doomdday moved next century

[eridanus]

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/07/922200-tired-wrong-climate-alarmists-move-doomsday-next-century/

a fragment of the article

After noting that “climate change seems to be taking a break,” von Storch had
this to say about the models:

“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will
need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate
models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled
scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual
temperature trends with our expectations.”

He followed that up with this after being asked what might be wrong with the
models:

There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for
us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected
because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have
assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but
simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed.
The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how
much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

take it with a glass of wine.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <e2573646-181c-4882...@googlegroups.com>,
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/07/922200-tired-wrong-climate-alarmists-mo

Why are you trying to get information about climate change from a
right-wing political site? Political sites are where you go for
information and/or opinions on politics, not science.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[John Stockwell]

The quote from Hans von Storch implying that "climate change is taking a break"
was in a 2013 interview in der Spiegel.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Climate change isn't taking a break:

Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records

Zeke Hausfather1,2,*, Kevin Cowtan3, David C. Clarke4, Peter Jacobs5, Mark Richardson6 and Robert Rohde2



http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

[jillery]

So you strain out the gnat of the conclusions from those corrupt
scientists who collected the GISP2 data you keep mentioning, but
swallow the camel from comedian and Tea Bagger Stephen Kruiser. Of
course, he's entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts,
just like you.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[John Bode]

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 11:55:05 AM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/07/922200-tired-wrong-climate-alarmists-move-doomsday-next-century/
>
> a fragment of the article
>
> After noting that “climate change seems to be taking a break,”

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/17/25-myths-and-bad-arguments-about-climate-change/#Bad Argument/Myth #3

Watch the wrap and whitespace in the link.

The notion of a pause has been debunked, repeatedly. The surface air
temperature record shows no pause. Latest revisions of the satellite
records show no pause.

'98 was an extreme outlier relative to the years surrounding it. We've
had years warmer than '98 (2014, 2015), but they're not as far away from
the trend line as '98 was.

> von Storch had this to say about the models:
>
> “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest,
> we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our
> climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming

which, as stated above, does not exist...

> does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are
> finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our
> expectations.”

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/17/25-myths-and-bad-arguments-about-climate-change/#Bad Argument/Myth #5

Again, watch the wrap and the whitespace.

First, as was established above, there hasn't been a 20 year pause in
warming. We've had warmer years than '98, and the trend hasn't changed.

Secondly, observed temps have fallen within the 95% confidence intervals
of the models. They're getting it mostly right.

One issue that was identified recently is that models report results in
terms of surface air temperature (SAT), but observations are a mix of
SAT and sea-surface temperatures (SST); accounting for that, any
discrepancies between models and observations are greatly reduced.

[snip remainder]

[eridanus]

to debunk is to make a speech or to write some paper declaring something
is debunked.
Of course, I am not an expert on anything. And this is my reason for not
believing a shit.
Then, I will wait for another twenty years to see if the climate is
really warming or not.
By the way, the only arguments I see are mere words. I do not believe
in this science of climate. I ended thinking it is a bogus science. Dot.

eri

[jillery]

Whether you believe *or* disbelieve is not the relevant distinction.
What qualifies either one as shit are your reasons for said belief or
disbelief. Your disbelief of AGW is based on similar reasoning as the
failthfuls' belief of God.

[John Bode]

That has become abundantly clear.

> And this is my reason for not
> believing a shit.

And that is nonsensical. Do you not believe your doctor when they tell
you to take your medicine? Do you not believe your mechanic when he tells
you it's time to change the oil?

Some people actually know what they're talking about; the fact that you
don't doesn't make those people wrong.

> Then, I will wait for another twenty years to see if the climate is
> really warming or not.

Why has the measured warming over the past 20 years not been good enough?

> By the way, the only arguments I see are mere words. I do not believe
> in this science of climate. I ended thinking it is a bogus science. Dot.
>
> eri

There are also numbers. And graphs. And charts. And real-world effects.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 01:59:38 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

But belief or its converse is still his privilege; everyone
is entitled to be wrong.

That said, I'm curious regarding what sort of argument might
consist of something other than words. (I consider
historical data, like that showing AGW is real, to also
consist of "words".)
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:20:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

As I have posted many times, all are entitled to their own opinions,
but not their own facts.

>That said, I'm curious regarding what sort of argument might
>consist of something other than words. (I consider
>historical data, like that showing AGW is real, to also
>consist of "words".)

Apparently, Eridanus thinks "mere words" are whatever he disagrees
with.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:46:35 -0400, the following appeared

Yep.

>>That said, I'm curious regarding what sort of argument might
>>consist of something other than words. (I consider
>>historical data, like that showing AGW is real, to also
>>consist of "words".)
>
>
>Apparently, Eridanus thinks "mere words" are whatever he disagrees
>with.

Apparently. But I suspect we'll never know for sure.

[eridanus]

Mere words are when the basis of an argument are false, or distorted,
or otherwise adjusted for a cause. Statements made with the false data
are mere words. Not because I do no like the argument.

eri

[John Bode]

Why do you think the data are false?

[eridanus]

very likely, or at least is has been distorted to convey a meaning.
If you cherry pick data, or alter data, the argument can be false.

The main question is "Why". What was the purpose to initiate this
global warming scare? It can have a purpose. You only need to wonder
what is the purpose.

Eri

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 00:55:32 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

What purpose do you think would lead so many highly qualified
scientists to come out with false claims?

[jillery]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 00:55:32 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

Once again, you're entitled to your own opinion; everybody has one.
When you baldly assert that arguments presented are false or distorted
or adjusted for a cause, as you do above, your opinion is just as
smelly as everybody else's, and it's reasonable to conclude that you
have no basis for disagreement other than a faith in your own
infallibility.

>> Why do you think the data are false?
>
>very likely, or at least is has been distorted to convey a meaning.
>If you cherry pick data, or alter data, the argument can be false.
>
>The main question is "Why". What was the purpose to initiate this
>global warming scare? It can have a purpose. You only need to wonder
>what is the purpose.
>
>Eri

Once again, that something *can* have a purpose, is not a valid
argument to show that it *does*.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 00:55:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

So, since you claim there is always one, what is the hidden
purpose in your dishonest denial of AGW?

