Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by wegs, Aug 7, 2019.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    • Firstly the Ozone depletion issue is far from resolved. Fact
    • Secondly, believing it is resolved will make this issue even harder to resolve due to reluctance to make the sacrifices necessary to actually resolve this issue to a more natural alternative gas. As per international agreement.
      • One of the biggest reasons why development of more natural alternative refrigeration systems is being frustrated, is because companies enjoy the low conversion cost involved using HFC and the cost of any other changes is now associated with AGW and not the ozone layer. And cost of preventing AGW is harder to sell _ see Adani Mine dev. QLD, for example.
    • Thirdly, it was definitively a hateful comment and the explanation I asked for has been avoided by you.
    so please again, explain your hateful comment:
    By the year 2050 it is forcasted that over billion people a year will be diagnosed with attributed, skin cancer and that is with the CFC's being removed under the Montreal Protocol. The numbers would have been considerably more with out that international agreement.

    Who is going to pay for the massive medical expenses of billions of people with attributable skin cancer? Let alone the huge emotional cost.
    Cataract surgery alone on many more people will cost trillions...
    How is this issue even close to resolution?
    How are you going to convince the unwise Chinese scientists what they need to know, before they make a huge mess of it all?

    see yet again chronically underestimating the impact of unwise science leads to even more unwise science...you'd think we would learn...
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,370
    Well, they acted from a slight profit motive, in that they chose a class of replacement refrigerants that were not impossibly expensive to produce. But that's an important consideration as well. If you specify a refrigerant that's $600 an ounce, no one uses it - and the ozone layer pays the price.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,370
    The CFC problem is resolved and the ozone layer is healing. (i.e. natural processes are regenerating it.) That's the best we can do
    I did. This is a discussion about how people with anti-science views know the least but think they know the most. You are a good example of that - and you gave an excellent example of how you would have made a decision that would have harmed thousands at the very least due to your anti-science views.

    I don't hate you. There are lots of people like you, and many of them act out of good impulses, even if they act in ignorance. A better solution than hate is education.
    Billions now? Why not just say trillions? It is just as valid - and is much scarier sounding. Gotta get those emotions in play!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Exactly what decision are you referring to. Please use quotes.
    Billions with diagnosed attributable skin cancer ever year (around 2050) according to WHO figures not mine . Talk to them about using emotive language not me.. I am just using what scientists are saying...

    Don't you respect the very thing you are attempting to defend.
    Tell you what ... you tell us all what the WHO is stating... oh... that's right you can't even read a graph correctly so don't bother...

    but I will post it again any how...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    it certainly doesn't say 100 a year like you stated...in your rush to insult.
    try 100 per million per year 2050 and estimate global population for that year... do the rest on a calculator...
    then if you really want to drill down the figures ask yourself how long does a person diagnosed with skin cancer live for on average.
    the use your handy calculator again...
    Estimate the medical, societal cost per person, come up with an contingent approximation.
    and then only then will get an idea of the silliness of your position.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,045
    By the guy who is blaming "science" for everything, the same guy who shows a distinct lack of understanding and the same guy who refuses to acknowledge correct information because it does not fit his own over-inflated opinion and who admits that he is paranoid...

    Have you failed to notice that you are the only one who thinks all our refutations were inadequate?

    Have you failed to realise that you are what this thread topic is actually about and what it described?

    Firstly, you could only make such a claim if you ignored everything that you said in this thread.

    In other words, now you are basically lying.

    I have no issues with you discussing the issues or this thread's subject matter. I have a very big problem with your disingenuous trolling.

    You have an issue QQ and you keep blaming us for it. The reality is that it's you and not us.

    I don't have to solicit support from others, nor is it my intent to humiliate. It is my intent to provide you with correct information. The fact that you deliberately choose to ignore it, misrepresent other bits, take things out of context and then cry 'I'm a victim' when your trolling is addressed is not my problem or fault.

    I haven't humiliated you.

    You humiliated yourself by making ridiculous claims and having a full blown meltdown because "the earth's lungs are burning", then ranting about hypoxia, despite our repeated attempts to get you to stop doing so.

    And neither are your posts.

    And here we are, 15 or so pages later.. And you are still making ridiculous and incorrect claims, advocating for just as dangerous chemical useage and now using the word "hypothetical", when we have all experienced your 'hypotheticals' in the past, where you treat it like it's fact, and yet again, coming into a science forum and blaming "science" for anything and everything without any actual clue.

    For example:

    Reality - ammonia is actually a fairly dangerous chemical with pressurised use, it can and does kill (as has been linked to you several times), causes horrific injuries, damages the environment, is a pollutant, is highly corrosive and can cause explosions (as has also been linked)..

    So your hypothetical vs reality...

    Which do you think should be considered as being correct?

    You would rather risk the environment and our health and wellbeing because you do not trust scientists who have been studying the ozone layer and have projected that it will fully resolve itself by 2060?

    As opposed to what "science"?

    See, it is comments like this, that makes you look like a fool.

    Do you even know or understand what constitutes "human science"?

    Terminology matters.

    Secondly, no, "human science" has not enabled global warming.

    Our reliance on coal, our contribution to greenhouse gases has accelerated and increased what is naturally occurring.

    So it is not "human science" - unless you want to argue that anthropology enabled global warming...? It is our reliance on certain things that has essentially sped up the process.

    This was addressed pages ago. Why do you keep posting the same incorrect information?

    Your argument is from a standpoint that scientists should have seen hundreds of years into the future to know that burning coal would cause global warming... It is absolutely ridiculous.

    So you blame "science" and "human science" to boot..

    You have not provided any evidence to support this "well known fact".

    You were provided with evidence and repeated explanations that showed you how and why you were wrong - for example, planting grass and other plants and crops in that space would actually increase oxygen production, if one could call it that than what these forests provided..

    And yet, you keep repeating this same incorrect claim and demanding it is "fact". You even demanded that the scientists, who explained why claims like yours are incorrect, were wrong, because "the earth's lungs are burning" and you ranted on and on for pages about hypoxia because those forests were burning..

    It is possibly a "well known fact" to the voices in your head. It is not a "well known fact" in reality.

    Oh no, I did.

    And as was explained, the fires would contribute to global warming.. That was never in disagreement.
    We repeatedly said, the loss of those forests were bad because it was a loss of a diverse ecosystem that existed nowhere else on earth and because its contribution to global warming..
    You were too busy screaming about hypoxia to notice.

    Love how you now suddenly switched to "hypotheticals".. Really, trolling at its worst.

    You mean CRISPR?

    And "mismatching of edited persons"? What?

    Given it is you who considers them inadequate, I'd say I am on the right path.

    You offered a "rationale", by spouting anti-science rubbish and making false and incorrect claims repeatedly, and you have kept doing it for pages and pages now.

    In a science forum.

    And then you whine when your utter BS is called out?
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,370
    Not sure why I would want to do that, since I do not advocate using CFC's as you seem to be claiming.

    But I'll tell you what. I will do that once you come up with estimates - medical, societal, economic and environmental - of the harm that will be done by replacing all the refrigerants out there with ammonia. Be sure to include the costs of deaths and property destruction due to fire, and be sure to calculate how much it will cost to replace every single copper line in every refrigerator and A/C in the world.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    You have lost all credibility as far as I am concerned but will post the following:
    I do not blame science for anything.
    I state that science has enabled...
    What has science enabled?
    Human mis-adventure.
    What do I blame for the unwise science enabled problems we face today?
    Human nature, the human condition, Human fallibility.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,045
    I am reading the WHO report.

    Can you quote where it says billions?

    Because the graph you keep posting from that report does not say billions either.

    In fact, as the graph shows, it will drop down after that peak and that is there for a reason.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    ok.. you're on...
    What CFC's are you referring to... they have been removed...

    are you feeling a tad confused today?
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It says numbers of people per million:
    How many people live on this planet today...?
    How many people will live on this planet in 2050?
    how many people effect between 1975ísh to 2100?
    Billions is actually conservative for 2050.
    and you link is not the WHO report. You lied again.

    The report will be found by following the link that I posted in the relevant post. #278

    https://www.who.int/globalchange/environment/en/fig8.1.new.gif

    Have a read from the WHO, as it will better inform you than Sciencedaily.com
    Third party reporting, if that is the correct term, is not always advisable.
    The international agreement that occurred to create the Montreal protocol was incredible and about the only thing that gave the world any hope at the time.
    It's a fascinating story and worthy of researching if inclined.
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,045
    Soooo..

    100 per million (excess cases in 2050) is billions to you?

    Think about it.

    Take a few seconds. Or perhaps in your case, hours.

    Take your time.

    Have you looked this up? Or are you just guessing at this point?

    The world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050, according to a new United Nations report launched today.

    So how many billions again?

    Here is what the WHO report stated in its summary and where it linked the graph you keep plugging and misrepresenting by claiming it will be:

    So, here is what the WHO stated:

    The groups most vulnerable to skin cancer are white Caucasians, especially those of Celtic descent living in areas of high ambient UVR. Further, culturally-based behavioural changes have led to much higher UV exposure, through sun-bathing and skin-tanning. The marked increase in skin cancers in western populations over recent decades reflects, predominantly, the combination of background, post-migration, geographical vulnerability and modern behaviours.

    Scientists expect the combined effect of recent stratospheric ozone depletion and its continuation over the next 1-2 decades to be (via the cumulation of additional UVB exposure), an increase in skin cancer incidence in fair-skinned populations living at mid to high latitudes (3). The modelling of future ozone levels and UVR exposures study has estimated that, in consequence, a ‘European’ population living at around 45 degrees North will experience, by 2050, an approximate 5% excess of total skin cancer incidence (assuming, conservatively, no change in age distribution). The equivalent estimation for the US population is for a 10% increase in skin cancer incidence by around 2050.


    Population growth as per the UN's Department of Economics and Social Affairs:

    The world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050, according to a new United Nations report launched today.

    The World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights, which is published by the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, provides a comprehensive overview of global demographic patterns and prospects. The study concluded that the world’s population could reach its peak around the end of the current century, at a level of nearly 11 billion.

    The new population projections indicate that nine countries will make up more than half the projected growth of the global population between now and 2050: India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Indonesia, Egypt and the United States of America (in descending order of the expected increase). Around 2027, India is projected to overtake China as the world’s most populous country.


    How many billions will be "diagnosed with attributable skin cancer every year (around 2050) according to WHO figures" from the report quoted in this thread, and taken in conjunction with projected population growth globally? Now keep in mind that the population of Europe as a whole is projected to be around the 700 million mark around 2050.


    Is it now?

    Hmm..

    Umm I never said it was a link to the WHO report?

    I said I was reading it and I asked you where you got the "billions" from.

    And then I made a comment about why the rates would go down and provided a link to a scientific article, discussing research into skin cancer rates and why they are expected to peak.

    Where am I lying again?

    I have read the WHO report and it is not supporting what the "billions" in 2050 you have made a few times now.

    Neither is mistaking division for multiplication.

    And yet, here we are.

    Please do.

    And when you are done, you can come back and retract all the rubbish you have posted in this thread.
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Uhm... look again...
    See the words " per year"
    Think about it...

    And when you are done, you can come back and retract all the rubbish you have posted in this thread.

    But why quibble... how many millions would be enough for you?
    What is the average duration of the illness ? How many years.
    I know of three people who have been sick with this issue for a number of years. Most people know someone. How many do you know?

    What are you actually disputing?
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,045
    As per the graph.. 100 per million..

    You repeatedly said that would amount to "billions" in 2050.

    The population in Europe is projected to be around 700 million by 2050.

    So how many "billions" would that be, according to your claims in this thread?

    Own up to your mistakes like an adult. What do we get instead?

    This:

    You still cannot admit that you are wrong and instead try to shift the blame of your complete inability to read and comprehend onto others, while completely misrepresenting what I have said and outright lying. Pathetic.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Why quote Europe only, how about the rest of the world...10 billion odd.
    Whats your agenda Bells?
    What are you disputing?
    That there would be billions of cases 2050?
    How many cases are we talking about by 2100?
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,045
    You have kept plugging that WHO report repeatedly in this thread.

    And then you have the temerity to actually ask that question?

    Did you read the words of that report?

    As in the actual words? You know, where you claimed to have read it and then came out and said that it would be billions with skin cancer according to that particular report and cited that graph?

    Here are the words in that report.. Once again:

    The groups most vulnerable to skin cancer are white Caucasians, especially those of Celtic descent living in areas of high ambient UVR. Further, culturally-based behavioural changes have led to much higher UV exposure, through sun-bathing and skin-tanning. The marked increase in skin cancers in western populations over recent decades reflects, predominantly, the combination of background, post-migration, geographical vulnerability and modern behaviours.

    Scientists expect the combined effect of recent stratospheric ozone depletion and its continuation over the next 1-2 decades to be (via the cumulation of additional UVB exposure), an increase in skin cancer incidence in fair-skinned populations living at mid to high latitudes (3). The modelling of future ozone levels and UVR exposures study has estimated that, in consequence, a ‘European’ population living at around 45 degrees North will experience, by 2050, an approximate 5% excess of total skin cancer incidence (assuming, conservatively, no change in age distribution). The equivalent estimation for the US population is for a 10% increase in skin cancer incidence by around 2050.

    Emphasis mine.

    That graph is basically representative of that text.

    Do you understand now?

    So, can you please support this claim:

    Or retract it and admit you are wrong because you cannot read and understand what 100 per million actually means.

    Stop trolling. Stop lying. And stop changing the subject when your rubbish is called out.

    I beg your pardon?

    Is this another attempt at trolling?

    I think that is fairly obvious.

    Stop trolling.

    Support your claims.

    Consider this your last warning.

    If you fail to support this claim or retract it and apologise for wasting people's time, I will not only issue you with an infraction, but I will also ban you from this thread.

    Here is your claim:

    Please show where the WHO has come up with "billions" for (around 2050) when it comes to people "with diagnosed attributable skin cancer" - as pertains to the ozone layer. You have linked to this report and keep showing that graph. None of which support your claims. So where does that number come from?

    It's a simple enough request. And you have been asked to support that claim numerous times now.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    ok.. I retract it and everything I have posted....and apologize for your obvious confusion...I was mistaken and way too passionate about the obvious pain this world is enduring and is about to face...I'll try not to do it again...

    Are you satisfied? I bet not...
    at least there is one consolation, a heightened awareness of what unwise science can lead to...
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    So uhm... what causes a person to become anti science? Do you think?
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    Appeals to emotion generally don’t work if it is accompanied by an abandonment of everything else your argument was based on.
    Your views of the “obvious pain” is not fact, it is but your opinion.
    It is you who is, in essence, demonstrating the reason that science/scientists are, as you suggest, suffering from distrust by Joe Public: you take a report and spin it with your own agenda as if your agenda is fact.
    So thanks for the demonstration.
    Unwise anything can lead to problems.
    The result of scientific endeavour is not immune to the unwise actions of individuals, or collectives.
    It also shares the lack of hindsight that everything suffers from.
    But just because things stem from science doesn’t make that thing itself science.
    Science is a pursuit of knowledge, using a certain type of systematic approach.
    Your issues therefore seem to be with knowledge itself.

    Feel free to remain ignorant, if that is the case.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Thanks for expressing your opinion...is there anything else you wish to add while you are at it?
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    While you are thinking on what more of you opinion you would like to share... I'll leave you with this
    When scientists take responsibility for what they are ignorant of, I may consider doing the same, and then perhaps we may actually get somewhere.
     

Share This Page