GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

17 minutes ago, specinho said:

?? Not sure if you have confused education/academic lecturers and lecturer cum research scientists ?

You are confused. 

How do you think new research on cancer treatment, heart disease treatment is published?  It is done by practising oncologists, cardiologists and surgeons.  You can do studies on rats in the lab but the most important studies are done on real humans by doctors practising real medicine. 

How do you think a new surgeon learns? From a textbook?

I grow weary of spoon feeding you stuff while you pretend I am the one confused.

Edited Friday at 04:53 AM by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,496]

Oil prices are soaring on bullish factors, with the prospect of a new Trump administration coming into the White House and a new Secretary of Energy about to turf out the junk science which has gripped the previous Washington chumps.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Oil-Bulls-Are-Back-as-Brent-Breaks-80.html

"Bullish sentiment is well and truly back in oil markets, with Brent breaking $80 and WTI trading at $77.46."

"Oil prices have started the year rallying aggressively, with Brent breaking $80 per barrel for the first time since October 7 last year. The rally has been driven by the Biden Administration’s eleventh-hour sanctions on Russia, cold temperatures across the Atlantic Basin, widening backwardation in all crude futures, and continued concerns about inflation. For the first time in months, the oil market is feeling very bullish."

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil prices are soaring on bullish factors, with the prospect of a new Trump administration coming into the White House and a new Secretary of Energy about to turf out the junk science which has gripped the previous Washington chumps.

 

More of this "Trump can change science" nonsense.

How quickly Eco forgets that Trump already had a term in office. Climate science easily survived his first term...

The oil price bump is due to war (no surprise) https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Prices-Skyrocket-45-as-US-Targets-Russian-Tankers.html

Edited Friday at 10:57 PM by TailingsPond

[specinho + 475]

On 1/10/2025 at 12:51 PM, TailingsPond said:

You are confused. 

How do you think new research on cancer treatment, heart disease treatment is published?  It is done by practising oncologists, cardiologists and surgeons.  You can do studies on rats in the lab but the most important studies are done on real humans by doctors practising real medicine. 

How do you think a new surgeon learns? From a textbook?

I grow weary of spoon feeding you stuff while you pretend I am the one confused.

🤔....... Things might not be what you have written.

1. Practising specialists

- they learn from

a) text books and lectures when they are in first year ( basic medical sc)

b) personal experience of lecturers when they are in second and third year ( specific fields of medical sc)

c) when they are interning in the wad, they learn from lecturer or doctor leading the group by watching ( too many intake of students from too many universities to allow hands on). Fourth year, fifth year would be more specialized medical subjects e.g. surgery, gyne & child labouring,  endocrine, ear & throat, guts, bones etc.

d) upon graduation, they have 2 years of housemanship ( government here prolongs it from one year because the quality of graduates has been consistently very poor. It will increase to 3 years soon). This period, they learn from senior doctors assigned to them.

Hence, we could deduce that their primary sources of info are 

a) text book and

b) lecturers & supervisors.

If supervisors learn no special  experience or outside textbook knowledge  from their lecturers, senior doctors, heads of division and personal handling, they will have no additional info on field. Consequently nothing new to teach to their juniors and every new badge thereafter. 

In addition, in a competitive world for progress and arrogant of some young doctors, seniors likely won't say anything unless relevant or similar condition of case emerge. Or they might be labelled as lengthy or talking too much by juniors. Yet face competition from some smarter juniors for permanent placement or job.

 

2. Doctors undertake master, phD or fellow in research after graduation or practising medical doctors who supervise research students from another course e.g. biomed, bioscience etc. 

( As mentioned, tuition fees they pay would suffice for few badges of rats etc, or private fund secured or government allowance when application is submitted)

- if not mistaken, doctors used to be very busy ( now, they have overstaff until they want to make themselves look busy or pretend to be, if they are not. E.g.

in the old days, when doctors were real busy, they would find out your history of visit, treatment done, diagnosis and current situation before prescribing. They hoped to heal you completely so that you need not return.

Nowadays, those young genious never need patients history, past treatment, diagnosis etc. They don't even interested to know what's wrong with you before they prescribe the same medication, sometimes overdoze, sometimes for 3 months, on every similar symptoms. And request you to go back every week or month... @#$_&-?!*)

- owing to their busy schedule, they rarely have time for research.

How do they have new discovery? 

a) clinical phase of drug testing ( not their research, they just watch and confirm it. Results owned and published by related pharma firm under a name in the research lab they established)

b) hear about it from presentors of other countries in conferences and ask research students to try it back home.

c) from research students they supervise...

- new surgeons learned by working on dummies until they sweat no more... Therefore, permanent contract issuance rate is very low nowadays.

 

Conclusion: cutting this automatic payout for a few years would be alright. 

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,496]

7 hours ago, specinho said:

🤔....... Things might not be what you have written.