Note that I'm using your own technique, and assigning a
nefarious purpose to your *claimed* disbelief (which, as
noted, I don't believe is real; you actually accept AGW but
have an agenda to deny it).

Isn't this fun?

[eridanus]

I will tell you. They are following the leader. There is a lot of brain pressure in academia to conform with some dogma. Then, if they are receiving
(money) or grants to perform some research for years, the evidences harvested
become the holy gospel. Nobody would dare to denounce as fake what is feeding
them good money. But as soon as the US Congress would get tired of giving
money to scare mongering academics preaching a climate catastrophe, the theory
would die of starvation. But if other people would be paid to prove this
theory was a crap they would present evidences to prove it.

Of course, behind the climate scaremongering were new industries of PV panels
and Windmill generators. They are reputed to become the salvation table for
a critical future when the fossil fuels would get exhausted. If a successful lobby keeps pressuring the Congress to continue feeding money to the people
of AGW we would have climate warming for a long while, even if the satellites
prove there is not any warming in the next twenty years.

Eri

[eridanus]

I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
more skeptical than most people here.
What purpose can I have for not accepting as real the moon landing? It simply
does not look real. There is not even today a technology to land any automatic
machine on the moon to make photos like similar machines in Mars.

What purpose had people here disputing with me that running a mile consumed
the same calories than walking a mile? I do not think they had a purpose,
they simply believe this was right. If you move a ton from point A to point
B, you just moved a ton. But this does not tell us any word about the amount
of energy involved to do it. You can make an hypothetical experiment. Just
imagine a true plane, and a frictionless carriage board that do not exist.
Just with a 100 milligrams of force lasting 100 seconds, you would be able
to move this ton easily. You can figure it, mgt² m=1,000 kg g=0.01 grams
and t=100 seconds The speed speed would be 0.01*100²/1000=0.1 m/s it would
move a ton during a km distance in 10,000 seconds. That is 2 h 47 min.

What purpose had academics that rejected the continental drift theory of
Wegener? What purpose had the people that resurrected the theory in a new
formate called Plate Tectonics? A few little fishes presented some nice
explanations to justify the drift of continents. In 1903 or 1904 Marie Curie
and Albert Laborde presented a neat experiment that showed the heating power
of a single gram of radio.

I have not any purpose to reject the AGW theory. It simply does not have any
convincing power for me. But do not worry. I am just an ignorant that only
made the grammar school in Spain.

Eri

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 08:20:51 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

WOW, you clearly don't have much regard for the scientists who are at
the top in their fields. Tell me, if they all follow the leader, how
do they manage to win Nobel prizes and things like that? How do they
invent new medicines and develop new technology?

>There is a lot of brain pressure in academia to conform with some dogma. Then, if they are receiving
>(money) or grants to perform some research for years, the evidences harvested
>become the holy gospel. Nobody would dare to denounce as fake what is feeding
>them good money. But as soon as the US Congress would get tired of giving
>money to scare mongering academics preaching a climate catastrophe, the theory
>would die of starvation. But if other people would be paid to prove this
>theory was a crap they would present evidences to prove it.
>
>Of course, behind the climate scaremongering were new industries of PV panels
>and Windmill generators. They are reputed to become the salvation table for
>a critical future when the fossil fuels would get exhausted. If a successful lobby keeps pressuring the Congress to continue feeding money to the people
>of AGW we would have climate warming for a long while, even if the satellites
>prove there is not any warming in the next twenty years.

Is there anything in particular that has led you to these conclusions
or has it all just come to you as some sort of inspiration ... a bit
like some people claim to have religious revelations?
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 08:52:37 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 6:50:04 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 00:55:32 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

>> >On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:40:05 PM UTC+1, John Bode wrote:

<snip>

>> >> Why do you think the data are false?
>> >
>> >very likely, or at least is has been distorted to convey a meaning.
>> >If you cherry pick data, or alter data, the argument can be false.
>> >

>> >...What was the purpose to initiate this

>> >global warming scare? It can have a purpose. You only need to wonder
>> >what is the purpose.

>> So, since you claim there is always one, what is the hidden
>> purpose in your dishonest denial of AGW?
>>
>> Note that I'm using your own technique, and assigning a
>> nefarious purpose to your *claimed* disbelief (which, as
>> noted, I don't believe is real; you actually accept AGW but
>> have an agenda to deny it).
>>
>> Isn't this fun?

>I have not any purpose to deny any theory.

So you say. Just as scientists say that their data is real
and their research is valid. Why should I believe you any
more than you believe them?

Nope,you have a hidden agenda, and actually accept AGW while
pretending you don't.

Again, isn't this fun?

[eridanus]

It is amazing you are presenting this argument. You are so ignorant about
the Nobel Prize are accorded? I am not going to present some arguments to
show the poor credibility Nobel prizes have in some fields. As for
medicines there are also cartloads full of bullshit. I am not negating
some chemicals used in medicine and surgery are working. Or some Nobel
prizes seem deserved.

What I mean is we cannot make tabula rasa on some corruption that exists.
We are merely humans.

> >There is a lot of brain pressure in academia to conform with some dogma. Then, if they are receiving
> >(money) or grants to perform some research for years, the evidences harvested
> >become the holy gospel. Nobody would dare to denounce as fake what is feeding
> >them good money. But as soon as the US Congress would get tired of giving
> >money to scare mongering academics preaching a climate catastrophe, the theory
> >would die of starvation. But if other people would be paid to prove this
> >theory was a crap they would present evidences to prove it.
> >
> >Of course, behind the climate scaremongering were new industries of PV panels
> >and Windmill generators. They are reputed to become the salvation table for
> >a critical future when the fossil fuels would get exhausted. If a successful lobby keeps pressuring the Congress to continue feeding money to the people
> >of AGW we would have climate warming for a long while, even if the satellites
> >prove there is not any warming in the next twenty years.
>
> Is there anything in particular that has led you to these conclusions
> or has it all just come to you as some sort of inspiration ... a bit
> like some people claim to have religious revelations?

I have read a little bit. It happens that I tend to believe some information
about corruption. Not all of course. It is not any good to exaggerate either.


eri

[eridanus]

You do not need to believe anything that I am saying.

Scientists that are eating out of some pot of data, are not going to say
their data are fake, or corrupted, for a cause.
This is equivalent to some cardinals or a pope, or an archbishop confessing
the information of the gospels is mostly false or corrupted.
They are not going to throw stones over their own glass roof, would they?

> Nope,you have a hidden agenda, and actually accept AGW while
> pretending you don't.

Being a true skeptic and actually not believing in AGW I have enough
intelligence to accept I could be wrong. I am not fanatic. That is the
reason I had said in different moments in this site, that we could be sure
if the warming is real or not in 20 or 30 years. Not now.

It seems nobody mentioned my incredulity of the moon landing, or about
the argument I had here about running or walking a mile the human doing
the exercise does not consume the same amount energy. Why no one was able
to participate and tell I was right?

What about the dispute we had with Johnathan, when he presented the case
of the casted blocks of the pyramid? It was evident by the pictures that
some blocks looked like casted in situ. Most members of this group were
harassing the man as he were a mental retarded. And no one showed he was
on his side.
This attitude is typical of fanatics.

Eri

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

Your final sentence just blew my irony meter!

[eridanus]

about the corruption in science and politics, you only need to connect the
dots to see the draw of an elephant.

It is not different to the moon landing. But not everything is made of lies.
the international space station was or is real, the satellites are real,
the artifacts exploring in Mars were or are real, etc. Then, not everything
is made of lies. Not all medicaments are fake, or worthless. But a
particular cannot know what things are true or false for we have not access
to secret information.
That's all.

Eri

[John Bode]

Are you kidding?

For most scientists, it's actually the opposite - the easiest way to win a
Nobel is to discover something *new*, or to overthrow current thinking on
a particular subject. If it's all about enforcing *dogma*, then why bother
doing research at all?

> Then, if they are receiving (money) or grants to perform some research for
> years,

The majority of climate scientists aren't getting paid champagne and caviar
money; most aren't even getting paid beer and Skittles money. PIs get paid
relatively well due to seniority and because they're acting as senior
management, but your average post-doc isn't exactly diving into his money
vault every evening.

There *is* a lot of money in the petroleum industry, however. And companies
like Exxon have done their own climate research, and come to much the same
conclusion as the scientific community.

> the evidences harvested become the holy gospel.

Data series are constantly being re-analyzed and revised as our
understanding gets better. The most recent revision to the GISS data set
(IINM) actually resulted in a *lower* calculated rate of warming over the
20th century. Not exactly what you'd expect if they were all about
scaremongering*.

> Nobody would dare to denounce as fake what is feeding them good money.

"Good" money. That's funny.

> But as soon as the US Congress would get tired of giving
> money to scare mongering academics preaching a climate catastrophe, the
> theory would die of starvation.

You realize that there are plenty of climate researchers who *aren't*
American, right? The US Congress doesn't control the purse strings for
climate researchers in the UK, or Australia, or France, or Germany, or
Japan, or [fill in the blank].

> But if other people would be paid to prove this
> theory was a crap they would present evidences to prove it.

Other people *have* been paid to discredit climate change research. The
fact that you're spouting this bullshit is proof that it's working.

>
> Of course, behind the climate scaremongering were new industries of PV
> panels and Windmill generators.

Serious development of solar and wind was all about guarding against Peak
Oil (when we exhaust "easily" accessible petroleum reserves and extraction
costs start to skyrocket). GHG emissions weren't the driving factor.

They're also handy technologies for promoting energy independence.

> They are reputed to become the salvation table for
> a critical future when the fossil fuels would get exhausted. If a
> successful lobby keeps pressuring the Congress to continue feeding money
> to the people of AGW we would have climate warming for a long while, even
> if the satellites prove there is not any warming in the next twenty years.

You realize the sat data are showing warming along with the surface data,
right?

========

* To be fair, that rate over the 20th century isn't what matters. Warming
doesn't follow a linear model, and the rate of warming has varied over
time. It was actually slightly negative in the mid-20th century, but
sometime in the late 1960s (1968 according to my hand-hacked change point
analysis model, which is likely wrong) it started trending upwards again,
and hasn't slowed. The rate since 1968 has been on the order of 0.2 deg
C per decade. It didn't "pause" after 1998.

[Mark Isaak]

On 7/30/17 8:52 AM, eridanus wrote:
> >>> [re AGW]

> I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
> more skeptical than most people here.

You are as closed-minded as the most closed-minded people in this group.
You have as much as said so yourself.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:25:37 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 7/30/17 8:52 AM, eridanus wrote:

>> >>> [re AGW]

>> I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
>> more skeptical than most people here.

>You are as closed-minded as the most closed-minded people in this group.
> You have as much as said so yourself.

That's apparently what "skepticism" means to him: Rejection
of anything he disbelieves, regardless of evidence.

[eridanus]

This is false in some or most cases. The candidates to a Nobel are presented
by colleagues or sometimes even by rich people, in the case of a Nobel Prize
of economics.
As the candidates to a Nobel are presented, those candidates are propped up
by colleagues. Then, those colleagues are pleased with the arguments of the
candidates, or they would not propose it. That explains as well why Al Gore
and the IPCC was given a Nobel prize in 2007.
But are you not pushing me to google in search of disputable or stupid Nobel
prize awards, are you?

Eri

[eridanus]

The word conspiracy have any meaning to you? If there exist a lobby in favor
of expending public money in "green industries" you would have an easy explanation. Anyway, a part of this money are being paid by people consuming
electricity. The money expended to help PV panels, solar mirrors, windmill
generators and electric cars, are being paid by consumers of electricity. You
do not need to have a PV panel in your roof, to be paying those panels.
The subsidies used to make cheaper the electric cars, who are paying for them?
If you look for the data you can find these and other facts.

> > But if other people would be paid to prove this
> > theory was a crap they would present evidences to prove it.
>
> Other people *have* been paid to discredit climate change research. The
> fact that you're spouting this bullshit is proof that it's working.
>
> >
> > Of course, behind the climate scaremongering were new industries of PV
> > panels and Windmill generators.
>
> Serious development of solar and wind was all about guarding against Peak
> Oil (when we exhaust "easily" accessible petroleum reserves and extraction
> costs start to skyrocket). GHG emissions weren't the driving factor.
>
> They're also handy technologies for promoting energy independence.
>
> > They are reputed to become the salvation table for
> > a critical future when the fossil fuels would get exhausted. If a
> > successful lobby keeps pressuring the Congress to continue feeding money
> > to the people of AGW we would have climate warming for a long while, even
> > if the satellites prove there is not any warming in the next twenty years.
>
> You realize the sat data are showing warming along with the surface data,
> right?

I know a little about those data presented. But to me is not clear the meaning
for it can be something punctual not related to the climate in general or
to the CO2. It just happens that had been warming in the few past decades.
In the last 20 years it had not occurred much warming if you discount the phenomenon of El Niño. But this phenomenon does not look related to CO2. It
is another sort of animal.

> ========
>
> * To be fair, that rate over the 20th century isn't what matters. Warming
> doesn't follow a linear model, and the rate of warming has varied over
> time. It was actually slightly negative in the mid-20th century, but
> sometime in the late 1960s (1968 according to my hand-hacked change point
> analysis model, which is likely wrong) it started trending upwards again,
> and hasn't slowed. The rate since 1968 has been on the order of 0.2 deg
> C per decade. It didn't "pause" after 1998.

this people participating in favor of the theory of Climate Change is getting
federal money in form of grants giving to the main universities. The
universities spread the money among different people doing some search, and
the more notorious of those receiving money are the proponents of AGW.
This is like the gospel. If the US Congress do not stop to expend money
on this theory is because some lobbies are pushing to favor some
industries,like PV panels, other means of gathering solar power, windmill
generators and electric cars, total electric or hybrids. They need the
alarm of AGW to make it easy.
The electric cars are the stars of the ball.
Not even Trump would be able to stop the money going to continue to feed
the theory of AGW. For Trump has not the strings of the pouch but the
Congress.

There are a lot of conservatives that would love to stop this money
expending. But this is not my problem. What counts is what the congress
is doing.

Eri

[eridanus]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:20:05 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:25:37 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>
> >On 7/30/17 8:52 AM, eridanus wrote:
>
> >> >>> [re AGW]
>
> >> I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
> >> more skeptical than most people here.
>
> >You are as closed-minded as the most closed-minded people in this group.
> > You have as much as said so yourself.
>
> That's apparently what "skepticism" means to him: Rejection
> of anything he disbelieves, regardless of evidence.

Look in a good dictionary the meaning of evidence.
It means testimony or data presented in favor of a thesis or a
conclusion. Then, evidences can be false. There is nothing that
stop evidences being false.

I am rather pissed off that most people here love to present the word
"evidence" as it would have a sound meaning.

eri

[John Bode]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:10:05 PM UTC+1, John Bode wrote:

[massive snippage, because there's just no point anymore]

> > You realize that there are plenty of climate researchers who *aren't*
> > American, right? The US Congress doesn't control the purse strings for
> > climate researchers in the UK, or Australia, or France, or Germany, or
> > Japan, or [fill in the blank].
>
> The word conspiracy have any meaning to you?

Yeah. It means "I'm too ignorant or stupid to understand the actual issue,
so I'm going to pretend there's this vast conspiracy that could never
actually exist anywhere outside my own imagination."

And with that, I am done. I am confident you will be yelling "conspiracy"
even after Miami is under water. No data will satisfy you, no analysis
will satisfy you, you're goddamned ignorant and proud of it.

Enjoy drowning in your own shit, just try not to take us with you when you
do.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/1/17 11:20 AM, eridanus wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:20:05 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:25:37 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>>
>>> On 7/30/17 8:52 AM, eridanus wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> [re AGW]
>>
>>>> I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
>>>> more skeptical than most people here.
>>
>>> You are as closed-minded as the most closed-minded people in this group.
>>> You have as much as said so yourself.
>>
>> That's apparently what "skepticism" means to him: Rejection
>> of anything he disbelieves, regardless of evidence.
>
> Look in a good dictionary the meaning of evidence.
> It means testimony or data presented in favor of a thesis or a
> conclusion. Then, evidences can be false. There is nothing that
> stop evidences being false.

Surely you don't believe what you read in dictionaries! They contain
nothing but evidence!

> I am rather pissed off that most people here love to present the word
> "evidence" as it would have a sound meaning.

I also have the (ahem) evidence of what I see with my own eyes. You no
doubt regard that as false, too, just because.

[jillery]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:20:16 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:20:05 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:25:37 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>>
>> >On 7/30/17 8:52 AM, eridanus wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> [re AGW]
>>
>> >> I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
>> >> more skeptical than most people here.
>>
>> >You are as closed-minded as the most closed-minded people in this group.
>> > You have as much as said so yourself.
>>
>> That's apparently what "skepticism" means to him: Rejection
>> of anything he disbelieves, regardless of evidence.
>
>Look in a good dictionary the meaning of evidence.
>It means testimony or data presented in favor of a thesis or a
>conclusion. Then, evidences can be false. There is nothing that
>stop evidences being false.
>
>I am rather pissed off that most people here love to present the word
>"evidence" as it would have a sound meaning.
>
>eri

My impression is your dictionary is incorrect. But instead of being
pissed off, you could just use a different dictionary. Here's what
Oxford says:

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a
belief or proposition is true or valid."

Note it says nothing about *favoring* a thesis, but instead says
*whether* a thesis is true.

HTH but I doubt it.

[eridanus]

I you accept I am not a scientist, which is true, it is not a miracle if
I do not understand the arguments of AGW. I have thus not obligation
whatever to accept the theory.
But someone asked, why some scientist are making propaganda of this theory.

1) they have some reasons to think there is an AGW on the way.
2) they are not reasons to fear AGW and thus is a conspiracy.

Then, no one can take offense if I think the AGW is a bogus theory, for I am
nothing but an ignorant. What must worry you is that some scientist really
believe this is a bogus theory.

But you cannot correct an ignorant by repeating to him thousands of times
the same song. I am of those weird types that get suspicious if there is
a serious insistence repeating the arguments of some theory.

If the proponents of AGW were not so insisting on their alarming cries,
I would had believed the planet is really warming. And I would say, I cannot
see any difference, for sometimes is cold and sometimes is hot. But some
people is saying the planet is warming.

This is the situation. The insistence made me to suspect about AGW, and
specially people here, that has less charisma than a seven days dead cow.

It is because my disputes with you, and your insistence on the AGW theory,
that I decided, let me look for the real data. Then I went to the google
and asked for "videos and articles rejecting AGW" I was for nearly a year
reading papers, and articles and watching graphics to determine as far
as my intelligence would permit me, if the AGW deserved this veneration.

My conclusion is that it was a bogus theory. I can accept alright that
I had arrived a this conclusion because I am ignorant. But at least I
was not driven to accept a theory because some bullies were pushing me.

I arrived to this conclusion on my own limited intelligence. So, nobody
should be alarmed. You can drive a herd by some path. But I am not a
member of a herd. On the other hand, I believe this society is swimming
in a pool of lies. Then, I have some reasons to be suspicious.

eri

[eridanus]

OK, let me check again the Oxford
evidence:
1. Clearness, obviousness,
2. Indication, sign; testimony, facts, in support of, (or for) a conclusion.

The printing of this dictionary is 1979

But do not get intimidated by this definition, it can be wrong.
I would analyze yours. You wrote,

> "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a
> belief or proposition is true or valid."

Let's suppose this is a good definition.
We must look for the word "true".

True,
1. In accordance with fact or reality, nor false or erroneous.
2. In accordance with reason or correct principles, or accepted standard,
rightly so called genuine, not spurious, or genuine or hybrid, or counterfeit,
or merely apparent, having all the attributes implied in the name.

Other points are not related to our argumentation.

Fact and reality is a component of our intelligence and understanding,
that be varied and somewhat in opposition for some interpretations of
reality or facts. I mean, the same facts or the same piece of reality
can have different meaning for some sample of intelligent beings.
In the history of science you can read stories about how some fragment
or reality or a set of data, had changes its meaning, because a minority,
or some individual, presented a different interpretation. After some decades
the different interpretation can be adopted as good and the old one rejected.

But the question of something being erroneous, or false, are key words around
this dispute.
Then, if we take the fragment, <In accordance with reason or correct
principles, or accepted standard>, it bring us to the question of if humans
are fallible or infallible. If we are not infallible, the questions of
reason, correct principles, and accepted standards are hanging by a very thin
thread.

This is why I do not believe in AGW. It seems to me, is not based in correct
principles, or reason, or accepted standards expect by those that are
postulating the theory.

A few days ago, someone asked in quora, (Spanish section) someone asked
"who can say is true that exist god?"
I replied that being true is a psychological estate in which a person
thinks about some statements A, B, or C that they are true. It can be true
that Jesus is the Messiah, that Krishna is the son of Brahma, that Mohammad
is the last prophet sent by Allah, etc.
It can be true that CO2 is heating the planet and we are risking the future
of the planet if we do not stop just now of burning fossil fuels. It can be
true that this is a bogus theory and AGW a pile of lies.
Then, something true or false is engraved in our brains.
Of course, by hearing repeated thousand of times the same arguments we can
believe anything is true.

But other than trivial certainties, many "evidences" are far from being...
"clear and obvious" as the Oxford says. Then, the very nature of the theory
of AGW is far from being obvious and quite clear. Not only for it is a matter
for specialists to check on them, but also because the very dubious
calculations involved present enough reasons to doubt.

Then, the "reason or correct principles, or accepted standard," that Oxford
mentioned, are valid for trivial and well tested questions, and for some
easy experiences of reality. But not for the AGW theory. Not only because
it is very new, and in the limits of our confidence, but also because some
intelligent people are rejecting the theory.
But... if the government is paying you to develop this very theory, nobody
earning the money is going to protest. They are paid precisely for this,
to alarm the population about the consequences of burning fossil fuels.
I am alarmed as well for a different reason. This civilization is what
it looks because is burning fossil fuels. Once the fossil fuels would get
exhausted this civilization would collapse. It would be the worse Armageddon
anyone could imagine. But a warming planet? Nonsense.

eri

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 13:35:06 UTC+3, eridanus wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:20:05 PM UTC+1, John Bode wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:10:05 PM UTC+1, John Bode wrote:
> >
> > [massive snippage, because there's just no point anymore]
> >
> > > > You realize that there are plenty of climate researchers who *aren't*
> > > > American, right? The US Congress doesn't control the purse strings for
> > > > climate researchers in the UK, or Australia, or France, or Germany, or
> > > > Japan, or [fill in the blank].
> > >
> > > The word conspiracy have any meaning to you?
> >
> > Yeah. It means "I'm too ignorant or stupid to understand the actual issue,
> > so I'm going to pretend there's this vast conspiracy that could never
> > actually exist anywhere outside my own imagination."
> >
> > And with that, I am done. I am confident you will be yelling "conspiracy"
> > even after Miami is under water. No data will satisfy you, no analysis
> > will satisfy you, you're goddamned ignorant and proud of it.
> >
> > Enjoy drowning in your own shit, just try not to take us with you when you
> > do.
>
> I you accept I am not a scientist, which is true, it is not a miracle if
> I do not understand the arguments of AGW. I have thus not obligation
> whatever to accept the theory.
> But someone asked, why some scientist are making propaganda of this theory.
>
> 1) they have some reasons to think there is an AGW on the way.
> 2) they are not reasons to fear AGW and thus is a conspiracy.

For me it is fine that you as layman don't believe AGW. Believing secret
societies and conspiracies involving tens of thousands of scientists
internationally? Whatever. Yes there is always whatever close to 0 chance
that we have global crocodile government, Illuminati, aliens and THEM.

>
> Then, no one can take offense if I think the AGW is a bogus theory, for I am
> nothing but an ignorant. What must worry you is that some scientist really
> believe this is a bogus theory.

How can you estimate that there is *even* *one* among those 4% of
researchers who publicly claim that they have doubts about AGW who really
believes that it is a bogus theory? I do not know any people who does not
deliberately mislead others about their actual position (IOW lie) at least
under some circumstances. So ~4% of dishonesty about so politically
and economically loaded question is not worrying at all. On the contrary
unanimity (100% consensus) would make me to suspect something strange.

> But you cannot correct an ignorant by repeating to him thousands of times
> the same song. I am of those weird types that get suspicious if there is
> a serious insistence repeating the arguments of some theory.
>
> If the proponents of AGW were not so insisting on their alarming cries,
> I would had believed the planet is really warming. And I would say, I cannot
> see any difference, for sometimes is cold and sometimes is hot. But some
> people is saying the planet is warming.

I did read the thread where you (as you several times did claim here) was hugely
dogpiled by regulars for three weeks about how running and walking takes
different energy. Burkhard provided a link. *That* thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/6u6gjWq9N-o%5B1-25%5D
Doh? Have government, Illuminati, aliens or THEM altered google groups
archive too?

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <cbbe1eb5-49eb-4022...@googlegroups.com>,

eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:

> > My impression is your dictionary is incorrect. But instead of being
> > pissed off, you could just use a different dictionary. Here's what
> > Oxford says:
> >
> > "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a
> > belief or proposition is true or valid."
> >
> > Note it says nothing about *favoring* a thesis, but instead says
> > *whether* a thesis is true.
>
> OK, let me check again the Oxford
> evidence:
> 1. Clearness, obviousness,

> 2. Indication, sign; testimony, facts, in support of, (or for) a conclusion.

You need to get a better dictionary (oxford makes lots of different
dictionaries, and I suspect you are using an extremely abbreviated one
intended primarily for native speakers who need to double check
spellings, etc.)

A good dictionary would have split (2) into multiple different
subheadings. Yours is conflating legal usage (e.g. 'testimony'),
colloquial usage, and scientific usage, each which should be treated
separately.


<snip>

> But other than trivial certainties, many "evidences" are far from being...
> "clear and obvious" as the Oxford says.

This is an entirely separate meaning unrelated to what is being
discussed here -- to whit, the nominal form of the adjective 'evident'.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[eridanus]

There are not secret societies apparently. But to lie for political purposes
is something rather trivial. It is mostly the raison d'être of politicians.
In this sense, all leadership team is some sort of secret society.

> > Then, no one can take offense if I think the AGW is a bogus theory, for I am
> > nothing but an ignorant. What must worry you is that some scientist really
> > believe this is a bogus theory.
>
> How can you estimate that there is *even* *one* among those 4% of
> researchers who publicly claim that they have doubts about AGW who really
> believes that it is a bogus theory? I do not know any people who does not
> deliberately mislead others about their actual position (IOW lie) at least
> under some circumstances. So ~4% of dishonesty about so politically
> and economically loaded question is not worrying at all. On the contrary
> unanimity (100% consensus) would make me to suspect something strange.

This case is not different to a religion. Most people is subordinate to
others, and are obliged to the money that paid (the funds) given to
universities, a part of which is meant to sustain the alarm of AGW.

If you are a doctor of something and start to blaspheme against AGW
the dean of the university would call you up and make you to swallow
your heretical words and ordered you to recant. It is amazing you
would do not understand how a university works. Once the bosses had
decided something is true, nobody is going to risk a challenge to the
"revealed truth". This is not different to any church. You must keep
a profile within the limits of some orthodoxy.
Then, it is not a question of believing or not believing. It is a question
of showing a respect for hierarchy and for the money that is feeding your
university and your work, or the work of some of your colleagues.

> > But you cannot correct an ignorant by repeating to him thousands of times
> > the same song. I am of those weird types that get suspicious if there is
> > a serious insistence repeating the arguments of some theory.
> >
> > If the proponents of AGW were not so insisting on their alarming cries,
> > I would had believed the planet is really warming. And I would say, I cannot
> > see any difference, for sometimes is cold and sometimes is hot. But some
> > people is saying the planet is warming.
>
> I did read the thread where you (as you several times did claim here) was hugely
> dogpiled by regulars for three weeks about how running and walking takes
> different energy. Burkhard provided a link. *That* thread:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/6u6gjWq9N-o%5B1-25%5D
> Doh? Have government, Illuminati, aliens or THEM altered google groups
> archive too?

What interest had I at looking for this link? I had experienced this
and I do not care if you believe my words or not. I just mentioned this
because I am still offended with this argument,

The dispute about walking a mile or running a mile occurred a couple of years ago. Why was I going to look for this link? To prove what?

eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:20:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:20:05 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:25:37 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>> <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:
>>
>> >On 7/30/17 8:52 AM, eridanus wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> [re AGW]
>>
>> >> I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
>> >> more skeptical than most people here.
>>
>> >You are as closed-minded as the most closed-minded people in this group.
>> > You have as much as said so yourself.
>>
>> That's apparently what "skepticism" means to him: Rejection
>> of anything he disbelieves, regardless of evidence.
>
>Look in a good dictionary the meaning of evidence.

oxforddictionaries.com good enough for you? Here's the
primary definition there:

"The available body of facts or information indicating
whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Nothing there about unsupported testimony, i.e. "opinion".

>It means testimony or data presented in favor of a thesis or a
>conclusion. Then, evidences can be false. There is nothing that
>stop evidences being false.

Science doesn't operate that way. Evidence which cannot be
verified by independent test or observation isn't considered
evidence at all.

>I am rather pissed off that most people here love to present the word
>"evidence" as it would have a sound meaning.

"Objective evidence" does have a sound meaning, and it's
objective evidence which science uses. Your concept that
scientifically-acceptable evidence includes any unsupported
testimony doesn't fly.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 03:31:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:20:05 PM UTC+1, John Bode wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 1:15:05 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
>> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:10:05 PM UTC+1, John Bode wrote:
>>
>> [massive snippage, because there's just no point anymore]
>>
>> > > You realize that there are plenty of climate researchers who *aren't*
>> > > American, right? The US Congress doesn't control the purse strings for
>> > > climate researchers in the UK, or Australia, or France, or Germany, or
>> > > Japan, or [fill in the blank].
>> >
>> > The word conspiracy have any meaning to you?
>>
>> Yeah. It means "I'm too ignorant or stupid to understand the actual issue,
>> so I'm going to pretend there's this vast conspiracy that could never
>> actually exist anywhere outside my own imagination."
>>
>> And with that, I am done. I am confident you will be yelling "conspiracy"
>> even after Miami is under water. No data will satisfy you, no analysis
>> will satisfy you, you're goddamned ignorant and proud of it.
>>
>> Enjoy drowning in your own shit, just try not to take us with you when you
>> do.
>
>I you accept I am not a scientist, which is true, it is not a miracle if
>I do not understand the arguments of AGW. I have thus not obligation
>whatever to accept the theory.

