Jump to content

Harper Conservatives 'stifling' innovation


waldo

Recommended Posts

nice! Funding allocations became your nattering distraction point.

Actually....no. That was your nattering point for which you have incessently whined this whole thread about. You see some chart saying that Canada's funding is down and you aren't bright enough to see the CANADA they are talking about is comprised of other areas than just federal funding. I would go on to discuss the Business funding's large portion to this game but as other MLW members have already pointed out....you don't have the teensy little bit of knowledge about business.

in any case, in this your latest missive, in this your latest data supply... and in the context of the STIC report, why are you so selectively pulling out 2008-2011. I mean, you're supplying more data beyond 2011... and the STIC report provides more data... why limit yourself, unless you don't want to focus on/highlight the most immediate 4 years (including what was the 2013 projection):

- as the performing sector, Harper Conservative funding down for 2008-2012 & 2010-2012/2013 projection)

- as the funding sector, Harper Conservative funding up for 2008-2012 & down for 2010-2012/2013 projection)

Tell you what....you can talk all you want about your PROJECTIONS but when they turn into REALITY....when the State of the Nation 2014 comes out. Until then....they are ust projections....much like the projections you flaunt about extreme weather when in actuality the IPCC shows low confidence of extreme weather. BUT OH THE PROJECTIONS!! LOL!

Yes, clearly, in your "non-partisan" view, Harper Conservatives have done/are doing a bang-up job... clearly, to you, that STIC report is a glowing testimony to that end! :lol:

.

Again....you have yet to step up and tell anyone what side you support. Are you a coward? Never really belonged to a side? What is it waldo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

in the context of considering the relative size of GDP, STIC states Canada's country placement, its international OECD rankings on the cited indicators (e.g., GERD), is not materially affected.

I noticed that you must have said this three times. Size of the GDP is not changing GDP. Would you like an explaination on the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing weasley here is your feable attempt at a response. You know I have you and this is the best you can do. I'm loving this....it makes it five now! Oh how you must just hate the defeat.

:lol: classic! You so fail your own initial data & data source... you need an actual do-over! C'mon, man-up and acknowledge your fail! And, of course, as is your way, you blow your, "I win, I win" trumpet! Exactly the reason I threw you on ignore for so long... and why you'll shortly be going back there again. By the by, have you figured out where Bragg Creek is yet... have you found those ever-elusive IPCC statements yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual....you say write paragraphs but yet say nothing. Constant deflection.

The world went through a recession and I was able to show a correlation responding to the GERD Intensities based on that recession. All you can do is pick away at the data source....man....this is so typical waldo.

you showed diddly... and I highlighted exactly that! Your big-time "show" is based on 4 records, 2 of which you have no data for! Apparently, highlighting your data deficiencies and your failed analysis is... "picking away at the source"! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're actually joking here right? You have to be because no one can be this obtuse. You present a graph that compares various countries based on their GERD intensities full well knowing that the data years don't match up but then you try to call me out on using the data from that? You have lost it....if you ever really had it.

Of course, all you need to do is look at the 2008-2010 change in GDP for Australia and it AGAIN backs up my point that the increase in GDP lead to a decrease in GERD intensity. I even spoke on how the 2008-2010 change was more prevalent than the 2008-2011 change. Yikes. I get that your narcisstic ways won't allow you to admit you're wrong, but this is ridiculous!

no - I presented the OECD graph that appears within the STIC report. It just so happens that 2 of the entries that you chose (2 of your 4) include a milestone of 2010 instead of 2011. As I highlighted, the graph fully describes/details that fact. You were the one that tried to "eyeball" 2011 data from a 2010 graphic icon! As I said, nice one! It was your choice to select those 2 countries - your choice. Of course, as is your way, you can't accept you, once again, blew it! I even went to the trouble of isolating on your claimed "significant" Australia decline... a significant decline that clearly isn't there. And now... also as is your way... you revert to name calling - clearly it's much easier for you to label someone a narcissist than accept your own dramatic big-time fail. Yet, another one... of your big time fails!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A throw away? You constructed a freaking CHART for a throw away???? Wow. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You messed up SOOOOOOOO bad here and this backpeddle is priceless. GDP based on PPP.....too funny.

I'm saying that they don't use GDP based on PPP when calculating GERD Intensity. Again. you screw the pooch by offering me an example of GERD alone. Show me an example of them calculating GERD Intensity based on GDP-PPP. You do know what the difference between GERD and GERD intensity is? How about GDP? Do you know how to spell GDP?

This one will go down as classic waldo.

nice try! The chart you so selectively speak of is one where I presented both nominal and PPP. Both... and did so completely in the context of GDP. How did you miss that - both? :lol:

of course, I can certainly re-quote my words that speak entirely to GDP and say nothing... nothing... of intensity. While you're so, "ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", would you like that quote replayed for you? More to the point, and in the context of GDP... which it was... I linked you 2 OECD reports that speak to GERD in a PPP context, current & constant prices. That was the point. You know, the point to reinforce you didn't know the difference between nominal and PPP and just what/how current and constant prices apply. Yes, that's right, in your your back-slapping glee, you're feverishly covering another of your fails with your bluster! Somehow you're glossing right over your complete misunderstanding of nominal versus PPP! Of course you are. Again, there are a few pointed questions waiting for you here... in this post you so conveniently ignore! Of course you do.

Are you saying you don't understand nominal versus PPP? Are you saying "current and constant prices" implies nominal... only? Are you saying PPP can't be expressed in both current and constant prices? Perhaps you should correct the OECD in their presentation of these 2 data tables, hey => Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) at current prices and PPPs ...... Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) at 2005 prices and PPPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you would have followed the Trading Economics site you would have seen that they get their GDP from the World Bank too. I know you can't deal with another loss but the data I have is correct (and of course, not your GDP -PPP data that you tried so hard to push...lol). The issue I had was a labelling issue....very similar to you saying it was Iceland when it was Ireland. Now you didn't see me chirp about that.

no - I acknowledged your initial site reference source was, in turn, the World Bank. You simply couldn't handle your initial site's presentation... apparently... you were, as you stated, "deceived" by its presentation! :lol:

I never said there was anything wrong with your original source data... I said your initial statements based on you being "deceived" by the graphic presentation, were at fault/incorrect. You then chose to go right directly to the World Bank site. Yours was certainly more than a labeling issue... which, as I highlighted, wasn't actually there. Your issue was your failed interpretation of that data... which you doubled down on with your incorrect statements that associated with your misinterpretation. Of course, out of all that, you never admitted a mistake. You never pulled back on your initial summation/statements. Of course not... you simply reverted to bluster and thrashing out... anything to cover your fail. And again, you continuing to say I "pushed GDP-PPP" has no weight. I provided, again, both nominal and PPP. Both! But nice try, once again... your bluster-bus rises to the top. As for Ireland versus Iceland, I found that and corrected it myself without it ever being mentioned. Of course, I fully edited the post to identify the change... if I hadn't supplied the edit notice, you wouldn't have even noticed it. ChirpBoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually....no. That was your nattering point for which you have incessently whined this whole thread about. You see some chart saying that Canada's funding is down and you aren't bright enough to see the CANADA they are talking about is comprised of other areas than just federal funding. I would go on to discuss the Business funding's large portion to this game but as other MLW members have already pointed out....you don't have the teensy little bit of knowledge about business.

no - again, I've had much to say beyond the funding angle. Again, relying on your bluster, your deceit, your fabrication, your self-serving selection, your ignoring of pointed comment/challenge, etc., you can so easily dismiss the very critical STIC report. Of course you can! And again, you can play your silly-buggar act, while completely avoiding any recognition that there is a role for the federal government, any federal government in supporting, facilitating and motivating innovation. Oh... are you a "business expert"... along with your sock-puppet physics expertise? :lol:

.

Tell you what....you can talk all you want about your PROJECTIONS but when they turn into REALITY....when the State of the Nation 2014 comes out. Until then....they are ust projections....much like the projections you flaunt about extreme weather when in actuality the IPCC shows low confidence of extreme weather. BUT OH THE PROJECTIONS!! LOL!

nice! Yes..... per the data you supplied... you supplied... the data for 2013 was tagged as a projection. Your data supply! The range to 2012 was from the STIC report (the graphic image I provided). Referencing 2013 was based on the data you provided in the post I was replying to. I guess your bluster got away from you again, hey? :lol:

I note you're the guy forever beaking off about what the IPPC is supposed to have stated concerning extreme weather... what's its position is. I note, you have not once... not once... ever quoted directly from an IPCC report in that regard. Again, simply more of your B L U S T E R !

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that you must have said this three times. Size of the GDP is not changing GDP. Would you like an explaination on the difference?

no - as I phrased it, what's relative size? Relative to what? But hey now, since you now want to wordsmith, and you've previously avoided the repeated quote of the STIC statement, perhaps you'd like to (finally) speak to it, hey? Note: I've red-coloured, bold-highlighted a few words for you - you're welcome! :lol:

STIC methodology:

A number of indicators used in this report (e.g., business enterprise expenditures on research and development, or BERD) are expressed as a percentage of the size of each country’s economy—that is, gross domestic product (GDP). This approach is a commonly used and accepted international convention, and allows the comparison of STI indicators across countries of different economic sizes. As with many measures, such ratios are to be interpreted with some care, as they could be influenced by changes either in the indicator under examination (e.g., BERD) or in the relative size of each economy (i.e., GDP) in the comparator group. Nevertheless, all other things being equal, such considerations do not materially affect Canada’s international rankings on the indicators cited herein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: classic! You so fail your own initial data & data source... you need an actual do-over! C'mon, man-up and acknowledge your fail! And, of course, as is your way, you blow your, "I win, I win" trumpet! Exactly the reason I threw you on ignore for so long... and why you'll shortly be going back there again. By the by, have you figured out where Bragg Creek is yet... have you found those ever-elusive IPCC statements yet?

Apparently....winning is just something I'm good at when it comes to debating you. And you had me on ignore hey? Just trying to save yourself from another woopin'.

As for Bragg Creek....yup...was there this summer AGAIN. Know exactly where it is. Have you figured out the definition of double yet? Or how about 4x.

And which IPCC statements are you looking for? Obviously your ignore status didn't actually ask about statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - I presented the OECD graph that appears within the STIC report. It just so happens that 2 of the entries that you chose (2 of your 4) include a milestone of 2010 instead of 2011. As I highlighted, the graph fully describes/details that fact. You were the one that tried to "eyeball" 2011 data from a 2010 graphic icon! As I said, nice one! It was your choice to select those 2 countries - your choice. Of course, as is your way, you can't accept you, once again, blew it! I even went to the trouble of isolating on your claimed "significant" Australia decline... a significant decline that clearly isn't there. And now... also as is your way... you revert to name calling - clearly it's much easier for you to label someone a narcissist than accept your own dramatic big-time fail. Yet, another one... of your big time fails!

The OECD graph itself compares nations with 2010 data versus 2011 data. If you want....we can remove all the countries that don't have 2011 data and voila....Canada is now in 15th. GREAT! We moved up a spot from 2006! Perhaps you can now see just how ridiculous your 2010 versus 2011 issue is.

Now...if you want to persist on the data provided. Fine. Previously I didn't have the Singapore GERD data but with a little help from Google...voila. The following GERD intensities:

- 2008 -2.77

- 2010 -2.1

- 2011 - 2.2

This results in a 2008-2010 and 2008-2011 GERD change of -24.2% and -20.6% corresponding to GDP increases of 17.1% and 21.2% Yup....quite significant. So that makes 3 of 4.

Australia still doesn't have their 2011 GERD data but I don't need to use that as I have their 2010 GERD which still shows the correlation....even though you do via the the OECD chart! Again...does your hypocrisy have no end?

There are two data sets that show the correlation....2008-2010 and 2008-2011. For 2008-2010, we see four countries that have a negative change in GERD (AUS, CAN, LUX and SING) and all four of these countries had an increasing GDP over the same time period. In the 2008-2011 period we see three countries that show the same correlation (CAN, LUX and SING).

