subject:"RE\: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing"

 Oh, when it suits your prejudice 
it's OK to just count votes.  You suddenly no longer need to read the 
papers and decide for yourself.

Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.  
There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and 
you're just sour about it! You're not suggesting we ought to read about the 
science and think for ourselves are you?! What a drag!

Seriously though, how come this 97% figure is presented by climate change 
acceptors as a consensus about the catastrophic effect global warming will have 
when it isn't one? Do they even know that the figure represents just those 
scientist who agree climate change is happening? Do they know it doesn't 
reflect the amount of scientists who think the change is caused by humans? They 
certainly don't know that less than 50% of scientists think the effect of 
warming would be catastrophic otherwise that figure would enter into their 
discourse, or would it? I suspect the temptation to keep a bit silent about 
what a shocking figure like 97% really represents is overwhelming. A little 
white lie and so on, an economy with the truth etc.

In actual fact I think all these figures are bullshit. Listening to what the 
scientists actually have to say is exactly what people should do, even 
congressmen, rather than close ones ears to everything except easily digestible 
and neatly misrepresentable figures.

The title of this thread is really ironic. It could as well have been, if the 
the science is in fact ambiguous, deflect attention to startling statistics.



Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:38:07 +0200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: te...@telmomenezes.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com




On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:



  

  
  
On 4/5/2014 4:13 PM, Telmo Menezes
  wrote:



  



  

  On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:01 AM,
meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:


  

  On 4/5/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:

  
  

  On 5 April 2014 23:30,
Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:


  

  
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM,
  LizR lizj...@gmail.com
  wrote:

  
That doesn't narrow
  it down too much.
  
  

  

Je m'accuse. I was one of them.



My point was that conspiracy
  theories, in the sense of power elites
  secretly cooperating to further their
  own interests against the interests of
  the majority are not, unfortunately,
  unusual events in History. We know of
  countless examples of this happening
  in the past. I think it requires some
  magical thinking to assume that this
  type of behaviour is absent from our
  own times.



I further pointed out that broadly
  discrediting any hypothesis that some
  elites might be conspiring against the
  common good, in broad strokes, seems
  to benefit precisely the ones in
  power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden,
  we now have strong evidence of a
  large-scale conspiracy by western
  governments that I would not believe
  one year ago. In this case I'm
  referring to the secret implementation
  of global and total surveillance, with
  our tax money, by the people we
  elected, to spy on us, infringing on
  constitutions.



I

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:44 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:

  Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes.  You
 suddenly no longer need to read the papers and decide for yourself.

 Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.
 There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever,
 and you're just sour about it! You're not suggesting we ought to read about
 the science and think for ourselves are you?! What a drag!

 Seriously though, how come this 97% figure is presented by climate change
 acceptors as a consensus about the catastrophic effect global warming will
 have when it isn't one? Do they even know that the figure represents just
 those scientist who agree climate change is happening? Do they know it
 doesn't reflect the amount of scientists who think the change is caused by
 humans? They certainly don't know that less than 50% of scientists think
 the effect of warming would be catastrophic otherwise that figure would
 enter into their discourse, or would it? I suspect the temptation to keep a
 bit silent about what a shocking figure like 97% really represents is
 overwhelming. A little white lie and so on, an economy with the truth etc.

 In actual fact I think all these figures are bullshit. Listening to what
 the scientists actually have to say is exactly what people should do, even
 congressmen, rather than close ones ears to everything except easily
 digestible and neatly misrepresentable figures.

 The title of this thread is really ironic. It could as well have been, if
 the the science is in fact ambiguous, deflect attention to startling
 statistics.



I think global warming including AGW is real but there are two arguable
outcomes:
(1) transition to the next warmer stable climate, or
(2) trigger global cooling as exemplified by the Vostok ice core data over
the last few ice ages
Richard


 --
 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:38:07 +0200
 Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
 From: te...@telmomenezes.com
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com




 On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/5/2014 4:13 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:01 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/5/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 5 April 2014 23:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

   On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 That doesn't narrow it down too much.


  Je m'accuse. I was one of them.

  My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites
 secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the interests
 of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in History. We know
 of countless examples of this happening in the past. I think it requires
 some magical thinking to assume that this type of behaviour is absent from
 our own times.

  I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that some
 elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad strokes, seems
 to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore, thanks to Snowden, we
 now have strong evidence of a large-scale conspiracy by western governments
 that I would not believe one year ago. In this case I'm referring to the
 secret implementation of global and total surveillance, with our tax money,
 by the people we elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions.

  I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using the
 nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon landing, etc.)
 to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable suspicions of elites
 abusing their power. The paper you cite in this thread uses that trick too.

  This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you
 think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy theory:
 some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a global network of
 terrorist cells with the objective of attacking western civilisation. They
 hijacked planes and sent them into buildings and so on. If you don't
 believe in this explanation, you are then forced to believe in some other
 conspiracy.

  Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite obvious
 fact feels Orwellian, to be honest.

OK, it seems likely that conspiracies exist, however it seems unlikely
 that the IPCC is part of one of them (I've lost track of whether you're
 claiming this or not, so please let me know) because the ruling interests
 are in favour of business as usual - i.e. there is almost certainly a
 conspiracy to discredit the science. The fact that they will use the idea
 of conspiracy theories to do this is indeed Orwellian, not to mention
 ironic.
  How does the paper use this trick?


  I think Telmo makes conspiracies ubiquitous by calling any kind of
 cooperative effort which is not publicized a conspiracy - like
 Eisenhower's

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread meekerdb

On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:
Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes. You suddenly no longer
need to read the papers and decide for yourself.

Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne. There's no
consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and you're just sour about
it! You're not suggesting we ought to read about the science and think for ourselves are
you?! What a drag!

Not at all. Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites? I've read a lot
of them.

Seriously though, how come this 97% figure is presented by climate change acceptors as a
consensus about the catastrophic effect global warming will have when it isn't one?

Show me a quote where is it presented that way. The actual statement is 97% of climate
scientists believe that the Earth is getting hotter and it's due to burning fossil fuel.

Do they even know that the figure represents just those scientist who agree climate
change is happening? Do they know it doesn't reflect the amount of scientists who think
the change is caused by humans? They certainly don't know that less than 50% of
scientists think the effect of warming would be catastrophic otherwise that figure would
enter into their discourse, or would it? I suspect the temptation to keep a bit silent
about what a shocking figure like 97% really represents is overwhelming. A little white
lie and so on, an economy with the truth etc.

No one has said it would be catastrophic, as in threaten extinction of humans. They have
said it will be very economically and socially disruptive and produce major changes in
agriculture and in natural food and water sources.

In actual fact I think all these figures are bullshit. Listening to what the scientists
actually have to say is exactly what people should do, even congressmen, rather than
close ones ears to everything except easily digestible and neatly misrepresentable figures.

So why don't you listen?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

Not at all.  Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites?  
I've read a lot of them.

Why have you felt the need to read them? 

You were just arguing that congressmen, people who unlike yourself are in a 
position to take or prevent action, did not need to. 

Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:13:44 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:

   Oh,
  when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes.  You
  suddenly no longer need to read the papers and decide for
  yourself.

  Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the
  champagne.  There's no consensus. I give you perhaps the best
  news in history, ever, and you're just sour about it! You're
  not suggesting we ought to read about the science and think
  for ourselves are you?! What a drag!

Not at all.  Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC
cites?  I've read a lot of them.

  Seriously though, how come this 97% figure is presented by
  climate change acceptors as a consensus about the catastrophic
  effect global warming will have when it isn't one? 

Show me a quote where is it presented that way.  The actual
statement is 97% of climate scientists believe that the Earth is
getting hotter and it's due to burning fossil fuel.

