Albedo

Tony...not only are you preaching to the converted ...but you're just 'on one' and you are at least 15 to 20 years behind...in terms of anyone that knows what they are talking about. You are making a dick of yourself.... stick to fungi ...or talk to me on the phone and I'll bring you up to speed.

Cheers Drew. I'm keen to meet you as you must have some yarns... be a privlidge to put you on my pint list with Will whom I admire even though I could be his dad:001_smile:

I gave up years ago and just tell them I'm off to kill a tree, or I hate trees etc. I know it's not good PR for you guys and every now and again I give them the real deal, but when you get as far as I'm getting past 50 you don't really care what people think.

Tony ...If you are seriously going to get into save the world mode...I'm gonna have to phone you at 2 in the morning again... Do you really want that:001_smile: Edit: I just found your number the other day I still have it.... We'll start with a reading list

Will do Dan, I'd like to bung some stuff on here about the coming mission. Sorry for the hijack of your thread Will, but if I start with our pint, your thread will get bumped more so less effort all round.

Cheers Dan I have not much idea right now as you can only get so prepared for it without the official ok. I've had my stuff packed for shipping for years now and been living out of a box. Just gotta arrange the shipping the flight for me and Orca ( my Spanish cat) and sell my LDV. I've done preliminary research on this so could be say two months to maximum of three. I had some vet stuff done for Orca recently as they've added new rabies rules which puts him on a three month schedule...that'll do for me too:001_smile: The on / off nature of it all has played with my head a bit so today is day one of getting in 'on ' mode:001_smile:

One year old thread but I'll chuck something in... Trees work / grow by cell division....they lay down different types of cells according to various factors like mechanical forces... more woody or not etc. I was just reading about this in Matheck the other day. This could be a clue but I don't know the answer:001_smile:

Hi Will Thought I’d make my announcement in your thread if you don’t mind. I emigrated to NZ about 5 years ago, then had to come back to the UK for reasons beyond my control. I kept my residence status open for a while, then tried to return 2 years ago and couldn’t get back due to various rule changes. I had to apply again from scratch through the skilled migrant system, which has taken almost a year. I spent the year before that arguing with them about my previous visa. I got the big decision today and got granted a brand new resident visa. I will be one of, if not the only person in NZ who has emigrated twice. I can’t give details of my employer online but I’ll be a tad north of North Shore this time around. Probably gonna live around Browns Bay area. Last time I lived in Wanganui then Nelson and up Golden Bay direction at a place called Motueka. I am gonna buy you that pint if it’s the last thing I do and whether you like it or not:001_smile:……It’s been a long battle. I’d also like to meet Taupo man and Drew one day….don’t worry …my barks worse than my bite.

What myth is this Tony…you need to get up to speed. A directive was passed in the EU allowing the patenting of Genes back in 1997. Source: Captive State, George Monbiot…. Chapter entitled “ A Padlock on the Foodchain”

My point has been that you can’t be subjective and objective at the same time. Some of the assessment can be objectively accurate, like land use and frequency of targets, and some of it has an element of subjective judgement. So you can assign a fairly accurate number to parts of the assessment but not to others. The problem would be in presenting one objective number or probability for an assessment based on data which is in part subjective. I am quite sure that intention to deceive has not been mentioned. More that the drive to fill the brief of assessing risk may have resulted in the development of a system, which by presenting risk as an overall numerical probability (If this is indeed the case) , gives the impression of a degree of objectivity that is not consistent if you follow the data trail to its source. (not consistent because subjective and objective observations are mixed) If this is not the case then I will stand corrected. That’s why Tony used my doctor analogy, in that it is acceptable to assign a number on a scale of 1-10 to a subjective feeling of pain in a patient. So therefore it’s acceptable to place a numerical probability on risk in a situation where people are exposed to failure from trees using, in part, subjective data. Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form: 1. If P, then Q. 2. Q. 3. Therefore, P. An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false). The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

Nice one Alex. Still a few crusties around then....If you ever need a free park up site in Spain let me know and I'll point you in the right direction:thumbup1:

I think it was in Japan....Oz and NZ don't have culture:001_smile:

How about this for some maths Tony. I go to the shop every night to pick up a bottle of vino tinto There's about 365 days in a year so it will take me 27 years to go there 10,000 times. One of those times I might trip over and hurt myself. I could assign this level of risk to every tree in the land. In fact somewhere during that time I'll probably get beaten up by a gang of 5 year olds too:001_smile: Have I affirmed the consequent again?

I don't really want to go there again now as I was really bored when I was there...and found it difficult to navigate. I may give it a go later out of sheer bloody mindedness. I agree with Paul Barton too and haven't understood a word of you and HCR's conversation. You've always been the math's man of the forum but even you seem to be floundering. Can we not go back to red and orange and builders chin scratching:001_smile:

Not heard of Google Tony? Now I'm a predictable drama queen but can't resist...you're wide open mate:001_smile:

That's really cool... how did you do that? I've just been on the QTRA website forum. One or two people have dared to question the validity of QTRA in the way that Rob has, but were given short thrift...no straight answers. The plot thickens:sneaky2:

Do it in Spain...I lived off mains services there for four years... It's hard work but I'd do it again. In fact I miss it and want to do it again. It helps when it's sunny...so much easier:001_smile:

I'd quite like to have Tony Crofts' input here. Come on Tony, you can break that recent promise....This is soooooooooooooooooo your thing:thumbup1:

My beloved macbook has a handy feature that I recently discovered by accident. You just touch on a word with two fingers, and it gives a pop up menu, which includes a direct route to a dictionary. I've never needed it so much:001_smile: I'm currently working out what "affirming the consequent" might mean:001_smile:

I thought twice about the use of that word at the time but was too lazy to think of a less offensive one that meant the same thing. However...assigning a statistical probability to something that you can't and "don't know' is potentially deceitful. My earlier builder scratches chin analogy was more serious than you think. I.e. "that's gonna fail at some point, possibly,...could be tomorrow....could be next year...could be never...I don't know" I stand by the concept that such assigning of a probability, is ........... (insert your own word here...but means...'not true')

Fraudulent = obtained, done by, or involving deception, esp. criminal deception: Nobody would deny that statistics can deceive and by definition fraudulent is not exclusively criminal. So not libelous your honour:001_smile:

I've inwardly absorbed all this now... QTRA is a subjective assessment using numbers to fraudulently obtain objective credibility.... Is this a fair assessment?

Can we be trusted with such interactiveness... our leader must be pulling his hair (singular) out:sneaky2:

That takes us back to HCR's point which was quite eloquent and got a bit ignored. Orca's glad you're glad he got a walk...cats are the best stress relief there is:001_smile:

Had to google 'qualitative' I skipped it earlier. = relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity: Often contrasted with quantitative. And there's me thinking you cared:001_smile: I take it you mean that the use of statistics, as in a quantitative thing....but used for a qualitative perameter is therefore subjective...thus proving your point:thumbup1: You'll have to leave this one with me for a while Tony:thumbup1: