On 18/11/2021 18:11, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 14:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.
Because usually you lose, which is not surprising, because you're
another adopter of conspiracy theories.
It is not a competition.
People are allowed to have opinions that don't
align with yours.
On 18/11/2021 13:56, Spike wrote:
On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
such an environment.
The naivety shown by Java Jive is astounding.
The naivety shown by you in thinking you can win an argument without presenting relevant an realistic *EVIDENCE* is astounding; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
abusing the winner.
It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
institutions
*EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese
Government. All businesses in China are required by law to deliver
to the Chinese Government any information asked for. That is one of
the reasons why Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.
There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military
in such an environment.
Jim
You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse, fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him.
That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.
On 18/11/2021 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 13:55, Spike wrote:
On 18/11/2021 11:42, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
Ah! So you HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE.
I've supported my case, you're the one with 'the case', but you have yet
to support it with any convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put
up or shut up.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
abusing the winner.
It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is not a competition.
It is for Java Jive, that's why he posted details of his 'good sci-tech degree', the sci part being Science 101.
People are allowed to have opinions that don't
align with yours.
Java Jive is having difficulty with that concept.
On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
align with yours, hence the comment above.
Then why the resorting to abuse?
It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
On 19/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is not a competition.
It is for Java Jive, that's why he posted details of his 'good
sci-tech degree', the sci part being Science 101.
We're still waiting to hear of your probably non-existent
qualifications.
On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
abusing the winner.
It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but
I thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed
himself to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following extensive interchanges with several contributors, he
shifted his ground, he went on the attack with a barrage of
assertions, ad-homs, abuse, fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of false authority, and in essence,
demands that we prove his case for him. That's not how science
works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.
On 19/11/2021 09:57, Spike wrote:
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
On 19/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
As anyone re-reading the thread can see, I have based my claims upon *EVIDENCE*, whereas you've never been able to back your claims with any convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of your lab-leak claim, put up or shut up.
On 12:25 18 Nov 2021, Indy Jess John said:
There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military
in such an environment.
That's true but it does not mean there are only military institutions
in China. It means civilian institutions are supervised (and
occasionally controlled) by the state.
The Chinese state can wield control by other means than the military.
For example through local committees of the communist party, the
police, etc.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
As anyone re-reading the thread can see, I have based my claims upon
*EVIDENCE*, whereas you've never been able to back your claims with any
convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of your lab-leak
claim, put up or shut up.
Nature has both sides of the argument well written up. I’m not sure there’s
more to add,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3
On 18/11/2021 22:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't >>>> align with yours, hence the comment above.
Then why the resorting to abuse?
It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.
It's an abusive opinion = abuse.
Perhaps the way I respond to you has
something to do with the way you persist in believing in some absurd and laughably improbable conspiracy theories against all rational evidence
to the contrary?
On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.
And what are your qualifications exactly? Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* for your
claims, put up or shut up.
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability" position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
abusing the winner.
It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse, fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him. That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.
On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding
of false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case
for him.
Hyposhite! Stop trying to lie yourself out of losing an argument.
To summarise in one sentence, all along you have claimed a lab-leak,
but have never been able to produce convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up
this claim; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal >>> experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
circumstances at the time.
I have snipped the non-sequitur bollocks you spouted below.
Jim
On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal >>> experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
circumstances at the time.
"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few
personal experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual
information.
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
circumstances at the time.
I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have
spoken with - are either lying or have been mislead.
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal >>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
circumstances at the time.
I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
with - are either lying or have been mislead.
On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal >>>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information. >>>
circumstances at the time.
I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
with - are either lying or have been mislead.
xposting trimmed
In article <ivpn3dFiakjU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
abusing the winner.
It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following
extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him.
That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.
Erm, Someone who'd taken and understood "Science 101" would spot that the above is evidence-free wrt the assertion about a lab-leak as source and didn't answer Pamela's question. Instead it is just an attack which is perhaps more typical of a 4th-form debating society's playbook.
I think it likely that trying to get any sense from 'Spike' is a waste of time.
On 19/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
And what are your qualifications exactly? Amongst many other things, my
degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* for your
claims, put up or shut up.
Just because *YOU* jumped in unbidden with *BOASTS* about your qualifications, such as they are, doesn't mean that others have to come
down to your level.
On 19/11/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 22:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that
don't
align with yours, hence the comment above.
Then why the resorting to abuse?
It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.
It's an abusive opinion = abuse.
It isn't. But your view that it is suggests that there is at least an element of truth in my opinion. The following is an excessive argument
too, so perhaps I have touched a raw nerve?