  Do they even
  know that the figure represents just those scientist who agree
  climate change is happening? Do they know it doesn't reflect
  the amount of scientists who think the change is caused by
  humans? They certainly don't know that less than 50% of
  scientists think the effect of warming would be catastrophic
  otherwise that figure would enter into their discourse, or
  would it? I suspect the temptation to keep a bit silent about
  what a shocking figure like 97% really represents is
  overwhelming. A little white lie and so on, an economy with
  the truth etc.

No one has said it would be catastrophic, as in threaten extinction
of humans.  They have said it will be very economically and socially
disruptive and produce major changes in agriculture and in natural
food and water sources.

  In actual fact I think all these figures are bullshit.
  Listening to what the scientists actually have to say is
  exactly what people should do, even congressmen, rather than
  close ones ears to everything except easily digestible and
  neatly misrepresentable figures.

So why don't you listen?

Brent

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread meekerdb


On 4/8/2014 2:46 PM, chris peck wrote:
Not at all.  Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites?  I've read a 
lot of them.


Why have you felt the need to read them?


To see if various denier criticisms were valid.



You were just arguing that congressmen, people who unlike yourself are in a position to 
take or prevent action, did not need to.


I argued that most congressmen wouldn't be able to read them (since very few are 
scientists of any kind, much less climate scientists).


But you were arguing that the opinion of experts meant nothing (unless they disagree) - 
and so it would follow that...what?  You admitted that reading their papers would be no 
different than just accepting their opinion about what the paper showed.  So what does 
mean something?  Are you going to repeat their analysis yourself? Do the observations 
yourself?  Or are you content that 3% disagreeing proves there's no problem?


Brent




--
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 10:13:44 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

On 4/8/2014 4:44 AM, chris peck wrote:

 Oh, when it suits your prejudice it's OK to just count votes.  You 
suddenly no
longer need to read the papers and decide for yourself.

Eh? Why the sour face? I thought you'ld be cracking open the champagne.  
There's no
consensus. I give you perhaps the best news in history, ever, and you're 
just sour
about it! You're not suggesting we ought to read about the science and 
think for
ourselves are you?! What a drag!


Not at all.  Have you read the peer reviewed papers that the IPCC cites?  I've read a 
lot of them.



Seriously though, how come this 97% figure is presented by climate change 
acceptors
as a consensus about the catastrophic effect global warming will have when 
it isn't
one?


Show me a quote where is it presented that way.  The actual statement is 97% of climate 
scientists believe that the Earth is getting hotter and it's due to burning fossil fuel.




Do they even know that the figure represents just those scientist who agree 
climate
change is happening? Do they know it doesn't reflect the amount of 
scientists who
think the change is caused by humans? They certainly don't know that less 
than 50%
of scientists think the effect of warming would be catastrophic otherwise 
that
figure would enter into their discourse, or would it? I suspect the 
temptation to
keep a bit silent about what a shocking figure like 97% really represents is
overwhelming. A little white lie and so on, an economy with the truth etc.


No one has said it would be catastrophic, as in threaten extinction of humans.  They 
have said it will be very economically and socially disruptive and produce major changes 
in agriculture and in natural food and water sources.



In actual fact I think all these figures are bullshit. Listening to what the
scientists actually have to say is exactly what people should do, even 
congressmen,
rather than close ones ears to everything except easily digestible and 
neatly
misrepresentable figures.


So why don't you listen?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread LizR

On 8 April 2014 13:19, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:


 * Hence, people who claim that scientists agree because of some reason
 other than looking at the instruments and using their best theories to
 interpret the readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some
 psychological reason, e.g. because they all adhere to some paradigm - are
 talking bollocks.*

 I still don't understand what you're getting at Liz. What 'psychological
 paradigm' is who claiming scientists agree because of?


It wasn't a psychological paradigm - I'm talking about Thomas Kuhn when I
refer to paradigms. But anyway, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick, I
tend to post in haste and regret it later. So I'm happy to drop that
discussion if you are.


 I mean I don't particularly like the suggestion that scientists are in
 some sense superhuman and impervious to the flaws the rest of us mortals
 succumb to, but we'ld just fly off on another tangent if we discussed that.


As I'm sure you know, the point of the scientific method is to make the
scientific enterprise as far as possible proof against these flaws. Of
course it can be subverted, but most scientists subscribe to it - or
attempt to - most of the time.


 my point is just that 'agree with this because lots of scientists say so'
 isn't a terribly convincing argument, yet its one I see lots of climate
 acceptors promote. Relativity isn't a good theory because Einstein said it
 was. Nor is it a good theory because a bunch of Einsteins say it is. How
 many science lessons start like:


You're misconstruing what is meant here. 97% of climate scientists agree
that AGM is a fact is shorthand for we looked at all the available
peer-reviewed publications in the field of climatology over the period in
question, and in 97% of them there was a consensus on the truth of these
facts. I've seen the publication where that survey is quoted, and I'm sure
I can find it again if I spend enough of my nonexistent time looking for
it. You shouldn't assume that people are saying we should accept this
*just* because they say so - that is a straw man. What they're actually
saying is this is the result that came from all the research described in
all the published papers. I agree that as good Popperians we have to
realise that these results are provisional and falsifiable, but insofar as
we can take anything as evidence in favour of some hypothesis, published,
peer-reviewed research should be what we take. (IMHO)


 'Right children, please shut your text books. Now lots of people agree
 with relativity so you should too. Now on evolution, lots of scientists
 think we evolved via natural selection, so you should too. Good. that about
 wraps it up for your science class this week. Lets move on to home
 economics...'

 Im actually stunned this is under debate.

 So would I be if it was. But it comes down to a misunderstanding.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:09PM +, chris peck wrote:
  To see if various denier criticisms were valid.
 
 So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by default and 
 only read those papers which have criticisms leveled at them by deniers? That 
 isn't very even handed.
 
  I argued that most congressmen wouldn't be able to read them (since very 
  few are scientists of any kind, much less climate scientists).
 
 If it is important to be a climate scientist to read a climate science paper 
 then, again, why do you bother reading them? You are not a climate scientist. 
 You do not, on your own account, possess the skills to understand them. 
 

I have known Brent for a long time, and think this rather unlikely. He
has a string grasp of Physics and other general scientific topics, as
well as a lifetime of professional research.

What he probably doesn't have the skills for is to write a climate
science paper and have it accepted in a peer reviewed journal, but
understanding what is written has a much lower bar.


 In truth though, it doesn't follow from the fact that someone isn't
  a scientist that they can't read or understand a scientific
  paper. Thats just tawdry elitism. Since it is possible to teach
  children physics, biology, chemistry etc. it is also possible to
  explain the important aspects of climate science to congressmen. And
  thats what should happen rather than chucking around empty
  statements about consensuses or the lack of thereof.

Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find it
very difficult indeed. Most people with a PhD in physics, or even a
lesser degree such as a MSc by research or a BSc (hons) could
probably manage, as the science itself is classical.

Sadly, there are very few politicians with that sort of training though.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

 I have known Brent for a long time, and think this rather unlikely. He
has a string grasp of Physics and other general scientific topics, as
well as a lifetime of professional research.

Then he is hoisting himself up with his own petard. Either he needs to be a 
climate scientist or he doesn't.

 but understanding what is written has a much lower bar.

It does. You are now in agreement with me rather than Brent.

 Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find it
very difficult indeed. 

All attempts to write about science for general consumption are worthless are 
they, Russell? For example, you spent 5 years translating Bruno's book to what 
end? No end? I mean if what you say is true you should make absolutely clear to 
everyone you can that they should not buy the book unless they possess the 
requisite qualifications which few people are going to have. I don't think you 
really believe that. I think you believe that core issues about a science can 
be communicated to lay people sufficiently well for them to make rational 
decisions about them.

Besides which, its just the logic of the situation that even if it where 
impossible to understand anything about climate science without a PHd in it, 
statements about consensus would still be empty. It would still be a logical 
fallacy to proclaim something to be true because of who said it, rather than 
what was said.

 Sadly, there are very few politicians with that sort of training though.

Most politicians have training in Law. A far more subtle and far harder 
discipline than science. You should give them more credit.

 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 09:24:08 +1000
 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
 
 On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:06:09PM +, chris peck wrote:
   To see if various denier criticisms were valid.
  
  So you accept the claims of climate change advocates as true by default and 
  only read those papers which have criticisms leveled at them by deniers? 
  That isn't very even handed.
  
   I argued that most congressmen wouldn't be able to read them (since very 
   few are scientists of any kind, much less climate scientists).
  
  If it is important to be a climate scientist to read a climate science 
  paper then, again, why do you bother reading them? You are not a climate 
  scientist. You do not, on your own account, possess the skills to 
  understand them. 
  
 
 I have known Brent for a long time, and think this rather unlikely. He
 has a string grasp of Physics and other general scientific topics, as
 well as a lifetime of professional research.
 
 What he probably doesn't have the skills for is to write a climate
 science paper and have it accepted in a peer reviewed journal, but
 understanding what is written has a much lower bar.
 
 
  In truth though, it doesn't follow from the fact that someone isn't
   a scientist that they can't read or understand a scientific
   paper. Thats just tawdry elitism. Since it is possible to teach
   children physics, biology, chemistry etc. it is also possible to
   explain the important aspects of climate science to congressmen. And
   thats what should happen rather than chucking around empty
   statements about consensuses or the lack of thereof.
 
 Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find it
 very difficult indeed. Most people with a PhD in physics, or even a
 lesser degree such as a MSc by research or a BSc (hons) could
 probably manage, as the science itself is classical.
 
 Sadly, there are very few politicians with that sort of training though.
 
 -- 
 
 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
 
  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +, chris peck wrote:
  Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find it
 very difficult indeed. 
 
 All attempts to write about science for general consumption are
 worthless are they, Russell? For example, you spent 5 years
 translating Bruno's book to what end? No end? I mean if what you say
 is true you should make absolutely clear to everyone you can that they
 should not buy the book unless they possess the requisite
 qualifications which few people are going to have. 

Amoeba's Secret is not a peer reviewed research article, but rather
already written for mass consumption (-ish, as my son would say). My comments
applied to research articles only, as that was the context.

Of course, I never implied that people without research training
cannot apply themselves to understanding research articles - I believe
our own Stephen P. King would be a suitable counterexample, IIUC, but
just that it is very hard for someone to do so, and requires a lot of
determination, so they are few and far between.


 I don't think you really believe that. I think you believe that core
 issues about a science can be communicated to lay people sufficiently
 well for them to make rational decisions about them.

Of course. But then naturally those decision makers will need to take those
expert opinions on trust, as they don't have the ability and/or
inclination to read the primary literature.

 
 Besides which, its just the logic of the situation that even if it where 
 impossible to understand anything about climate science without a PHd in it, 
 statements about consensus would still be empty. It would still be a logical 
 fallacy to proclaim something to be true because of who said it, rather than 
 what was said.

I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here.

 
  Sadly, there are very few politicians with that sort of training though.
 
 Most politicians have training in Law. A far more subtle and far harder 
 discipline than science. You should give them more credit.
 

I'm not sure about most, but certainly more than those with science
training.

I do not underestimate the intellectual capacity required to study
law. I'm married to one. As for being more subtle and harder, I think
that depends on the student. For me, studying law would be much more
difficult than studying science, as there is far too much rote
learning for me. I would say the converse is true in my wife's
case. My son is somewhere in between, but I suspect that ultimately
he might end up studying law though, as he;d have an easier job of it.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

 Amoeba's Secret is not a peer reviewed research article, but rather
already written for mass consumption (-ish, as my son would say). My comments
applied to research articles only, as that was the context.

Russell, I determine the context because this current row was triggered when 
Brent quibbled with a comment I made. The context is not peer reviewed 
articles. The context is any material available to the general public. And the 
question is to what extent the general public should be fed actual scientific 
facts about climate change and to what extent they should rely on figures about 
consensus amongst scientists.

  It would still be a logical fallacy to proclaim something to be true 
  because of who said it, rather than what was said.
 
 I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here.

Liz is under the misconception that I argue that climate change advocates only 
use this consensus figure. My argument is not that, it is that when they use 
this consensus figure they commit a logical fallacy.

It relates to my argument that climate change advocates are as prone to logical 
fallacy and conspiracy theory as climate change deniers. This relates to the 
study that was pulled from the journal which in my view is as politically 
orientated a study as there can be. It only investigates those conspiracies 
dreamt up by climate change deniers and has nothing to say about how conspiracy 
theories are used to deflect attention from science generally. Ofcourse, when 
climate change advocates portray a climate change denier who is challenging the 
actual science as being 'in the bed of oil barons', they are doing precisely 
the same thing. When they dismiss what the climate change denier argues because 
'97% of scientists agree' they commit a fallacy. This latest row was trigger by 
nothing more controversial than that.

 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:18:34 +1000
 From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
 
 On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +, chris peck wrote:
   Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find 
   it
  very difficult indeed. 
  
  All attempts to write about science for general consumption are
  worthless are they, Russell? For example, you spent 5 years
  translating Bruno's book to what end? No end? I mean if what you say
  is true you should make absolutely clear to everyone you can that they
  should not buy the book unless they possess the requisite
  qualifications which few people are going to have. 
 
 Amoeba's Secret is not a peer reviewed research article, but rather
 already written for mass consumption (-ish, as my son would say). My comments
 applied to research articles only, as that was the context.
 
 Of course, I never implied that people without research training
 cannot apply themselves to understanding research articles - I believe
 our own Stephen P. King would be a suitable counterexample, IIUC, but
 just that it is very hard for someone to do so, and requires a lot of
 determination, so they are few and far between.
 
 
  I don't think you really believe that. I think you believe that core
  issues about a science can be communicated to lay people sufficiently
  well for them to make rational decisions about them.
 
 Of course. But then naturally those decision makers will need to take those
 expert opinions on trust, as they don't have the ability and/or
 inclination to read the primary literature.
 
  
  Besides which, its just the logic of the situation that even if it where 
  impossible to understand anything about climate science without a PHd in 
  it, statements about consensus would still be empty. It would still be a 
  logical fallacy to proclaim something to be true because of who said it, 
  rather than what was said.
 
 I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here.
 
  
   Sadly, there are very few politicians with that sort of training though.
  
  Most politicians have training in Law. A far more subtle and far harder 
  discipline than science. You should give them more credit.
  
 
 I'm not sure about most, but certainly more than those with science
 training.
 
 I do not underestimate the intellectual capacity required to study
 law. I'm married to one. As for being more subtle and harder, I think
 that depends on the student. For me, studying law would be much more
 difficult than studying science, as there is far too much rote
 learning for me. I would say the converse is true in my wife's
 case. My son is somewhere in between, but I suspect that ultimately
 he might end up studying law though, as he;d have an easier job of it.
 
 -- 
 
 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-08 Thread LizR

On 9 April 2014 12:51, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:

   It would still be a logical fallacy to proclaim something to be true
 because of who said it, rather than what was said.

 *  I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here.*

 Liz is under the misconception that I argue that climate change advocates
 only use this consensus figure. My argument is not that, it is that when
 they use this consensus figure they commit a logical fallacy.

 It relates to my argument that climate change advocates are as prone to
 logical fallacy and conspiracy theory as climate change deniers. This
 relates to the study that was pulled from the journal which in my view is
 as politically orientated a study as there can be. It only investigates
 those conspiracies dreamt up by climate change deniers and has nothing to
 say about how conspiracy theories are used to deflect attention from
 science generally. Ofcourse, when climate change advocates portray a
 climate change denier who is challenging the actual science as being 'in
 the bed of oil barons', they are doing precisely the same thing. When they
 dismiss what the climate change denier argues because '97% of scientists
 agree' they commit a fallacy. This latest row was trigger by nothing more
 controversial than that.


OK, I'm quite happy to accept that they may be committing a logical
fallacies - but I can't work out what it is from what you say here.

So, to put it in simple terms (I hope) ...

If in some general discussion of climate change someone says (as a
convenient shorthand) that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is a
fact, what is the logical fallacy they are committing? I'd like to know so
I can avoid it in future myself.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

 If in some general discussion of climate change someone says (as a 
convenient shorthand) that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is a
 fact, what is the logical fallacy they are committing? I'd like to 
know so I can avoid it in future myself.

if you are just pointing out that a consensus exists and nothing more then it 
isn't a fallacy. This consensus exists.

If on the other hand you are pointing out that the consensus exists for some 
other end, ie as a means of convincing people of the truth of any statement 
other than '97% of scientist think climate change is occurring', then it is a 
fallacy. Things are not true because people believe them right?


Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:59:53 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On 9 April 2014 12:51, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:




  It would still be a logical fallacy to proclaim something to be true 
  because of who said it, rather than what was said.
 
 I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here.


Liz is under the misconception that I argue that climate change advocates only 
use this consensus figure. My argument is not that, it is that when they use 
this consensus figure they commit a logical fallacy.


It relates to my argument that climate change advocates are as prone to logical 
fallacy and conspiracy theory as climate change deniers. This relates to the 
study that was pulled from the journal which in my view is as politically 
orientated a study as there can be. It only investigates those conspiracies 
dreamt up by climate change deniers and has nothing to say about how conspiracy 
theories are used to deflect attention from science generally. Ofcourse, when 
climate change advocates portray a climate change denier who is challenging the 
actual science as being 'in the bed of oil barons', they are doing precisely 
the same thing. When they dismiss what the climate change denier argues because 
'97% of scientists agree' they commit a fallacy. This latest row was trigger by 
nothing more controversial than that.


OK, I'm quite happy to accept that they may be committing a logical fallacies - 
but I can't work out what it is from what you say here.

So, to put it in simple terms (I hope) ...


If in some general discussion of climate change someone says (as a convenient 
shorthand) that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is a fact, what is 
the logical fallacy they are committing? I'd like to know so I can avoid it in 
future myself.







-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 06 Apr 2014, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/6/2014 12:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Apr 2014, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
wrote:

On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel  
companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit  
AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth  
status of AGW theory.


Doesn't it?  If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be  
needed to discredit it, would they?  It could be discredited like  
the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you  
theories.


If that was true, the world would be free from religious  
superstition


So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy  
are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?


I am pretty sure of this.

Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the  
children molester, and this in a way making them continue the  
misdoing for 20 years?




Yes, they might very well do that because they think that  
maintaining the reputation of the church is essential to saving  
souls from hell, which is obviously more important than some  
transient earthly transgressions.


I doubt this. When you hide scandalous behavior, and makes it possible  
to last a long time, you aggravate it a lot, and eventually, it is  
more harmful for the institution's reputation, not talking of the  
suffering of the victims. On the contrary, if they act morally and  
immediately, they can help (a lot)  the children *and* the reputation.  
Hiding a scandal makes it worst, at all levels, for everybody,  
especially for an institution based on moral.


Bruno




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 06 Apr 2014, at 20:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
wrote:

On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel  
companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit  
AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth  
status of AGW theory.


Doesn't it?  If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be  
needed to discredit it, would they?  It could be discredited like  
the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you  
theories.


If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition


So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy  
are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?


I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies.

But this is besides the point here. You claimed that, if AGW was  
false, then oil companies would only need to falsify the models to  
affect political change. If that were true, then it wouldn't be the  
case that the majority of the world population is religious, because  
most religious claims are trivially and publicly falsified by the  
many fields of modern science, from cosmology to archeology.


Only the fairy tales. Then with computationalism, we know (or should  
know) that for theology *and* science, we might need to backtrack 1500  
years to get the right overall conception of reality. modern science  
is still Aristotelian for the fundamentals, and both comp and QM  
question this basic assumption. The God of the scientists might be  
the God of Plato, which is basically the notion of transcendental truth.


Bruno





Telmo.


Brent


and electing a president that claims to believe in a book of old  
desert myths would be unthinkable.


Telmo.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread spudboy100

Let's agree its a real problem, but it's also an opportunity for more control. 
Or should we be good with handing control of the internet, as well, to the UN? 
What is the remediation for this problem and how long will it take to 
implement? 

-Original Message-
From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 7:08 pm
Subject: RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into 
withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels.

That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent 
that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, 
so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to 
see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell 
bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed 
with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the 
same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I 
think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand 
capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human 
caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, 
but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true 
on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from 
authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept 
us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate 
change it gets trotted out as if it is informative.

I think what this paper really shows is just that part and parcel of debate is 
to weave a narrative about your opponent: 'Obviously', if you are not convinced 
by my water tight arguments then there must be something wrong with you. 
Unfortunately the paper shows it by doing it. Thats not to say that it 
shouldn't have been published, it should have. But the shame is that by not 
publishing it, it has somehow earnt respect and currency.

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 12:15:26 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

On 4/6/2014 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM,meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
  wrote:

On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at  1:04 AM, meekerdb 
meeke...@verizon.net  wrote:

On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

Sure, I also  find it quite likely that 
powerful  fossil fuel companies are lobbying or 
 using even dirtier tricks to discredit 
 AGW theory. On the other hand, this
  says nothing about the truth status of
  AGW theory.

  Doesn't it?  If it weren't
true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be
needed to discredit it, would they?  Itcould be 
discredited like the flatearth, creationism, 
andcigarettes-are-good-for-you theories.

If that was true, the world would be freefrom 
religious superstition 

So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you
think clergy are really all atheists and are justconspiring 
to fool others?

I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies.

But this is besides the point here. You claimed that,  if AGW was 
false, then oil companies would only need to  falsify the models to 
affect political change. If that  were true

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread chris peck

Brent

 If most scientists in a field agree on something, I count that as evidence 
 in favor of their position.

I don't see how it can be, the fact that scientists agree about relativity 
isn't a fact that has any information content about relativity. Its at best a 
dubious kind of 'evidence by proxy'.

 f course that's a chicken-and-egg problem.  Physicists accepted it because 
 it agreed with experiment.

Exactly, because it agreed with experiment. Theres nothing chicken and egg 
about it. Einstein dreamt up a theory. People treated it with general 
suspicion. It made predictions, which were confirmed by experiments. People 
began to accept the theory. At no point in this story did anyone accept things 
on consensus. And if they did, they were wrong to.


  No, of course not.  But I didn't repeat their calculations and measurements 
 and neither did the deniers.


Im not suggesting people should personally repeat experiments. There is a 
difference in accepting relativity provisionally because you've read about 
Eddington's observations of light bending around the sun and accepting 
relativity because you've read that a bunch of physicists accept relativity. In 
one you have a reason to accept that relates to the phenomenon itself, in the 
other you just have this information-less consensus.

Likewise, when climate science accepters make gambits on blogs like '97% of 
scientists agree!!!' its an empty statement and should be discarded as such.

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: spudboy...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:27:00 -0400


Let's agree its a real problem, but it's also an opportunity for more control. 
Or should we be good with handing control of the internet, as well, to the UN? 
What is the remediation for this problem and how long will it take to 
implement? 



-Original Message-

From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com

To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sun, Apr 6, 2014 7:08 pm

Subject: RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing













The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into 
withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels.



That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent 
that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, 
so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to 
see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell 
bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed 
with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the 
same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I 
think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand 
capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human 
caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, 
but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true 
on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from 
authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept 
us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate 
change it gets trotted out as if it is informative.



I think what this paper really shows is just that part and parcel of debate is 
to weave a narrative about your opponent: 'Obviously', if you are not convinced 
by my water tight arguments then there must be something wrong with you. 
Unfortunately the paper shows it by doing it. Thats not to say that it 
shouldn't have been published, it should have. But the shame is that by not 
publishing it, it has somehow earnt respect and currency.




Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 12:15:26 -0700

From: meeke...@verizon.net

To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing




  

  
  

On 4/6/2014 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes
  wrote:





  







  


  
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM,
meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:



  



  
On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


  

  




  







On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at
  1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
  wrote:


  


  


On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes
  wrote:




Sure, I also
  find it quite likely

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread LizR

Sorry when I said you I didn't mean you specifically, I meant generically
- one would have been better.

I shall try to paraphrase myself in an attempt to better express what I was
trying to say.

Hence, people who claim that scientists agree because of some reason other
than looking at the instruments and using their best theories to interpret
the readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some psychological
reason, e.g. because they all adhere to some paradigm - are talking
bollocks.




On 7 April 2014 14:56, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:

  They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they
 interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence
 of the Higgs.

 Right I see. So the physicists at cern don't count the number of people
 who are in agreement, they actually do look at equipment now and again.
 Thats a relief because Brent had me worried that they didn't think they had
 to do much of that.


  Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into
 account how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed,
 and so on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree
 as though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because
 that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter.

 eh?

  Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that
 all views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet
 rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well,
 not without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess -
 dipping my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight
 myself for a moment - they wanted to avoid).


 Im sure you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue.






 --
 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200

 Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
 From: lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


 On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:

  So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about
 whether the Higgs boson exists?

 It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that
 they agree.


 They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they
 interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence
 of the Higgs.

 Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into
 account how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed,
 and so on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they
 agree as though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight,
 because that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter.

 Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all
 views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet
 rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well,
 not without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess -
 dipping my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight
 myself for a moment - they wanted to avoid).


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-07 Thread chris peck


 Hence, people who claim that scientists agree because of some reason other 
 than looking at the instruments and using their best theories to interpret 
 the readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some psychological 
 reason, e.g. because they all adhere to some paradigm - are talking 
 bollocks.

I still don't understand what you're getting at Liz. What 'psychological 
paradigm' is who claiming scientists agree because of?

I mean I don't particularly like the suggestion that scientists are in some 
sense superhuman and impervious to the flaws the rest of us mortals succumb to, 
but we'ld just fly off on another tangent if we discussed that.

my point is just that 'agree with this because lots of scientists say so' isn't 
a terribly convincing argument, yet its one I see lots of climate acceptors 
promote. Relativity isn't a good theory because Einstein said it was. Nor is it 
a good theory because a bunch of Einsteins say it is. How many science lessons 
start like:

'Right children, please shut your text books. Now lots of people agree with 
relativity so you should too. Now on evolution, lots of scientists think we 
evolved via natural selection, so you should too. Good. that about wraps it up 
for your science class this week. Lets move on to home economics...'

Im actually stunned this is under debate.
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:14:29 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Sorry when I said you I didn't mean you specifically, I meant generically - 
one would have been better.

I shall try to paraphrase myself in an attempt to better express what I was 
trying to say.


Hence, people who claim that scientists agree because of some reason other than 
looking at the instruments and using their best theories to interpret the 
readings - e.g. people who claim that they agree for some psychological reason, 
e.g. because they all adhere to some paradigm - are talking bollocks.





On 7 April 2014 14:56, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:




 They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they 
 interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence 
 of the Higgs.

Right I see. So the physicists at cern don't count the number of people who are 
in agreement, they actually do look at equipment now and again. Thats a relief 
because Brent had me worried that they didn't think they had to do much of that.


 Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account 
 how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so 
 on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as 
 though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because 
 that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter.


eh? 

 Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all 
 views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet 
 rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well, not 
 without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping 
 my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a 
 moment - they wanted to avoid).



Im sure you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue.






Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:




 So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether 
 the Higgs boson exists?  

It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they 
agree.


They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they interpreted 
using their best available theories as indicating the existence of the Higgs.


Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account how 
the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so on. It's 
no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as though you're 
privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because that's just wilfully 
ignoring the real facts of the matter.



Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all views 
are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet rather than 
broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well, not without 
showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping my toes 
into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a moment - 
they wanted to avoid).








-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing



On 06 Apr 2014, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
wrote:

On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel  
companies are lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit  
AGW theory. On the other hand, this says nothing about the truth  
status of AGW theory.


Doesn't it?  If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be  
needed to discredit it, would they?  It could be discredited like  
the flat earth, creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you  
theories.


If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition


So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy  
are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?


I am pretty sure of this.

Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the  
children molester, and this in a way making them continue the misdoing  
for 20 years?


Bruno





Brent

and electing a president that claims to believe in a book of old  
desert myths would be unthinkable.


Telmo.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-06 Thread Kim Jones




On 6 Apr 2014, at 5:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy are really 
 all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?
 
 I am pretty sure of this.
 
 Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the children 
 molester, and this in a way making them continue the misdoing for 20 years?
 
 Bruno

Organised, public religion is quite simply the biggest conspiracy theory of all 
time. It has been a front for power play ever since someone realised that you 
can simply tout a personal set of revelations in public and people will swoon 
and fall into line behind you.

Church + Education + Politics = The Holy Trinity of Conformity. 

These three groups, each individually and in concert with each other, make me 
feel very disturbed about the future most of the time. Particularly since you 
have one, (The Catholic Church) which has moved into and colonised another, 
(Education) and is currently being evaluated for all the damage it has caused 
there with the growing scandal involving the shielding of child-abusing priests 
and pedophilic clergy generally. Roman Catholicism is revealed today as about 
pretty much nothing more than a creche for kiddy abusers. 

Jesus said  suffer the Iittle children to come unto me.

Each of the members of The Holy Trinity of Conformity worships its own past and 
its history to excess. Each promotes the mistaken belief that to study the 
lessons of History is the only way that mistakes will be avoided in the 
future. 

There is a lack of generative, creative thinking skills in The Holy Trinity of 
Conformity. 

Every day we hear of the lapse of taste or the outright corruption and fall 
from grace of people sitting in and between these 3 very special and very 
powerfully self-serving groups. Each of these power groups assists the other as 
a real tri-une force for social control. One can only hold the greatest fear 
for the production of honest and audacious priests, teachers and politicians, 
since everyone must submit to the HToC. 

A priest who was married in secret was thrown out of his parish by the Catholic 
Church. Decades of sexual abuse of students by religious people has gone 
unreported and undealt-with. Politicians reveal their lack of vision, their 
misogyny, their sycophancy for religion and all manner of horrific prejudices 
and fascist-tendencies on a daily basis on the floor of the parliament - and 
children are meant to derive some kind of role-model from these people. 

I could go on, but I think you may have the gist of it by now. 

Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

On 05 Apr 2014, at 16:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't narrow it down too much.

Je m'accuse. I was one of them.

My point was that conspiracy theories, in the sense of power elites
secretly cooperating to further their own interests against the
interests of the majority are not, unfortunately, unusual events in
History. We know of countless examples of this happening in the
past. I think it requires some magical thinking to assume that this
type of behaviour is absent from our own times.

I further pointed out that broadly discrediting any hypothesis that
some elites might be conspiring against the common good, in broad
strokes, seems to benefit precisely the ones in power. Furthermore,
thanks to Snowden, we now have strong evidence of a large-scale
conspiracy by western governments that I would not believe one year
ago. In this case I'm referring to the secret implementation of
global and total surveillance, with our tax money, by the people we
elected, to spy on us, infringing on constitutions.

I can't help but notice the very common rhetorical trick of using
the nutty conspiracy theories (UFOs, the Illuminati, fake moon
landing, etc.) to discredit the much more mundane and reasonable
suspicions of elites abusing their power. The paper you cite in this
thread uses that trick too.

This broad denial of the existence of conspiracies is silly, if you
think about it. The official explanation for 9/11 is a conspiracy
theory: some religious arab fundamentalists conspired to create a
global network of terrorist cells with the objective of attacking
western civilisation. They hijacked planes and sent them into
buildings and so on. If you don't believe in this explanation, you
are then forced to believe in some other conspiracy.

Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite
obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest.

To state conspiracy in some domain or level seriously, you have to
be precise and point accurately. Who, what, where, when, why? Just
referring to elites or entire industries, of which I am often
guilty, doesn't suffice. That's a sort of conspiracy comfort tale,
which has the same effect as denying damaging backdoor deals on a
large scale exist: inaction, no coordination, less people on the
streets.

The distinction is not trivial, as the comfort tale is abused as
some explanatory weed, that illuminates all aspects of world
politics, the hopeless vista of the speaker's position; everything
they disagree with being part of the grand conspiracy and
everything they agree with the opposite.

The comfort tale use is not serious and more a psychology thing
istm. PGC

In the case of cannabis conspiracy, Jack Herer gives already much
names and details. All points have been confirmed, like the fact that
Ford and the followers will scupper the evidences that cannabis can
cure mice cancers.
In the case of 9/11, it is harder to evaluate the portion of the
misdoer in the government, and the extent of their participation or
leading role, but it is easy to have suspicion on some people (the
same as for marijuana, basically).

Bruno

Best,
Telmo.

On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
It was in one of the climate threads.

Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:

Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds
They Believe Conspiracy Theories

Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention
of this fact!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories

PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some
interest in this topic on this forum.

It is strange, because when I did mention that here, the answer was
that it was perfectly normal and rational to believe in global
conspiracy theories and irrational not to.

That sounds a slightly strange view, imho. Who said that, may I ask,
and in what context?

(I will be sending my ninja assassins round to deal with them later,
as per the standing instructions of the Grand High Adepts of the
Illuminati...)

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

On 05 Apr 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't narrow it down too much.

Je m'accuse. I was one of them.

Of course conspiracies exist. The current denial of this quite
obvious fact feels Orwellian, to be honest.

I agree. Prohibition was purely conspiratorial. People met to develop
a propaganda and making other people, through precise list of lies,
voting laws making it possible to avoid a oil-hemp competition, and
impose oil. You can find all the names on the net. I have completely
stop to believe that prohibition has ever have had a relation with
public health. A lot of people voted the prohibition of cannabis,
without knowing that it was hemp. I saw video of interview of old
people saying so. Many government hided the result of research on
cannabis, and build fake data instead (US, France, UK notably).

Then when there were talk that Obama might sign a text allowing the
arrest and detention without trial of suspects, without mentioning
radical islamism, or precise terrorist group, that is a text violating
the most basic human rights, in time of peace, I mocked this as ... a
conspiracy theory. But not only Obama signed it, but after two years,
still refuse to add the coma, and precision asked. Since then I read
the Nist report, and it seems obvious to me, that the official theory
does not make sense at all.
I don't know the truth, but the Nist reports is 100% nonsense. It is
very thin also, and evacuates all relevant facts.

You can see this also by looking at all Air crash investigation, the
difference between most normal investigations and those for the 9/11
planes is striking, and makes clear that we are lied on this.

The kennedy assassination is also quite enlightening on all this, and
you can almost name one the big chief playing a role in drug
prohibition, Kennedy's assassination, and 9/11: Bush senior.

They are just bandits, (if you dislike the term conspiracy), and
some members of the senate avowed that they just fear them. By
injecting the black money in the markets, they are taking the whole
middle class into hostage. In my country some very bad people
(children murderers) are protected, and journalists having made
inquests, have been murdered, or disappeared without trace.

Prohibition seems to me to have been planned in advance by bandits to
get power, with the complicity of some special interest.

They failed with alcohol, but succeeded with marijuana.

Bruno

Best,
Telmo.

On 5 April 2014 22:31, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
It was in one of the climate threads.

Le 5 avr. 2014 09:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 4 April 2014 19:35, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-04 1:29 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:

Climate Deniers Intimidate Journal into Retracting Paper that Finds
They Believe Conspiracy Theories

Ironically, it looks like they are conspiring to silence any mention
of this fact!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories

PS I know this isn't about everything but there seems to be some
interest in this topic on this forum.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing



On 06 Apr 2014, at 13:00, Kim Jones wrote:





On 6 Apr 2014, at 5:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy  
are really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?


I am pretty sure of this.

Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the  
children molester, and this in a way making them continue the  
misdoing for 20 years?


Bruno


Organised, public religion is quite simply the biggest conspiracy  
theory of all time.



OK, for some religion. It is complex, because the sorcerer in the  
village is not always dishonest. But it is a weakness of the field,  
that being so much fundamental, it is easily perverted in the  
tradition, and it is worse when it becomes an instrument to get power,  
like with the catholic Church, the ayatollah, some academies, etc.





It has been a front for power play ever since someone realised that  
you can simply tout a personal set of revelations in public and  
people will swoon and fall into line behind you.


Church + Education + Politics = The Holy Trinity of Conformity.

These three groups, each individually and in concert with each  
other, make me feel very disturbed about the future most of the  
time. Particularly since you have one, (The Catholic Church) which  
has moved into and colonised another, (Education) and is currently  
being evaluated for all the damage it has caused there with the  
growing scandal involving the shielding of child-abusing priests and  
pedophilic clergy generally. Roman Catholicism is revealed today as  
about pretty much nothing more than a creche for kiddy abusers.


I partially agree, but that should be an object of detailed inquiry.  
And certainly the catholic church has some reform to do, even it want  
survive. But in theology, the subject is still taboo, probably less  
for believers than disbelievers which easily fight  the rational  
agnostic in the name of rationalism!






Jesus said  suffer the Iittle children to come unto me.


Really? Where? What does that mean?





Each of the members of The Holy Trinity of Conformity worships its  
own past and its history to excess. Each promotes the mistaken  
belief that to study the lessons of History is the only way that  
mistakes will be avoided in the future.


It is necessary, but not sufficient, alas.




There is a lack of generative, creative thinking skills in The Holy  
Trinity of Conformity.



I am not sure. I am far more conservative. In a sense. Perhaps  
Xeusippes was right. Plato should have banish Aristotle.
In theology, modernity was in the past, and we have not yet come back  
to it.





Every day we hear of the lapse of taste or the outright corruption  
and fall from grace of people sitting in and between these 3 very  
special and very powerfully self-serving groups. Each of these power  
groups assists the other as a real tri-une force for social control.  
One can only hold the greatest fear for the production of honest and  
audacious priests, teachers and politicians, since everyone must  
submit to the HToC.


A priest who was married in secret was thrown out of his parish by  
the Catholic Church. Decades of sexual abuse of students by  
religious people has gone unreported and undealt-with. Politicians  
reveal their lack of vision, their misogyny, their sycophancy for  
religion and all manner of horrific prejudices and fascist- 
tendencies on a daily basis on the floor of the parliament - and  
children are meant to derive some kind of role-model from these  
people.


