are so confident, then why can't I get an answer as to why a tiny amount of CO2 (the sum total of which added by human activity since the industrial revolution) is more important than water in the atmosphere, which varies by so much on a day-to-day basis that the total forcing from CO2 is lost in the noise? All I ever get when I ask that question is a bunch of boos, hisses, attacks, and sometimes appeals to authority (you know, like this entire thread).
It seems the temperature is going DOWN, (from slightly _above_ 10oC to slightly _below_ 10oC in yearly mean) so my conclusion is that the earth is cooling down
Slashdot Mirror
They free load on our pharmaceutical industry mostly, but there are a few that operate over seas, most of them are based in the US.
Hahahhaha!
Of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies by sales six are based in Europe.
when you asserted that "the market" will determine efficacy more quickly and cheaply than a clinical trial...
- what do you think happened before FDA?
Uh, people died from adulterated food and drugs?
No you have the most expensive health care system on earth. Per capita, Cuba has the best health care system on earth.
What does this mean? What are you dividing up "per capita"?
Could this have anything to do with dodging anti-science policies of the American far right?
No. It has to do with the FDA making absolutely positively sure that a treatment is safe, or at least that we know all the possible risks associated with each treatment. This takes years to complete for each and every treatment, which means that during those years, any treatment under investigation or medical trials will be unavailable in the US.
And Switzerland is well known as a hot-bed of crazy risk taking
It also comes from the US hospitals being very conservative when it comes to offering new procedures.
But, but, duriing the health care "debate" we were told that all inovation came from the wonderful free market American system and the socilist eurofags would be screwed if they couldn't steal American ideas.
I'm so confused.
Ok, Wiesglass did deny it.
If you're so well informed about the unreliability of Levy why did you say this:
I'm not sure where you took that quote from. It fits with neither anything I'm aware that Israel has done, nor anything I'm aware that my (not always smart) leaders have said. Care to give the precise origin?
So Ben-Dror Yemini doesn't like Gideon Levy.
What does that have to do with what Dov Weissglas said or didn't say?
Did Haaretz disown the editorial?
Did Dov Weissglas deny the quote?
I'm not sure where you took that quote from. It fits with neither anything I'm aware that Israel has done, nor anything I'm aware that my (not always smart) leaders have said. Care to give the precise origin?
According to Haaretz it was Dov Weissglas who said it.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/as-the-hamas-team-laughs-1.180500
oh, go on then.
for 10 points: Who is Iran's leader.
Smartphones are computers with cellular radios.
Does a general-purpose computer require all of its applications to have been approved by the computer's manufacturer?
Does a smartphone?
(Not mine).
You don't have gcc on your phone? Why on earth not?
I'm going to end it here because your trolling has become repetetive.
I never proposed a "null hypothesis" because I'm interested in science, not statistics. After Popper the accepted scientific method is to propose theories that fit the data, make predictions based on those theories and reject theories that fail to predict correctly.
We know that climate changes. We assume that all such changes have a cause. Examining the data available to us appears to show that the largest cause of the current episode is an increase in atmospheric CO2. The evidence is that that increase is caused by human activity.
Thats it.
You still don't understand what the null hypothesis is, do you? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
"It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven.
Well of course not. In the generaly accepted scientific method no hypothesis can be proven.
However to be a hypothesis it has to be falsifiable. Your "it's natural" isn't falsifiable.
Why are you so hung up about this stats thing anyway? We only have a population of one.
No, what that means is that when we see a forest fire, the *default* assumption is that it was caused by non-human forces. You need to *prove* that humans caused it, you can't just assume that as default.
So...anytime we find matches and a can of kerosene, AGW is true...not sure if that's really a useful falsifiable hypothesis of AGW.
Care to try again?
The problem with your null hypothesis is that it is not a hypothesis. You've decided on a null hypothesis that is not falsifiable.
I've told you how to falsify AGW - falsify W or G or A. Shoul be easy enough. Start the experiments now.
How about this for the null hypothesis - "each observable change of climate had a non-human cause". We know this to be true because we had climate change well before the advent of humanity.
This is absurd. Because there were forest fires before the advent of humanity we know that all forest fires have a non-human cause.
Now that we've established the null, what is your falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW?
If we can't find the matches and the can of kerosene.
Really? You're gonna hang your hat on that?
Say, what would you make the null hypothesis? All climate change is caused by humanity? Not sure how that one explains climate changes before humans,
My hypothesis would be that each change of climate had a cause.
"Nature" is not a cause.
I don't have to hand wave - natural climate change is the null hypothesis.
Your hands are waving so fast they're probably going to cause localised weather changes.
"natural climate change" is not the null hypothesis because it's not a hypothesis.
Overwhelming verification and agreement are not signs of a successful scientific hypothesis: see http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
A successful scientific hypothesis is falsifiable, and there are ruthless, unsuccessful attempts to look for those falsifications.
Evolution can be falsified by finding a rabbit fossil in the precambrian. How would you falsify AGW?
Pretty well defined by the name:
Either show the global temperature is not rising or find a non-anthropogenic cause.
(For the second you'd also have to come up with a workable theory of why the anthropogenic rise in CO2 is having no effect, or show the rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic, or not happening).
Get ready for your Nobel.
[ paranoid conspiracy theory removed ]
If these guys are so confident, then why can't I get an answer as to why a tiny amount of CO2 (the sum total of which added by human activity since the industrial revolution) is more important than water in the atmosphere, which varies by so much on a day-to-day basis that the total forcing from CO2 is lost in the noise? All I ever get when I ask that question is a bunch of boos, hisses, attacks, and sometimes appeals to authority (you know, like this entire thread).
Maybe because you don't know how to read?
CO2 doesn't have enough effect to warm or cool the planet significantly. You are better off pumping water vapor or methane into the air.
Great. A random internet loony has spoke. Why bother doing science?
Let's pick the temperature of Iceland, a nation claimed to suffer climate change particularly strongly on an independend site:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=temperature+in+Iceland+for+last+hundred+years [wolframalpha.com]
It seems the temperature is going DOWN, (from slightly _above_ 10oC to slightly _below_ 10oC in yearly mean) so my conclusion is that the earth is cooling down
What part of Global Warming don't you understand?
Which scientist is proposing the things you say Galileo didn't?
Then we have the fact that the earth hasn't warmed in the last 10 years.
Lie.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2011/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2011/trend
Oh, you mean you're picking your cherries from HADCRUT? Not so worried about tricks when you want your cherries are you?
(Not that any of this is relevant, only a clown would imagine that 10 years were statisticaly significant).
They point to rising temperatures, but ignore the fact that this type of temperature rise has happened many times before,
"but ignore the fact..."
Nobody is ignoring anything. A large part of our understanding of what is going on is based on knowing what happened before.
A grown up, when presented with an problem, attempts to solve it.
A child might attempt to deny the problem exists.