Of course, you only want to focus on the declining GERD countries for some reason. For the 2008-2010 data set, every country (with the exception of Belgium) that showed a minimal change (around zero) or a declining GDP all showed postive GERD intensities. For the 2008-2011 data set, we see a very similar correlation showing countries that don't experience the GDP change not having a significant GERD change OR countries having a singficant decrease in GDP showing an significant increase in GERD. Two examples that I didn't even have on the list are Estonia and Slovenia who showed significant GERD increases. Estonia went from 1.28 (2008) to 1.62 (2010) to 2.37 (2011) thus yielding a 2008-2010 change of 26.6% Their GDP change over this same period was -11.8%. For 2008-2011, as the intensity increased by 85.2%!!! Their GDP change over this same period was -3%. Slovenia is the same story....negative GDP changes lead to postive GERD Intensity changes. I bring these two examples up now because these two countries leap frogged Canada from 2008 largely with help from MR. GDP.

In fact, in all these examples any country that showed a negative GDP growth over either period would also show positive GERD. The only exception being Spain in the 2008-2011 period. And we saw the same inverse correlation with the postive GDP growth relating to negative GERD intensity.

Game over waldo. As Ace once said....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu5JdmsLWVk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice try! The chart you so selectively speak of is one where I presented both nominal and PPP. Both... and did so completely in the context of GDP. How did you miss that - both? :lol:

of course, I can certainly re-quote my words that speak entirely to GDP and say nothing... nothing... of intensity. While you're so, "ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", would you like that quote replayed for you? More to the point, and in the context of GDP... which it was... I linked you 2 OECD reports that speak to GERD in a PPP context, current & constant prices. That was the point. You know, the point to reinforce you didn't know the difference between nominal and PPP and just what/how current and constant prices apply. Yes, that's right, in your your back-slapping glee, you're feverishly covering another of your fails with your bluster! Somehow you're glossing right over your complete misunderstanding of nominal versus PPP! Of course you are. Again, there are a few pointed questions waiting for you here... in this post you so conveniently ignore! Of course you do.

Two things:

1. Your second chart showing Nominal was all expressed in USD for every year. AGAIN WRONG!!!!!! The GERD Intensity formula is based on GDP of Current Prices in LOCAL CURRENCY. So BOTH your PPP and Current Prices version were WRONG. Is it just me or are you on a roll here with being wrong.

2. PPP can be used and is used when comparing GDPs, GERD, etc but it is NOT used for calculating GERD intensity. So give me all the examples of how PPP is used becasue they don't matter. The only thing that matters in this formula is GDP Current Prices, Local Currency. Wrong again....yeesh.

Still ROTFL......

Link to comment
Share on other sites


no - I acknowledged your initial site reference source was, in turn, the World Bank. You simply couldn't handle your initial site's presentation... apparently... you were, as you stated, "deceived" by its presentation! :lol:

Yup...and I admitted I was wrong. Its what normal, non-narcissistic people do. Of course, my slip up had ZERO effect on my conclusions. You keep slipping up all over the place and won't for a second admit you're wrong. Must be tough.....

I provided, again, both nominal and PPP. Both! But nice try, once again... your bluster-bus rises to the top. As for Ireland versus Iceland, I found that and corrected it myself without it ever being mentioned. Of course, I fully edited the post to identify the change... if I hadn't supplied the edit notice, you wouldn't have even noticed it. ChirpBoy!

Yes...you certainly pushed both! Lol...and both were wrong! You might want to try admitting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - again, I've had much to say beyond the funding angle. Again, relying on your bluster, your deceit, your fabrication, your self-serving selection, your ignoring of pointed comment/challenge, etc., you can so easily dismiss the very critical STIC report. Of course you can! And again, you can play your silly-buggar act, while completely avoiding any recognition that there is a role for the federal government, any federal government in supporting, facilitating and motivating innovation. Oh... are you a "business expert"... along with your sock-puppet physics expertise? :lol:

.

I have clearly shown the government's involvement has not changed in fact its overall funding has increased. A fact that you continue to stumble on. The other fact is that government is around 15% of the total equation and yet you have no issues with laying the blame on Harper. Whoa is me...it must be Harpers fault. Get a grip already.

As with most countries, industry leads the way with R&D and Canada is no exception with almost 50% of R&D coming from that sector. Now of course anyone who knows business knows that funding is driven from the five year business plan which is revised on an annual basis. As such when the recession hit in 2009, it only made sense that R&D was cut for 2010 and 2011 and most likely will be until the economy recovers to a point where confidence is back.

As for me being a business expert...ya...I'm not too bad. I own and operate a multinational company that has been quite successful in our ten year run. Furthermore, I have personally been involved in the federal governments SR&ED tax credit. I continually have companies and government agencies following up with me about this trying to entice me to do more. So yes....I am quite certain the government is playing its part in R&D. Of course, I also have a environmental degree from the faculty of physics so I guess that puts me a step above the so called sock puppet that you seem to know alot about.

I would ask you for your business or education background however I'm sure you'll shy away considering you still won't answer which political party you would support. Any reason for your hesitation waldo? Come on...step up.

Yes..... per the data you supplied... you supplied... the data for 2013 was tagged as a projection. Your data supply! The range to 2012 was from the STIC report (the graphic image I provided). Referencing 2013 was based on the data you provided in the post I was replying to. I guess your bluster got away from you again, hey? :lol:

I note you're the guy forever beaking off about what the IPPC is supposed to have stated concerning extreme weather... what's its position is. I note, you have not once... not once... ever quoted directly from an IPCC report in that regard. Again, simply more of your B L U S T E R !

.

The chart i supplied had numbers up to 2011. The data supporting that chart had data from 2013. It also had data from the 1990s. Wow...keep it on the tracks.

As for the IPCC....you never had the courage to respond to my claim so I never presented it. Have a chew on this.....right from the IPCC themselves.

https://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,

intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been

a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in

observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and

inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]

There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and

frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are

limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,

there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of

these changes. [3.5.2]

____________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - as I phrased it, what's relative size? Relative to what? But hey now, since you now want to wordsmith, and you've previously avoided the repeated quote of the STIC statement, perhaps you'd like to (finally) speak to it, hey? Note: I've red-coloured, bold-highlighted a few words for you - you're welcome! :lol:

I thought you'd need help with this. Relative size is the size of one country's GDP verus the others in a given year. What they mean is that it doesn't matter that one country has a GDP of trillions and others are in the billions as the GERD formula is a percentage (ie unitless). They are NOT referring to the effects of a changing GDP over a number of years. GDP is the driving force to how much businesses or government fund for R&D. If the GDP climbs steadily then the targets are set for the next year and the funding is appropriate. When the GDP changes from postive to negative, then the targets are moved and the equation is effected. STIC does not take this into consideration.

This does not mean the STIC report is not useful however it does need to be taken with some insight which clearly you have no ability to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OECD graph itself compares nations with 2010 data versus 2011 data. If you want....we can remove all the countries that don't have 2011 data and voila....Canada is now in 15th. GREAT! We moved up a spot from 2006! Perhaps you can now see just how ridiculous your 2010 versus 2011 issue is.

issue? Other than you not recognizing the milestone dates? Other than you trying to misrepresent 2010 "eyeballed graph data" for actual 2011 data? Your total comparative summation reference is based on either a positive or negative 2008-2011 GDP %change calculation... one you made and supplied. Particularly in the context of a very small data sample, I guess only you wouldn't see a problem using that/your calculation to, in turn, make definitive and absolute summary analysis points relative to 2008 & 2010 GERD Ratios... rather, a mix of 2008, 2010, 2011 GERD Ratios.

In fact, in all these examples any country that showed a negative GDP growth over either period would also show positive GERD. The only exception being Spain

And we saw the same inverse correlation with the positive GDP growth relating to negative GERD intensity.

which just highlights the weakness of your analysis and the stupidity of your definitive and absolute claims! Again, using your data and the data table graphic you supplied:

- 5 countries:

- Norway, Belgium, Netherlands and Italy have positive GDP change... with positive (not negative) GERD intensity change

- Spain has negative GDP change... with negative (not positive) GERD intensity change

clearly, you only see what you want to see! And again, the overall data sample is small... which clearly doesn't impede your bluster, self-serving fabrication and definitive/absolute claims! You chose to exclude China leaving you only 13 records in your data summation/presentation. Of those 13, 5 countries are exceptions => ~ 40% And, as I keep highlighting, you make these broad assumptions on the level of a country's GDP "shaping" the R&D expenditure in follow-up years! Clearly... you're psychic and nothing will affect ultimate funding in relation to forecasts, targets, commitments!

and again, does any of your bluster (weak analysis and failed summation), change anything within the STIC report and findings... on Canada's performance within that report... on Canada's relative country placement in the comparative country review positioning? Well... does it?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things:

1. Your second chart showing Nominal was all expressed in USD for every year. AGAIN WRONG!!!!!! The GERD Intensity formula is based on GDP of Current Prices in LOCAL CURRENCY. So BOTH your PPP and Current Prices version were WRONG. Is it just me or are you on a roll here with being wrong.

2. PPP can be used and is used when comparing GDPs, GERD, etc but it is NOT used for calculating GERD intensity. So give me all the examples of how PPP is used becasue they don't matter. The only thing that matters in this formula is GDP Current Prices, Local Currency. Wrong again....yeesh.

Still ROTFL......

how desperate are you? You already make a like point, I punted it... yet you're back for more. Again, the post in question was a direct response to your false claims relative to your original data source... the one you claimed was "deceptive" as your failed excuse for your false claims. I quoted your false claims which are GDP specific... GDP only... nothing to do with GERD or GERD intensity. I stated this previously; now, once again. My response, in kind, was also GDP specific... GDP only... nothing to do with GERD or GERD intensity. Go read the post again... if you can get up from your, "Still ROTFL......" :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup...and I admitted I was wrong. Its what normal, non-narcissistic people do. Of course, my slip up had ZERO effect on my conclusions. You keep slipping up all over the place and won't for a second admit you're wrong. Must be tough.....

you did? How did I ever miss that? Funny, my recollection is you suddenly went into a do-over, dropped your original source, and brought in a different source. I certainly don't recall any admission of you being "wrong"! Of course, subsequently, when you were pressed on your false claims that associated to your original source, you lamely suggested you were "deceived" by your original source's presentation! If that was your "being wrong admission", it certainly wasn't timely to the do-over; nor was it unsolicited on your part... it only came out because you couldn't support your initial claims anymore.

Yes...you certainly pushed both! Lol...and both were wrong! You might want to try admitting that.

again... more of the same... I can simply re-quote the same posts you keep ignoring. Here, try this quote of mine... from my immediately preceding reply to your latest nonsense:

how desperate are you? You already make a like point, I punted it... yet you're back for more. Again, the post in question was a direct response to your false claims relative to your original data source... the one you claimed was "deceptive" as your failed excuse for your false claims. I quoted your false claims which are GDP specific... GDP only... nothing to do with GERD or GERD intensity. I stated this previously; now, once again. My response, in kind, was also GDP specific... GDP only... nothing to do with GERD or GERD intensity. Go read the post again... if you can get up from your, "Still ROTFL......" :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have clearly shown the government's involvement has not changed in fact its overall funding has increased. A fact that you continue to stumble on.

no - strictly on your incessant and belabored focus on funding (only), you were shown this not to be the case:

- per my previous post, you are wrong with respect to Harper Conservative funding for basic research... a post you wouldn't touch!

- per my previous post, you are wrong with respect to the most recent past years for R&D funding: (note: 2013 is a projection data figure based on data supplied by... by... you!)

- as the performing sector, Harper Conservative funding down for 2008-2012 & 2010-2012/2013

- as the funding sector, Harper Conservative funding up for 2008-2012 & down for 2010-2012/2013

As with most countries, industry leads the way with R&D and Canada is no exception with almost 50% of R&D coming from that sector. Now of course anyone who knows business knows that funding is driven from the five year business plan which is revised on an annual basis. As such when the recession hit in 2009, it only made sense that R&D was cut for 2010 and 2011 and most likely will be until the economy recovers to a point where confidence is back.

no - per the STIC report, Canada's performance lags, relatively speaking, to other countries. That 'relative' being reflected within the performance findings and comparative country placement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the IPCC....you never had the courage to respond to my claim so I never presented it. Have a chew on this.....right from the IPCC themselves.

although, for the first time ever, it is certainly a positive step to have you finally link/quote actual IPCC statements, take it to an appropriate thread... make sure to put whatever you want to say/quote in proper context, clearly identifying what you believe I have stated/implied... clearly identifying what you believe your linked IPCC statements offer to counter my statements (or any inferences you have drawn).

as a heads up... you may want to double-check your apparent SREX enthusiam with the latest AR5 reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you'd need help with this. Relative size is the size of one country's GDP verus the others in a given year. What they mean is that it doesn't matter that one country has a GDP of trillions and others are in the billions as the GERD formula is a percentage (ie unitless). They are NOT referring to the effects of a changing GDP over a number of years. GDP is the driving force to how much businesses or government fund for R&D. If the GDP climbs steadily then the targets are set for the next year and the funding is appropriate. When the GDP changes from postive to negative, then the targets are moved and the equation is effected. STIC does not take this into consideration.

This does not mean the STIC report is not useful however it does need to be taken with some insight which clearly you have no ability to do.

clearly, a forecast, a target, a commitment... and actual resultant funding are not one in the same! Ya think? One would think your own failed analysis/findings (as simplistic and limited in data sampling as they are) will help you rethink this. Once again we see you making the most broad-sweeping statements... as if government... as if business, are not driven by ever-changing factors that adjust forecasts, targets, commitments... and actual resultant funding. For such a sharp business guy, as you claim, I'm surprised your (claimed) multi-national company (you claim to own) stays afloat with such a rigid, fixed and unaltering "equation"! :lol: Speaking of multi-national... I'm also quite surprised your "equation" appears to be national centric! My understanding has all those multi-national business bigwigs (like you!), factoring in global economies to help shape business decisions/forecasts, targets, commitments, funding - go figure, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

issue? Other than you not recognizing the milestone dates? Other than you trying to misrepresent 2010 "eyeballed graph data" for actual 2011 data? Your total comparative summation reference is based on either a positive or negative 2008-2011 GDP %change calculation... one you made and supplied. Particularly in the context of a very small data sample, I guess only you wouldn't see a problem using that/your calculation to, in turn, make definitive and absolute summary analysis points relative to 2008 & 2010 GERD Ratios... rather, a mix of 2008, 2010, 2011 GERD Ratios.

which just highlights the weakness of your analysis and the stupidity of your definitive and absolute claims! Again, using your data and the data table graphic you supplied:

- 5 countries:

- Norway, Belgium, Netherlands and Italy have positive GDP change... with positive (not negative) GERD intensity change

- Spain has negative GDP change... with negative (not positive) GERD intensity change

clearly, you only see what you want to see! And again, the overall data sample is small... which clearly doesn't impede your bluster, self-serving fabrication and definitive/absolute claims! You chose to exclude China leaving you only 13 records in your data summation/presentation. Of those 13, 5 countries are exceptions => ~ 40% And, as I keep highlighting, you make these broad assumptions on the level of a country's GDP "shaping" the R&D expenditure in follow-up years! Clearly... you're psychic and nothing will affect ultimate funding in relation to forecasts, targets, commitments!

.

Of course, why do you focus only on the 2008-2011 data and don't touch the 2008-2010 data? Are you scared of the 2008-2010 data as well? The 2008-2011 data still shows some correlation but not as strong as 2008-2010....which I stated when presenting the data to 2008-2011. I went with the weaker correlation just to prove the point that it still applies. You want the stronger correlation? Here's the 2008-2010 numbers.

2rpqvsn.jpg

EVERY country that showed a significant increase in GDP yielded at negative GERD change with the exception of Belgium. One exception is Belgium....which i have stated for the third time now. Every country that showed minimal growth in GDP (less than 1%) OR negative growth in GDP showed postive GERD ratios. I even added in Slovenia and Estonia as those are the two that "leap frogged" over Canada since 2010.

You asked why did I pick that group of countries. If you would have read (which in know you struggle with), you would have seen where I stated that I chose those countries as they were the ones that had standings in front of Canada and behind Canada. Since this whole report is based on trying to improve our place in the Innovative world, it only makes sense to compare to those around us. Also....as stated above...showing this area allows us to see that a changing GDP allowed Slovenia and Estonia to leap frog us from 2010.

Any reason why I didn't include China? When you look at all the other countries is there something that makes China different from the start? Oh I don't know....maybe all the other countries are not communist. Do ya think that may have an effect on their funding styles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how desperate are you? You already make a like point, I punted it... yet you're back for more. Again, the post in question was a direct response to your false claims relative to your original data source... the one you claimed was "deceptive" as your failed excuse for your false claims. I quoted your false claims which are GDP specific... GDP only... nothing to do with GERD or GERD intensity. I stated this previously; now, once again. My response, in kind, was also GDP specific... GDP only... nothing to do with GERD or GERD intensity. Go read the post again... if you can get up from your, "Still ROTFL......" :lol:

The examples you sought out, that you alone presented were GERD examples!!!! Lol. I read the post again....and again. You first tried to claim that GDP-PPP should be used. WRONG! You scurried back to saying that you also provided GDP-USD and that was... WRONG! You then tried to show examples using GERD to show that PPP can be used but I of course showed its NOT used in the GERD intensity formula which we are using. SO....WRONG AGAIN!! Just fess up already. It will make is so much easier on yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - strictly on your incessant and belabored focus on funding (only), you were shown this not to be the case:

- per my previous post, you are wrong with respect to Harper Conservative funding for basic research... a post you wouldn't touch!

- per my previous post, you are wrong with respect to the most recent past years for R&D funding: (note: 2013 is a projection data figure based on data supplied by... by... you!)

- as the performing sector, Harper Conservative funding down for 2008-2012 & 2010-2012/2013

- as the funding sector, Harper Conservative funding up for 2008-2012 & down for 2010-2012/2013

I didn't touch your post because it didn't matter. The total amount of GERD funding increased. So if the funding was cut from here it was added where it was needed. Just because the government isn't doing that research doesn't mean its not getting done. In fact, those funds probably got transferred to higher education or private facilities where the efficiencies are better.

Of course looking at your brillinat chart that you had to have constructed, I see that you have 2010-2011 in there twice. Nice work McFly. And even more to the point....I really appreciate how you whine and complain about keeping with the milestones of 2006, 2008 and 2010 but then present a change from 2007-2014. Well done waldo. Your hypocrisy continues.

As for the decrease in the performing section....all that means is they reduced the amount of actual government workers PERFORMING the work. They shifted that funding to the private sector where it would be done more efficiently. I have zero problems with that. Of course you forgot to highlight the most important part.....Harper Conservative funding up for 2008-2012!!!

But I do like your note: "note: 2013 is a projection data figure based on data supplied by... by... you!") I didn't realize that people studdered when the wrote too. I really thought it was a speech issue. Is that why you say "by the by"? Perhaps you should seek some help for that. Now more importantly, the 2013 data again is a PROJECTION. Do you ever live life in REALITY or do you have to rely on projections to get you by. Again....come see me in 2014 when the State of the Nation comes out again.....until then keep your projections to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

although, for the first time ever, it is certainly a positive step to have you finally link/quote actual IPCC statements, take it to an appropriate thread... make sure to put whatever you want to say/quote in proper context, clearly identifying what you believe I have stated/implied... clearly identifying what you believe your linked IPCC statements offer to counter my statements (or any inferences you have drawn).

as a heads up... you may want to double-check your apparent SREX enthusiam with the latest AR5 reports.

You mean the thread that you personally created called Increasing weather/climate extremes? The one where you carried on purpoting false statements about such increases in extreme weather due to climate change. That one? Oh the embarrassment you must feel right now. I have 'low-confidence' in anything you say anymore. LOL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...