I could go on, but I think you may have the gist of it by now.


When you let people using god as an argument per authority, you can  
expect the worst.


Bruno






Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark  
Twain



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing


On 4/6/2014 12:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Apr 2014, at 06:47, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are
lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other 
hand,
this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory.


Doesn't it?  If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to 
discredit
it, would they?  It could be discredited like the flat earth, creationism, 
and
cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories.


If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition


So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy are really all 
atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?


I am pretty sure of this.

Do you think that a christian believer of the top would protect the children molester, 
and this in a way making them continue the misdoing for 20 years?




Yes, they might very well do that because they think that maintaining the reputation of 
the church is essential to saving souls from hell, which is obviously more important than 
some transient earthly transgressions.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing


On 4/6/2014 1:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Prohibition seems to me to have been planned in advance by bandits to get power, with 
the complicity of some special interest.

They failed with alcohol, but succeeded with marijuana.


Your reasoning would imply that prohibiting anything is a secret plot to gain power. What 
do you think about banning heroin?  assault rifles?  biological warfare?  poison gas?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-06 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




 On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies are
 lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the other
 hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory.


  Doesn't it?  If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed
 to discredit it, would they?  It could be discredited like the flat earth,
 creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories.


  If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition


 So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy are
 really all atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?


I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies.

But this is besides the point here. You claimed that, if AGW was false,
then oil companies would only need to falsify the models to affect
political change. If that were true, then it wouldn't be the case that the
majority of the world population is religious, because most religious
claims are trivially and publicly falsified by the many fields of modern
science, from cosmology to archeology.

Telmo.



 Brent


   and electing a president that claims to believe in a book of old desert
 myths would be unthinkable.

  Telmo.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing


On 4/6/2014 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Sure, I also find it quite likely that powerful fossil fuel companies 
are
lobbying or using even dirtier tricks to discredit AGW theory. On the 
other
hand, this says nothing about the truth status of AGW theory.


Doesn't it?  If it weren't true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be needed to
discredit it, would they?  It could be discredited like the flat earth,
creationism, and cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories.


If that was true, the world would be free from religious superstition


So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you think clergy are 
really all
atheists and are just conspiring to fool others?


I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies.

But this is besides the point here. You claimed that, if AGW was false, then oil 
companies would only need to falsify the models to affect political change. If that were 
true, then it wouldn't be the case that the majority of the world population is 
religious, because most religious claims are trivially and publicly falsified by the 
many fields of modern science, from cosmology to archeology.


Religions make vague claims which are 'interpreted' and so cannot be falsified - notice 
that even Bruno believes in a God and refers to angels (of course he 'interprets' them 
very differently).  But the oil companies don't offer any corrections to the absorbtion 
spectrum of CO2 or the insolation power or the measurements of temperature...  They just 
attempt to obfuscate the problem of climate prediction by pointing to minor gaps in 
knowledge and saying, What about THIS?: Maybe cosmic rays make clouds.  Why is the 
stratosphere cooler in the equatorial zone?  Maybe weather stations have been moved.  
Didn't temperatures rise before CO2 did in prehistoric times? ...


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into 
withdrawing a paper that had passed through the proper review channels.

That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent 
that climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, 
so is climate science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to 
see that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell 
bent on denying the world freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed 
with the oil barons attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the 
same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A fact that I 
think is illustrated perfectly when climate science acceptors demand 
capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is human 
caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, 
but it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true 
on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from 
authority writ large. its the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept 
us believing the earth was flat. Yet every time I see blog rows on climate 
change it gets trotted out as if it is informative.

I think what this paper really shows is just that part and parcel of debate is 
to weave a narrative about your opponent: 'Obviously', if you are not convinced 
by my water tight arguments then there must be something wrong with you. 
Unfortunately the paper shows it by doing it. Thats not to say that it 
shouldn't have been published, it should have. But the shame is that by not 
publishing it, it has somehow earnt respect and currency.

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 12:15:26 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing


  

  
  
On 4/6/2014 11:36 AM, Telmo Menezes
  wrote:



  



  

  On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:47 AM,
meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:


  

  On 4/5/2014 4:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  
  


  



On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at
  1:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
  wrote:

  

  
On 4/5/2014 3:54 PM, Telmo Menezes
  wrote:


Sure, I also
  find it quite likely that powerful
  fossil fuel companies are lobbying or
  using even dirtier tricks to discredit
  AGW theory. On the other hand, this
  says nothing about the truth status of
  AGW theory.


  
  Doesn't it?  If it weren't
true, then dirty tricks wouldn't be
needed to discredit it, would they?  It
could be discredited like the flat
earth, creationism, and
cigarettes-are-good-for-you theories.

  
  
  

  
  If that was true, the world would be free
from religious superstition 

  

  
  


So do you classify religion as a conspiracy?  Do you
think clergy are really all atheists and are just
conspiring to fool others?

  




I subscribe Bruno's and Kim's replies.



But this is besides the point here. You claimed that,
  if AGW was false, then oil companies would only need to
  falsify the models to affect political change. If that
  were true, then it wouldn't be the case that the majority
  of the world population is religious, because most
  religious claims are trivially and publicly falsified by
  the many fields of modern science, from cosmology to
  archeology.


  

  



Religions make vague claims which are 'interpreted' and so cannot be
falsified - notice that even Bruno believes in a God and refers

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing


On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote:
The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal was intimidated into withdrawing a 
paper that had passed through the proper review channels.


That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And to the extent that 
climate science denial is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories, so is climate 
science acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to see that climate 
science acceptors are the lackeys of communist Illuminati hell bent on denying the world 
freedom and that climate science deniers are in bed with the oil barons attempting in a 
capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the same thing. What gets lost on both sides is the 
actual science. A fact that I think is illustrated perfectly when climate science 
acceptors demand capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate scientists agree there is 
human caused problem. That 97% of scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, but 
it is also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is true on the basis 
of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an argument from authority writ large. its 
the kind of fact which if persuasive would have kept us believing the earth was flat. 
Yet every time I see blog rows on climate change it gets trotted out as if it is 
informative.


But it is informative.  It means that if you disagree, you need to show why the published 
papers of these people who have spent a lot of time and energy studying and measuring are 
wrong.


After all you probably never did an experiment to prove the Earth is spherical.  You 
accepted it because you were told it (If you dont' already know it, you might find it 
instructive to read the story of Alfred Wallace and John Hampden's bet 
http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2010/08/the-flat-earth-fiasco.html ). You 
probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy either.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

Brent

If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change, that fact alone, 
tells me nothing about the truth of the claims they actually make.

You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy 
either.

Yes, and my great great great great great grand parents didn't test the theory 
that disease was caused by sin. They knew it was sin because so many experts 
told them it was. 

The superiority of my view over theirs can not be established by an appeal to a 
consensus because in this regard me and my ancestors are equivalent. They have 
their consensus and I have mine. If I am to convince them I will have an easier 
time drawing their attention to the actual science.

Whenever we're on the verge of a scientific revolution we're usually in a 
situation where 99.999% of scientists disagree with what happens to be more 
accurate. Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as 
vica versa.



Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:51:34 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing


  

  
  
On 4/6/2014 4:08 PM, chris peck wrote:



  
  The real story here is that a peer reviewed journal
was intimidated into withdrawing a paper that had passed through
the proper review channels.