Just curious...

Does that apply to *every* field of knowledge you don't
understand? Electronics? Geology? Particle physics?

Whether it does or not, if you don't understand it, how do
you determine whether or not to accept it as valid? Personal
bias? Do you realize that refusing to accept data which has
been verified by large numbers of competent people just
because you don't like it is somewhat less than rational?

[eridanus]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:30:05 PM UTC+1, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <cbbe1eb5-49eb-4022...@googlegroups.com>,
> eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 9:10:03 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>
> > > My impression is your dictionary is incorrect. But instead of being
> > > pissed off, you could just use a different dictionary. Here's what
> > > Oxford says:
> > >
> > > "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a
> > > belief or proposition is true or valid."
> > >
> > > Note it says nothing about *favoring* a thesis, but instead says
> > > *whether* a thesis is true.
> >
> > OK, let me check again the Oxford
> > evidence:
> > 1. Clearness, obviousness,
>
> > 2. Indication, sign; testimony, facts, in support of, (or for) a conclusion.
>
> You need to get a better dictionary (oxford makes lots of different
> dictionaries, and I suspect you are using an extremely abbreviated one
> intended primarily for native speakers who need to double check
> spellings, etc.)
>
> A good dictionary would have split (2) into multiple different
> subheadings. Yours is conflating legal usage (e.g. 'testimony'),
> colloquial usage, and scientific usage, each which should be treated
> separately.

In science, a theoretical presentation is a testimony. It is assumed the
author of the paper and its companions share the arguments presented and
assume they are good, and presume other scientists reading the paper
would get convinced as it is presumed they are. Then, the arguments of
a theory or any other scientific argument is presumed to be good, and
acceptable. But not all readers of this paper would get convinced that
the argumentation is good. If those not convinced would react in public
or not, it is another question altogether. For it exist some protocols
by which is considered taboo to criticize the papers of other colleagues.
Or at least the criticism is done among trusted friends.

Then, in practice, a scientific paper, starting a theory, or propping up
a theory is technically a testimony. You can call it a scientific testimony
if you want. But these evidences, are like other evidences, they have the
possibility of being false, if not totally, at least in part.
That's all. How can you adopt this position that not any scientific theory
can be wrong?

> <snip>
>
> > But other than trivial certainties, many "evidences" are far from being...
> > "clear and obvious" as the Oxford says.
>
> This is an entirely separate meaning unrelated to what is being
> discussed here -- to whit, the nominal form of the adjective 'evident'.

<For evidences to be clear and obvious is paramount.> If they are not, they
are not evidences, but suspicions or intuitions.

I cannot understand in which universities or collages you were studying.
You do not show any hint of having a scientific mind.
Eri

[jillery]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 04:33:13 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

I am skeptical that Oxford would claim such a large change in meaning
in that period of time. Oxford Online gives a definition for
"evident" very similar to your hardcopy definition for "evidence". It
would be easy to misread the small type typical of printed unabridged
dictionaries. Please double-check yourself.

This is why I am skeptical of your explanation. It seems to me, you
could as easily apply it to any material concept, ex. evolution. That
you don't suggests you think there is a difference, but you don't want
to state it explicitly.

Once again, that someone *could* be corrupt, or wrong, is not evidence
they are. You repeat illogical lines of reasoning. Why is that?

>> HTH but I doubt it.

And so you reaffirm my doubts.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 03:31:23 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>I do not understand the arguments of AGW.

How can you conclude that something is wrong if you do not even
understand it?

[...]

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 14:00:49 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

>What about the dispute we had with Johnathan, when he presented the case
>of the casted blocks of the pyramid? It was evident by the pictures that
>some blocks looked like casted in situ.

It was not at all*evident*and that was explained in detail.

>Most members of this group were
>harassing the man as he were a mental retarded.

People here generally only treat Jonathan like a mental retard when he
behaves like a mental retard which, unfortunately, is all too often.

> And no one showed he was
>on his side.

Why on earth should anyone take his side when he was wrong?

>This attitude is typical of fanatics.

No, the attitude is typical of people who, when it is clear that
someone is wrong, will not let them continue being wrong just to be
nice to them which is what you seem to be arguing should have been
done with Jonathan.

[Ernest Major]

In general I think it would be fair to reject something that you don't
understand if it makes predictions which are contradicted by
observation. (For example, I don't understand* Ray's argument that
microevolution does not occur, but it is clearly falsified by
observations of microevolution occurring.)

But in this specific case Eridanus doesn't have that option. (He has
tried the CO2 lags warming during deglaciation argument; it's only
recently he tied himself to the mast of alleged fraud.) And he is so
wedded to his conclusion that he won't accept the basic physics of
radiative heat transfer.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <06c344dc-f271-4873...@googlegroups.com>,

No, it is a theoretical presentation. Testimonies exist primarily in law
and religion (and possibly rap music).

> It is assumed the
> author of the paper and its companions share the arguments presented and
> assume they are good, and presume other scientists reading the paper
> would get convinced as it is presumed they are. Then, the arguments of
> a theory or any other scientific argument is presumed to be good, and
> acceptable. But not all readers of this paper would get convinced that
> the argumentation is good. If those not convinced would react in public
> or not, it is another question altogether. For it exist some protocols
> by which is considered taboo to criticize the papers of other colleagues.
> Or at least the criticism is done among trusted friends.
>
> Then, in practice, a scientific paper, starting a theory, or propping up
> a theory is technically a testimony. You can call it a scientific testimony
> if you want. But these evidences, are like other evidences, they have the
> possibility of being false, if not totally, at least in part.
> That's all. How can you adopt this position that not any scientific theory
> can be wrong?
>
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > But other than trivial certainties, many "evidences" are far from
> > > being...
> > > "clear and obvious" as the Oxford says.
> >
> > This is an entirely separate meaning unrelated to what is being
> > discussed here -- to whit, the nominal form of the adjective 'evident'.
>
> <For evidences to be clear and obvious is paramount.> If they are not, they
> are not evidences, but suspicions or intuitions.

You miss my point entirely. My point is that meaning (1) is an entirely
different dictionary entry in the same way that (automotive)
'transmission' and (radio) 'transmission' would be different entries. It
isn't germane to the discussion at all.

> I cannot understand in which universities or collages you were studying.
> You do not show any hint of having a scientific mind.

Well, the point I was making here had to do with lexicography, not
science. I am simply pointing out that you are using a dictionary which
conflates different usages. Different dictionaries are designed with
different purposes in mind, and the one you are using is not a
particularly good source for detailed definitions.

[John Bode]

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:

[massive snippage]

>
> I have not any purpose to deny any theory. It only happens that I am a lot
> more skeptical than most people here.

More "contrarian" than "skeptical", but okay.

> There is not even today a technology to land any automatic
> machine on the moon to make photos like similar machines in Mars.

Sure there is - the Chang'e 3 mission launched by China back in 2013. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_3

for an overview. A gallery of photos from the mission is at

http://spaceflight101.com/change/change-3-mission-gallery/

The US did it, the Soviets did it, and now the Chinese have done it.

[Öö Tiib]

I do not see what you mean. Any organization consisting of humans has
risk to leak information, either deliberately or by accident. The larger
the organization is the more probably it will leak something sooner rather
than later and attract attention with it and so make paparazzi to sniff
around in search of sensation. So it must be some magical organization.
Illuminati, aliens, THEM ... you see.

>
>
> > > Then, no one can take offense if I think the AGW is a bogus theory, for I am
> > > nothing but an ignorant. What must worry you is that some scientist really
> > > believe this is a bogus theory.
> >
> > How can you estimate that there is *even* *one* among those 4% of
> > researchers who publicly claim that they have doubts about AGW who really
> > believes that it is a bogus theory? I do not know any people who does not
> > deliberately mislead others about their actual position (IOW lie) at least
> > under some circumstances. So ~4% of dishonesty about so politically
> > and economically loaded question is not worrying at all. On the contrary
> > unanimity (100% consensus) would make me to suspect something strange.
>
> This case is not different to a religion. Most people is subordinate to
> others, and are obliged to the money that paid (the funds) given to
> universities, a part of which is meant to sustain the alarm of AGW.
>
> If you are a doctor of something and start to blaspheme against AGW
> the dean of the university would call you up and make you to swallow
> your heretical words and ordered you to recant.

But why? May be doctor did really *first* discover some factor or defect in
calculations that no one else discovered? It would make the university
world famous thru such publications. Science (like everything where humans
are involved) has indeed also some inertia but it lacks any set down
dogmas, heretics, blasphemy and doctrines.

> It is amazing you would do not understand how a university works.

You really have lot of experience how universities work? I have had
impression that your education was from parochial school that you did
hate. Sorry if I was wrong.

> Once the bosses had
> decided something is true, nobody is going to risk a challenge to the
> "revealed truth". This is not different to any church. You must keep
> a profile within the limits of some orthodoxy.
> Then, it is not a question of believing or not believing. It is a question
> of showing a respect for hierarchy and for the money that is feeding your
> university and your work, or the work of some of your colleagues.

In my experience all universities are strong in traditions when the
material under hand is classical like for example classical physics,
chemistry or mathematics. In new research they want to be revolutionary
and groundbreaking like every scientific organization wants to. So very
same professor can be ruthless about some typo in mathematical formula and
liberal about some interesting new idea.

>
> > > But you cannot correct an ignorant by repeating to him thousands of times
> > > the same song. I am of those weird types that get suspicious if there is
> > > a serious insistence repeating the arguments of some theory.
> > >
> > > If the proponents of AGW were not so insisting on their alarming cries,
> > > I would had believed the planet is really warming. And I would say, I cannot
> > > see any difference, for sometimes is cold and sometimes is hot. But some
> > > people is saying the planet is warming.
> >
> > I did read the thread where you (as you several times did claim here) was hugely
> > dogpiled by regulars for three weeks about how running and walking takes
> > different energy. Burkhard provided a link. *That* thread:
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/6u6gjWq9N-o%5B1-25%5D
> > Doh? Have government, Illuminati, aliens or THEM altered google groups
> > archive too?
>
> What interest had I at looking for this link? I had experienced this
> and I do not care if you believe my words or not. I just mentioned this
> because I am still offended with this argument,
>
> The dispute about walking a mile or running a mile occurred a couple of years ago. Why was I going to look for this link? To prove what?

What? I just wanted to communicate that I can no way observe there the
events what you describe. It looked usual thread where people miss each
other points like they always do. Most importantly in my view no one
argued there that energy efficiency of humans is somehow same at
different speeds or movement modes. I do not say that you are lying.
You interpret the world like you interpret it and remember like you
remember it. The experience that each of us has is largely of our own
making. We put three persons into exact same situation and one may
perceive it as adventurous other as terribly frightening and third as
boring and uninteresting and no one of them is necessarily lying.

[Ernest Major]

One wonders why he thinks that it's easier to reach and land on Mars
than to reach and land on the Moon. The Moon has a lower gravity, and
lacks and atmosphere. (The Martian atmosphere is too thin for parachutes
to be useful, but thick enough that winds could be a problem.)

He presumably thinks that Lunakhod is a Soviet hoax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

--
alias Ernest Major

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 22:06:38 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

The same way Ray concludes that evolutionary theory is
wrong, and that evolution doesn't occur. And apparently for
much the same reason.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:53:56 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/07/922200-tired-wrong-climate-alarmists-move-doomsday-next-century/
>
>a fragment of the article
>

>After noting that “climate change seems to be taking a break,” von Storch had

>this to say about the models:
>
> “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will
>need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate

>models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled

>scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual
>temperature trends with our expectations.”
>

>He followed that up with this after being asked what might be wrong with the
>models:
>
> There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for
>us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected
>because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have
>assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but
>simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed.
>The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how
>much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
>
>take it with a glass of wine.

On the day that America gives formal notice of its intention to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement, scientists warn that annual deaths
in Europe due to heat will increase five fold to 150,000. Eridanus and
his ilk prefer to go with Trump rather than the professionals who
actually know what they are talking about.

https://www.rte.ie/news/enviroment/2017/0805/895402-weather-science/