1. Practising specialists

- they learn from

a) text books and lectures when they are in first year ( basic medical sc)

b) personal experience of lecturers when they are in second and third year ( specific fields of medical sc)

c) when they are interning in the wad, they learn from lecturer or doctor leading the group by watching ( too many intake of students from too many universities to allow hands on). Fourth year, fifth year would be more specialized medical subjects e.g. surgery, gyne & child labouring,  endocrine, ear & throat, guts, bones etc.

d) upon graduation, they have 2 years of housemanship ( government here prolongs it from one year because the quality of graduates has been consistently very poor. It will increase to 3 years soon). This period, they learn from senior doctors assigned to them.

Hence, we could deduce that their primary sources of info are 

a) text book and

b) lecturers & supervisors.

If supervisors learn no special  experience or outside textbook knowledge  from their lecturers, senior doctors, heads of division and personal handling, they will have no additional info on field. Consequently nothing new to teach to their juniors and every new badge thereafter. 

In addition, in a competitive world for progress and arrogant of some young doctors, seniors likely won't say anything unless relevant or similar condition of case emerge. Or they might be labelled as lengthy or talking too much by juniors. Yet face competition from some smarter juniors for permanent placement or job.

 

2. Doctors undertake master, phD or fellow in research after graduation or practising medical doctors who supervise research students from another course e.g. biomed, bioscience etc. 

( As mentioned, tuition fees they pay would suffice for few badges of rats etc, or private fund secured or government allowance when application is submitted)

- if not mistaken, doctors used to be very busy ( now, they have overstaff until they want to make themselves look busy or pretend to be, if they are not. E.g.

in the old days, when doctors were real busy, they would find out your history of visit, treatment done, diagnosis and current situation before prescribing. They hoped to heal you completely so that you need not return.

Nowadays, those young genious never need patients history, past treatment, diagnosis etc. They don't even interested to know what's wrong with you before they prescribe the same medication, sometimes overdoze, sometimes for 3 months, on every similar symptoms. And request you to go back every week or month... @#$_&-?!*)

- owing to their busy schedule, they rarely have time for research.

How do they have new discovery? 

a) clinical phase of drug testing ( not their research, they just watch and confirm it. Results owned and published by related pharma firm under a name in the research lab they established)

b) hear about it from presentors of other countries in conferences and ask research students to try it back home.

c) from research students they supervise...

- new surgeons learned by working on dummies until they sweat no more... Therefore, permanent contract issuance rate is very low nowadays.

 

Conclusion: cutting this automatic payout for a few years would be alright. 

 

 

In the new White House, the discredited climate science based on CO2 will be exposed and the reality of factual science revived based on atmospheric H2O and solar variables. The old models which have been excluding the most important variables will be overhauled.

The realities are that by excluding the most important variables, biased correlation coefficients have been falsely promoted. Any statistical model for climate change which excludes such basic variables as atmospheric H2O or solar variables is without serious merit. Any advanced undergraduate student in mathematical statistics should know that. Further, a statistical relationship is not enough, there needs to be an organic relationship detailed, which fails in the case of atmospheric CO2, due to the low levels of the gas. H2O is by far the predominant greenhouse gas.

The standard CO2 model excludes atmospheric H2O and solar variables. Without a complete model the results for the correlation coefficients are biased and the model without value. Anyone who has studied university mathematical statistics knows that.

https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/omitted-variable-bias/#:~:text=Omitted variable bias occurs when,important factor in your analysis.

"Omitted variable bias occurs when a statistical model fails to include one or more relevant variables. In other words, it means that you left out an important factor in your analysis." "In this case, excluding causes omitted variable bias. This may lead to an overestimation or under-estimation of the effect of your other variables.
As a result, the model mistakenly attributes the effect of the missing variable to the included variables. Exclusion of important variables can limit the validity of your study findings."

Climate scientists freely abandon the rules of statistical models, as if they do not exist. Apparently they believe that the rules are an inconvenience which can be blithely ignored. The models produced by this thinking produce worthless results.

Specification error is the major debilitating factor for the vast majority of climate models, it appears that the difficulties of constructing a well-defined model are beyond the capacities of most climate scientists, most of whom have only a cursory training in statistical models.

Most climate studies focus only on one or two variables and do not attempt to work with comprehensive models, with catastrophic results.

 

Edited Saturday at 02:09 PM by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,496]

Oil prices are soaring in the new year and there is nowhere for them to go but upwards.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Prices-Skyrocket-45-as-US-Targets-Russian-Tankers.html

"New US sanctions targeting Russian oil tankers and maritime insurance providers have caused oil prices to surge to a three-month high.

Dwindling US crude stockpiles, cold weather, and uncertainty over the Trump administration's stance on Iranian crude flows have also contributed to the price rally.

The surge in oil prices has raised concerns about inflation as Trump's term begins"

There is also the drop off the cliff with cold weather gripping the world. I guess global warming is over-hyped.