That the internet is full of conspiracy theory isn't news. And
to the extent that climate science denial is correlated with
beliefs in conspiracy theories, so is climate science
acceptance. You don't have to read blog rows for long to see
that climate science acceptors are the lackeys of communist
Illuminati hell bent on denying the world freedom and that
climate science deniers are in bed with the oil barons
attempting in a capitalist frenzy to do pretty much the same
thing. What gets lost on both sides is the actual science. A
fact that I think is illustrated perfectly when climate science
acceptors demand capitulation on the basis that 97% of climate
scientists agree there is human caused problem. That 97% of
scientists agree is an empirical fact, presumably, but it is
also an irrelevant one. Not a single fact about the climate is
true on the basis of a 97% agreement between scientists. Its an
argument from authority writ large. its the kind of fact which
if persuasive would have kept us believing the earth was flat.
Yet every time I see blog rows on climate change it gets trotted
out as if it is informative.

  



But it is informative.  It means that if you disagree, you need to
show why the published papers of these people who have spent a lot
of time and energy studying and measuring are wrong.  



After all you probably never did an experiment to prove the Earth is
spherical.  You accepted it because you were told it (If you dont'
already know it, you might find it instructive to read the story of
Alfred Wallace and John Hampden's bet
http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2010/08/the-flat-earth-fiasco.html
). You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or
conservation of energy either.



Brent

  





-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote:

Brent

If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change, that fact alone, tells me
nothing about the truth of the claims they actually make.

So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether the Higgs boson
exists?

You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or conservation of energy
either.

Yes, and my great great great great great grand parents didn't test the theory that
disease was caused by sin. They knew it was sin because so many experts told them it was.

The superiority of my view over theirs can not be established by an appeal to a
consensus because in this regard me and my ancestors are equivalent. They have their
consensus and I have mine. If I am to convince them I will have an easier time drawing
their attention to the actual science.

How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it? Was it a scientist?

Whenever we're on the verge of a scientific revolution we're usually in a situation
where 99.999% of scientists disagree with what happens to be more accurate.

That's not really true. Of course scientific revolutions start with one or two scientists
- but it's not that case that all the others disagree with the better theory; they just
haven't heard it yet. Look how quickly special relativity, matrix mechanics, Schodinger's
equation, and Dirac's theory of the electron were accepted. Resistance to a new and better
theory arises when there is a lot of investment in old theories.

But to get back to AGW, there was no old theory. The increase of temperatures due to
CO2 from fossil fuel was predicted over a hundred years ago and everybody who knew
anything about it agreed - UNTIL it appeared to be something we needed to act on. THEN
there were all kinds of wacky alternate 'explanations' proposed.

Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why the 1% are wrong as vica
versa.

Indeed, and they have. Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays, increased insolation,
measurement error, miscalibration of proxies,...has been studied and answered. You
apparently didn't read about Alfred Russell's experience with John Hampden.

Brent

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

 So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether 
 the Higgs boson exists?  

It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they 
agree.

 How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it?  Was it a 
 scientist?

Assuming you are asking how do I know the germ theory is a superior theory. My 
point is that whether it is superior or not can not be decided by appeals to 
consensus. Maybe its sin. Maybe its not. 


 That's not really true.  

It often is true.

 Of course scientific revolutions start with one or two scientists

not a consensus then. You appear to agree then, are you just being 
argumentative? Or are you really persuaded by consensus?

 - but it's not that case that all the others disagree with the better 
 theory; they just haven't heard it yet.  Look how quickly special 
 relativity, matrix mechanics, Schodinger's equation, and Dirac's theory of 
 the electron were accepted.  Resistance to a new and better theory arises 
 when there is a lot of investment in old theories.

The speed with which people came to accept relativity is irrelevant. There was 
a consensus against relativity initially because it was not derived from 
experiment. Relativity was eventually convincing because it was confirmed by 
experiment, not because lots of physicists accepted it. 

Perhaps you accept relativity because you've been told about a consensus. I 
accept it because I've read about the experimental confirmations. 

 Indeed, and they have.  Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays, increased 
 insolation, measurement error, miscalibration of proxies,...has been studied 
 and answered.

And did they answer those objections by appealing to a consensus? Did they go 
'Its not cosmic rays because 76% of scientists believe otherwise'?

You apparently didn't
read about Alfred Russell's experience with John Hampden.

No I didn't.



Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:09:41 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing


  

  
  
On 4/6/2014 5:35 PM, chris peck wrote:



  
  Brent



If 100% of scientists were in agreement about climate change,
that fact alone, tells me nothing about the truth of the claims
they actually make.

  



So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about
whether the Higgs boson exists?  




  

You probably didn't test the germ theory of disease or
conservation of energy either.



Yes, and my great great great great great grand parents didn't
test the theory that disease was caused by sin. They knew it was
sin because so many experts told them it was. 



The superiority of my view over theirs can not be established by
an appeal to a consensus because in this regard me and my
ancestors are equivalent. They have their consensus and I have
mine. If I am to convince them I will have an easier time
drawing their attention to the actual science.

  



How do you know that - did you take someone's word for it?  Was it a
scientist?




  

Whenever we're on the verge of a scientific revolution we're
usually in a situation where 99.999% of scientists disagree with
what happens to be more accurate. 



That's not really true.  Of course scientific revolutions start with
one or two scientists - but it's not that case that all the others
disagree with the better theory; they just haven't heard it yet. 
Look how quickly special relativity, matrix mechanics, Schodinger's
equation, and Dirac's theory of the electron were accepted. 
Resistance to a new and better theory arises when there is a lot of
investment in old theories.



But to get back to AGW, there was no old theory.  The increase of
temperatures due to CO2 from fossil fuel was predicted over a
hundred years ago and everybody who knew anything about it agreed -
UNTIL it appeared to be something we needed to act on.  THEN there
were all kinds of wacky alternate 'explanations' proposed.




  Those 99% have as much responsibility to show why
the 1% are wrong as vica versa.

  



Indeed, and they have.  Every objection: heat island, cosmic rays,
increased insolation, measurement error, miscalibration of
proxies,...has been studied and answered.  You apparently didn't
read about Alfred Russell's experience with John Hampden.



Brent

  





-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

2014-04-06 Thread LizR

On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:

  So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about
 whether the Higgs boson exists?

 It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that
 they agree.


They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they
interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence
of the Higgs.

Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account
how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so
on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as
though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because
that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter.

Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all
views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet
rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well,
not without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess -
dipping my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight
myself for a moment - they wanted to avoid).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing

 They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they 
 interpreted using their best available theories as indicating the existence 
 of the Higgs.

Right I see. So the physicists at cern don't count the number of people who are 
in agreement, they actually do look at equipment now and again. Thats a relief 
because Brent had me worried that they didn't think they had to do much of that.

 Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account 
 how the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so 
 on. It's no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as 
 though you're privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because 
 that's just wilfully ignoring the real facts of the matter.

eh? 

 Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all 
 views are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet 
 rather than broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well, not 
 without showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping 
 my toes into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a 
 moment - they wanted to avoid).


Im sure you know what you're talking about but I haven't got a clue.






Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 14:47:42 +1200
Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On 7 April 2014 14:32, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:




 So does the agreement of physicists at CERN tell you nothing about whether 
 the Higgs boson exists?  

It tells me absolutely nothing. Im interested in why they agree not that they 
agree.

They agree because the equipment they used produced a signal they interpreted 
using their best available theories as indicating the existence of the Higgs.


Hence if you're interested in why they agree, you have to take into account how 
the experiment works, how the confidence levels were assessed, and so on. It's 
no good just saying I'm only interested in why they agree as though you're 
privy to some extraordinary psychological insight, because that's just wilfully 
ignoring the real facts of the matter.


Otherwise you're just like the postmodernists who used to claim that all views 
are equivalent but still preferred to fly to conferences by jet rather than 
broomstick for reasons they could never quite explain (well, not without 
showing themselves up to be pompous idiots, which I guess - dipping my toes 
into the world of extraordinary psychological insight myself for a moment - 
they wanted to avoid).







-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing