> On May 15, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42:01AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote: >>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman <j...@synfin.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear <schear.st...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. >>> science and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this >>> topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_ >>> Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the >>>>> past, >>>> >>>> You highlight Crichton's point perfectly - that shitty science from >>>> the past that he spoke of is not, was not, and never shall be >>>> science, it was merely "science", political social movements dressed >>>> up as "concensus science". >>>> >>>> And here you are, once again, smack bang in the trap this has set for >>>> your weak mind - calling past "science" as science, instead of the >>>> politics it is. >>>> >>>> And anyway, what the hell has Michael Crichton's novel writing >>>> ability got to do with the clear, succinct and slightly humorous >>>> facts he raises in his essay/talk?? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Hey, you replied to one of my emails! >>> I guess it's easier to jump on this bandwagon than try to defend any of >>> your other countless (and disgusting) hypocritical views. >>> >>> Maybe we can send some death squads out to the science departments at any >>> institution doing climate research? Especially if they're (((jewish))) - >>> sounds right up your alley, you bad boy ;) >>> >>> In any case, Chrichton selectively chose a few things which, as i said, no >>> one ever claimed was a known science. Like the drake equation. Then he >>> further selected a bunch of stuff that has been discredited, thanks to >>> further scientific work, over time. In effect, he showed that science, over >>> time, works. >>> >> >> What he showed is that it works VERY poorly when those in scientific >> "authority", and who often have reputation and/or financial attachments to >> the prevailing Consensus, use their influence (politics) to suppress >> conflicting views (and often the careers of those holding them). Yes, over >> time it "works" but the lengths of these "erroneous consensus" epochs can >> stretch to lifetimes and during these periods the public can be denied the >> advantages of the later "proven" science (for example, saving lives due to >> effective medical treatments) or forced to pay (for example, through >> unwarranted taxation, misguided public policies and regulations). >> >> >>> >>> And naturally he stayed away from all the wonderful things that have been >>> wrought by scientific innovation, and that are in fact a CONSENSUS, once >>> they have been accepted by the scientific community. That these consensuses >>> can change is obvious, or he wouldn't have had so much crap science to pick >>> from (and doctors would still be following Galen and bleeding you to get >>> your humors in order when you went to hospital) >>> >> >> The crux of Crichton's arguments are that all too often Consensus is >> presented publicly as Settled Science instead of what is really is: >> politics. This is especially troubling when dealing with areas of science >> (e.g., climatology) in which the application of the Scientific Method (not >> just collected data or models) is impossible/impractical given current >> technologies. I have yet to see those pushing the anthropomorphic climate >> change models openly admit this. > > Well, you're unlikely to see John back down from his current stupid > position - goes with the weak American-media-fed-childhood mind he > seems to have. >
I wonder what horrible process so brutally disfigured your psyche into the disgusting piece of gullible hypocrisy that it is? I mean, i don't ponder on it, maybe you were just born that way... Cheers! John > >>> The fact that science advances is not a legitimate attack on any >>> particular piece of current science. If that's all you got... you got >>> nothing. >>> >>> And i called him a shitty novelist because he is just that - a shitty >>> novelist. Actually i rather enjoyed a travel memoir he wrote, but basically >>> he's a hack. It's an opinion, you aren't obliged to share it (i doubt you >>> have the capacity to share it - somehow i don't envision you as a big >>> reader. maybe mein kampf before bed? ;) >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations >>>>> are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course, >>>>> everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from >>>> >>>> Did you even read the whole thing? >>>> >>>> The problem is that previously 'revered' rags like "Scientific >>>> American" have become the Popes of "concensus science", destroying >>>> actual scientific take downs of their cherished political dogma. >>>> >>>> >>>>> day one (although there have been remarkable advances in the >>>>> ability to detect exoplanets recently, thanks mainly to the kepler >>>>> space telescope). What deep insight. >>>>> >>>>> It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to >>>>> either be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry (these are >>>>> the few that publish studies) OR have no real scientific background >>>>> and are generally right-wing/conservatives or massively >>>>> conspiracy-inclined. >>>> >>>> Since you have no basis in science, of course we ought to have >>>> predicted your typical decent into ad-hominen. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Warrant Canary creator >>>>> >>>>> Did not create warrant canary, >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote: >>>>>>>> If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new >>>>>>>> scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine >>>>>>>> the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that >>>>>>>> official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary >>>>>>>> evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official >>>>>>>> truth, to just make the evidence up. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models >>>>>>> - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem >>>>>>> they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey >>>>>>> stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, >>>>>>> to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't >>>>>>> fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" >>>>>>> explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" >>>>>>> to "important data points not previously included in the model" and >>>>>>> other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey >>>>>>> stick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone >>>>>>> self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. >>>>>>> But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is >>>>>>> identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is >>>>>>> a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" >>>>>>> theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda. >>> >>>