""Sentiment remains positive on the back of colder weather across parts of the Northern Hemisphere, which is likely to boost oil demand.""

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 02:10 PM by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

In the new White House, the discredited climate science based on CO2 will be exposed and the reality of factual science revived based on atmospheric H2O and solar variables.

Why didn't Trump do that during his last term? Hint it is because he can't - global leaders and real scientists laugh at Trump.

Regardless, politicians do not get to decide the science - If they did it would not be science.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil prices are soaring in the new year and there is nowhere for them to go but upwards.

You got a war bump but the real economists and bankers predict falling oil prices.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Standard-Chartered-US-Oil-Production-Growth-To-Decline-In-2025.html

"The survey of 26 bankers showed that they expect WTI prices to drop to $58.62 a barrel by 2027"

Also there is a large increase in refined product inventories.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Large-Jump-in-Fuel-Inventories-Outweighs-Crude-Draw.html

[specinho + 475]

7 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Why didn't Trump do that during his last term? Hint it is because he can't - global leaders and real scientists laugh at Trump.

Regardless, politicians do not get to decide the science - If they did it would not be science.

 

Remember this?

It is true. Politicians cum policy makers can not decide science.

But, they can, somehow, influence the direction of science.......

For better, or for worse... >~<

[Ecocharger + 1,496]

Oil demand remains strong in Norway despite the uptake of EVs. It makes no real difference.

https://www.investing.com/news/commodities-news/norways-oil-demand-steady-despite-rise-to-ev-superpower-ubs-says-3399266

"...a record 92.1% of all new cars sold were purely electric in Norway, UBS said in Wednesday note, a trend that has been gaining momentum since the rise in EV sales in 2010. But so far, the impact on oil demand in Norway "has been negligible," UBS adds, noting the plunge gasoline demand has been more than offset by other oil products."

[Ecocharger + 1,496]

The cancellation of the unnecessary and foolish CO2 removal projects is a positive development in the oil sector, there is absolutely no need to reduce CO2 levels, which clearly do not contribute to global warming.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Canadas-165B-Carbon-Capture-Project-In-Jeopardy-After-Trudeaus-Resignation.html

"Exxon CEO Darren Woods told investors that the company’s low-carbon business has the potential to outperform its legacy oil and gas business within a decade and generate hundreds of billions in revenues. According to Woods, the business has the potential to hit hundreds of billions after the initial 10-year ramp-up. However, Ammann said that whether Exxon is able to actualize its dream will depend on regulatory and policy support for carbon pricing and the cost of abating greenhouse gas emissions, among other changes. Exxon believes that the Low Carbon segment will be "much more stable, or less cyclical" and also less prone to commodity price swings through predictable, long-term contracts with customers aiming to lower their own carbon footprint."

Only by bankrupting national government budgets could these ideas ever be brought to fruition, and now with Trudeau out of  business, there is no head of government prepared to risk this enterprise.

[Ecocharger + 1,496]

22 hours ago, specinho said:

 

Remember this?

It is true. Politicians cum policy makers can not decide science.

But, they can, somehow, influence the direction of science.......

For better, or for worse... >~<

Scientists supported by government can institute a ban on real science, such as has currently happened in the climate change sector, and can fund some considerable science itself.

Trump will no doubt recruit a body of climate scientists who will undertake a reappraisal of the literature, knock out the unspported and incomplete climate models which the current Biden folks are relying upon, and set a new course for real science. Genuine variables such as atmospheric H2O and solar variables can be introduced into functional models with better results and without catastrophic alarms. Some of this science could even be publicly released to make the case for a change in strategy.

Exciting times are ahead.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

55 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Scientists supported by government can institute a ban on real science, such as has currently happened in the climate change sector, and can fund some considerable science itself.

Trump will no doubt recruit a body of climate scientists who will undertake a reappraisal of the literature, knock out the unspported and incomplete climate models which the current Biden folks are relying upon, and set a new course for real science. Genuine variables such as atmospheric H2O and solar variables can be introduced into functional models with better results and without catastrophic alarms. Some of this science could even be publicly released to make the case for a change in strategy.

Exciting times are ahead.

You still think the USA can dictate science.  It is super funny - keep up the entertainment.

You also keep failing to acknowledge Trump already had a term in office and didn't do anything you want and now you have "no doubt" he will reverse climate science.

Edited 56 minutes ago by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

59 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Trump will no doubt recruit a body of climate scientists who will undertake a reappraisal of the literature, knock out the unspported and incomplete climate models which the current Biden folks are relying upon, and set a new course for real science.

Just to be clear you support Trump ramping up government funding for climate change researchers?  If so that is awesome but don't be sad when they report data you do not like.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

The USA will never own science, Canada, or Greenland.  How epic stupid do you have to be to think that a change in administration is going to cause global change in climate science? 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

The DOGE will get rid of all climate scientists.  Absolutely no way will he hire biased "scientists" that work against his interests.

Epic stupid.