Perhaps the way I respond to you has
something to do with the way you persist in believing in some absurd and
laughably improbable conspiracy theories against all rational evidence
to the contrary?
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability" position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
That's where I came in to the thread, but Java Jive seemed to be very sensitive about alternatives to the wet-market issue, and for reasons
best known to himself keeps asking others to provide 'evidence';
although something must have turned up, since he's watered down his
original claims.
"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few
personal experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual
information.
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
circumstances at the time.
I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have
spoken with - are either lying or have been mislead.
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the
flu and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
with - are either lying or have been mislead.
"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the flu
and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 22:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
It's an abusive opinion = abuse.
On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that
don't
align with yours, hence the comment above.
Then why the resorting to abuse?
It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me. >>>
It isn't. But your view that it is suggests that there is at least an
element of truth in my opinion. The following is an excessive argument
too, so perhaps I have touched a raw nerve?
No, you're just continuing the abuse, while trying to claim that you aren't.
Perhaps the way I respond to you has
something to do with the way you persist in believing in some absurd and >>> laughably improbable conspiracy theories against all rational evidence
to the contrary?
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
On 20:28 19 Nov 2021, Alexander said:
"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few
personal experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual
information.
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
circumstances at the time.
I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have
spoken with - are either lying or have been mislead.
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the
flu and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?
Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
foil when I use the computer?
On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
abusing the winner.
It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following >extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse, >fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him. >That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.
On 19/11/2021 15:35, Spike wrote:
On 19/11/2021 14:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
That's where I came in to the thread, but Java Jive seemed to be very
sensitive about alternatives to the wet-market issue, and for reasons
best known to himself keeps asking others to provide 'evidence';
although something must have turned up, since he's watered down his
original claims.
That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was
a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak
from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.
On 19/11/2021 15:33, Spike wrote:
On 19/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
And what are your qualifications exactly? Amongst many other things, my >>> degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* for your
claims, put up or shut up.
Just because *YOU* jumped in unbidden with *BOASTS* about your
qualifications, such as they are, doesn't mean that others have to come
down to your level.
You were already way below my level, doubting my ability because you
couldn't find a rational argument against what I was posting; so, seeing
as you started this stupidity, what are your qualifications exactly?
Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*;
let's see *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up or shut up.
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
"balance of probability" can justify.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 21:40:23 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20:28 19 Nov 2021, Alexander said:
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the
flu and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?
Ah Ha, that's where the chips have gone that new cars need. Shrewd
operator is Bill Gates, less cars, less global warming, more goody
points he gets.
Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
foil when I use the computer?
On 19/11/2021 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was
a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons
research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in
China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak
from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible
explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply
typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.
*COBBLERS*
On 19/11/2021 21:31, Java Jive wrote:
Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*;
let's see *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up or shut up.
*YOU* made the case. *YOU* provide the evidence.
JJ maybe correct. A report published in Science and*referred* to in
the Gruniad https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/first-covid-patient-in-wuhan-was-at-animal-market-study-finds
supports his postulate.
On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
"balance of probability" can justify.
That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against all rational evidence to the contrary".
On 20/11/2021 09:17, Spike wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:31, Java Jive wrote:
Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*;
let's see *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up or shut up.
*YOU* made the case. *YOU* provide the evidence.
*YOU* made the claims that the pandemic was caused by a lab-leak. *YOU* provide the evidence for that claim.
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the flu
and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
All conspiracy theorists had to do was tell you a load of dangerously
stupid lies and you believed them.
What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?
Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
foil when I use the computer?
xposting trimmed
In article <sn962g$rc5$2@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the
flu and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
All conspiracy theorists had to do was tell you a load of
dangerously stupid lies and you believed them.
You're assuming he believes anything he writes. (ahem) I've not seen
any evidence of that...
So far as I can tell his postings could simply be from a bored
no-mates 12 year old who wants to be the center of attention. Of
course I have no 'evidence' of this beyond it being compatable with
his behaviour here. ...So he might be older. :-)
And in fairness, some 12 year olds are well educated and smart, and
able to learn.
Jim
On 20/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was >>> a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons >>> research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in
China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak
from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible
explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply >>> typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.
*COBBLERS*
Your posting record above says otherwise, and still no *EVIDENCE* for a lab-leak, where is your *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
On 20/11/2021 11:06, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was >>>> a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons >>>> research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in >>>> China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak >>>> from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible
explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply >>>> typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.
*COBBLERS*
Your posting record above says otherwise, and still no *EVIDENCE* for a
lab-leak, where is your *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
I can see why you're so touchy and defensive.
