Advanced members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Good

About AndersB

  • Rank
    Aussie expat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

14025 profile views
  2. Ah yes - there are lunatics like Larry Summers (and some politicians) that think trickle-down-economics works best by stimulating the big end of town and the interests of the wealthy elites. For the rest of the 99.9%:
  3. There seems to be a race between the telecommunications industry and razor blade manufacturers; 5G? I'll show you a 5-blade razor! I wonder what the innovation geniuses will think about next...
  4. I predict raising the dole/new start. Politicians gain brownie points for caring for those most in need. And those people will spend every cent of what extra they would get, which would mean instant stimulus.
  5. Sinéad O'Connor is an interesting case study of how looks affect perception of a person. Perhaps she shaved her head because she wanted to be appreciated for her art and not her pretty face. It seems her career went down the gurgler after she went "weird" in the eyes of the public. Maybe it is naive to think that we can avoid being judged by our cover. It is a shame, really. But tribal instincts are deep seated animal instincts that we humans have inherited. I don't think it can be avoided, despite our best intentions. People even get offended if one does not live up to their expectations of what we should be for them.
  6. It seems we have lost 99% of forum members. Very nice and quiet now - maybe this forum can be turned into a personal blog for the two or three people remaining Here is an interesting thing: there is strong anti-cancer "side effects" of deworming tablets with Fenbendazole that is not well known by the general public. This effect was discovered more than a decade ago: Unexpected Antitumorigenic Effect of Fenbendazole when Combined with Supplementary Vitamins You can click on the PDF link to get the whole paper. There is this chart in the paper which shows how little the cancer grew with Fenbendazole in combination with some vitamins (list is in the paper): Strange that Fendbendazole by itself made the cancer worse, but with vitamins it was very effective in stopping cancer growth. Of course, I don't recommend any human to try this, but a cancer patient treated himself in 2014 with Fenbendazole and vitamin E that raised a lot of interest by quite a few medical researchers: After Edmond man says dog dewormer cured his cancer, researchers look into others using the treatment There are now recent (2018) serious scientific studies published in credible journals about this effect: Fenbendazole acts as a moderate microtubule destabilizing agent and causes cancer cell death by modulating multiple cellular pathways An interesting quote from the article: "Fenbendazole is known to have a high safety margin and most species tolerate it very well. It has very low degree of toxicity and high degree of safety in experimental animals. In this study, we show that fenbendazole (FZ) exhibits a moderate microtubule depolymerizing activity towards human cancer cells, but possesses a potent antitumor effect as evident from in vitro and in vivo experiments. Our results indicate that FZ exerts its antitumor effect through the disruption of microtubule dynamics, p53 activation and the modulation of genes involved in multiple cellular pathways. FZ treatment also resulted in reduced glucose uptake in cancer cells due to down regulation of GLUT transporters and key glycolytic enzymes." Basically, Fenbendazole kills cancer cells in several different ways including "starving" them, as they tend to use glucose energy differently than normal cells (the Warburg effect). The drug is off-patent so there will be no Pharma company spending a $billion to get through clinical trials. Most likely they will come up with another antithelmintic variant that they can patent for human use.
  7. The paper is not peer review published anywhere yet. It seems to be like a work in progress, so I will reserve my judgement for now. One of the authors, Jyrki Kauppinen, was an expert reviewer of the IPCC AR5 report: So I think the academics are fair dinkum. They previously published an interesting paper: Major Portions in Climate Change: Physical Approach (2011): In that paper they claimed that half of the temperature increase over the last century is due to humans (anthropogenic). But they also assessed that climate sensitivity R = dT/dQ to be 0.0863 or 0.0251 K/(Wm2) That would equate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to a warming of 0.22 degrees or 0.14 degrees. For those numbers to be correct there would be no positive feedback loop on the greenhouse gas effect with the increase of CO2. From a pure physics point of view, a doubling of CO2 would have a logarithmic effect. That is, if quantity X extra CO2 causes 1 degree of warming - then you need 2X CO2 for another degree of warming. The logarithmic effect is not in dispute - it is the feedback loop that is the big issue: It is interesting that the authors have changed their view about the warming over the last century from "About one half of the temperature increase was anthropogenic" in 2011 to now claiming that CO2 is causing a fraction of observed global warming (0.1 degrees), of which the anthropogenic component is 0.01 degrees.
  8. You got me there! The study did not say that warming was any slower than predicted. It was just my sloppy interpretation. Still - the "settled science" seem to come up with pretty drastic new conclusions, like 400% more CO2 can be emitted by humans for the same target effect of 1.5 degrees of warming. Now, my main bugbear has been the issue of climate sensitivity all along - which would mean that alarmist predictions are way overstated. So if we can now emit 4 times as much CO2 than what was previously thought - that should mean that the anthropogenic signal in climate change is a lot less than what was previously estimated. I am awaiting the results of future academic studies with eagerness. The other "black swan" issue I have is that if the anthropogenic signal is much weaker than what we believe is the case today - then it may be temporarily drowned out by natural variability. Nobody is prepared for the possibility of a decade or two of global cooling. Anyway - cheers SC, I always enjoy our discussions.
  9. So - the carbon budget is 4 times bigger than what was estimated for the last IPCC report - according to the IPCC experts themselves. I.e. there can be 4 times the amount of anthropogenic CO2 emissions (than previously thought) before we see a 1.5 degree global temperature rise. This lines up with other studies as per below. However, if you read mainstream media the catastrophic scenario is just getting progressively worse and increasingly urgent. I wonder what the scientific consensus will show if this trend in results of new studies continues another 10 years!
  10. Here is the paper published in Nature (arguably the most prestigious scientific publication in the world) by authors including Prof Myles Allen, University of Oxford and Prof Michael Grubb at University College London: Written about here:
  11. It's still warming - but just not as much as previously predicted.
  12. It is kind of humorous that after all these years the great housing crash may have finally arrived in Australia - and we'll just keep bickering about climate change OK, so Scafetta may not have the best climate science pedigree. Still, as a PhD he should be able to do a half descent literature review, which is what the chart shows. So are all those papers he quotes of dubious quality as well? Knutti (2002) estimates 5 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2, but Knutti and Torressini (2008) suggests around 1.7 degrees.
  13. Hey SC, what are your views on Scafetta et al's (2017) paper on recent studies indicating lower temperature sensitivity? Gregory (2002) and Knutti (2002) used to be widely quoted with estimation of 6 and 5 degrees warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. But new research points towards less than 2 degrees: See paper here:
  14. Can't have too many large widows on hand if you want to do major renovations or training for your next pro wrestling tournament. Would be very handy for that. Perhaps tor could find use for the widows in his martial art training crap that he fools around with. What is more disturbing is if the major selling feature is two large windows. Wow! Two windows!!!
  15. Yes, I'm in West End. Let's connect by PM. The porridge recipe is something I found on the internetthingamajingy that I modified a bit. The teaspoon of honey is more like a big dollop using a teaspoon. It probably ends up more like a tablespoon of honey. I also like the sprinkled cinnamon and sugar melting to a shiny coating on top of the porridge.