This was part of your *VERY* *FIRST* *POST* in this thread:
Java Jive: "...finding the actual path of the virus to Wuhan from
wherever it actually originated on some remote farm or rural community".
So, no prejudgement there then. No wonder you turned to ad-homs and
abuse when your prejudgement was questioned.
What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?
Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
foil when I use the computer?
Interestinly in today's Times, there is a review of a book that makes
strong case for a lab leak. (not military, just an investigation of a
strange virus)
On 20/11/2021 11:25, charles wrote:
Interestinly in today's Times, there is a review of a book that makes
strong case for a lab leak. (not military, just an investigation of a
strange virus)
Link?
On 20/11/2021 11:06, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:41, Java Jive wrote:
That is a lie - you tried to claim that there was evidence that it was >>>> a lab-leak, and further by posting links to cold-war Russian bio-weapons >>>> research tried to imply that it was a lab-leak from similar research in >>>> China. As I've explained now many times, even just a careless lab-leak >>>> from a benign institution is the least likely amongst the possible
explanations, while the bio-weapons idea is so unlikely that it's simply >>>> typically absurd conspiracy theory nonsense.
*COBBLERS*
Your posting record above says otherwise, and still no *EVIDENCE* for a
lab-leak, where is your *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
I can see why you're so touchy and defensive.
This was part of your *VERY* *FIRST* *POST* in this thread:
Java Jive: "...finding the actual path of the virus to Wuhan from
wherever it actually originated on some remote farm or rural community".
So, no prejudgement there then. No wonder you turned to ad-homs and
abuse when your prejudgement was questioned.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:25, charles wrote:
Interestinly in today's Times, there is a review of a book that
makes strong case for a lab leak. (not military, just an
investigation of a strange virus)
Link?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/viral-by-alina-chan-and- matt-ridley-review-s7hqgkdmf?shareToken=
44a6e12d056454f92b06532467550633
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:58:30 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:06, Java Jive wrote:
Your posting record above says otherwise, and still no *EVIDENCE* for a
lab-leak, where is your *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
I can see why you're so touchy and defensive.
This was part of your *VERY* *FIRST* *POST* in this thread:
Java Jive: "...finding the actual path of the virus to Wuhan from
wherever it actually originated on some remote farm or rural community".
So, no prejudgement there then. No wonder you turned to ad-homs and
abuse when your prejudgement was questioned.
do you really suppose he will admit is errors?
his ego is more important to him
In article <snajm8$jp0$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/11/2021 09:17, Spike wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:31, Java Jive wrote:
Amongst many other things, my degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*;
let's see *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up or shut up.
*YOU* made the case. *YOU* provide the evidence.
*YOU* made the claims that the pandemic was caused by a lab-leak. *YOU* provide the evidence for that claim.
Interestinly in today's Times, there is a review of a book that makes
strong case for a lab leak. (not military, just an investigation of a
strange virus)
On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are aiming at
On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
"balance of probability" can justify.
That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against all
rational evidence to the contrary".
a wrong target.
What I said was
<quote>
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability" position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
<end quote>
I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
On 20/11/2021 15:47, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:58:30 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:06, Java Jive wrote:
Your posting record above says otherwise, and still no *EVIDENCE* for a >>>> lab-leak, where is your *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
I can see why you're so touchy and defensive.
This was part of your *VERY* *FIRST* *POST* in this thread:
Java Jive: "...finding the actual path of the virus to Wuhan from
wherever it actually originated on some remote farm or rural community". >>>
So, no prejudgement there then. No wonder you turned to ad-homs and
abuse when your prejudgement was questioned.
do you really suppose he will admit is errors?
It wasn't an error, it was a statement of the generally accepted
scientific view.
his ego is more important to him
Whereas yours is so important to you that, despite having nothing to >contribute to rational debate and nothing worthy of the term
'communication' to say, you just can't bear to be ignored, so instead
you waste everyone's time by making castrated remarks impotently
directed at other people. As the great American satirist Tom Lehrer
once remarked: "I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very
least he can do is to shut up!"
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:25, charles wrote:
Interestinly in today's Times, there is a review of a book that makes
strong case for a lab leak. (not military, just an investigation of a
strange virus)
Link?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/viral-by-alina-chan-and-matt-ridley-review-s7hqgkdmf?shareToken=44a6e12d056454f92b06532467550633
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:20:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/11/2021 15:47, abelard wrote:
his ego is more important to him
Whereas yours is so important to you that, despite having nothing to
contribute to rational debate and nothing worthy of the term
'communication' to say, you just can't bear to be ignored, so instead
you waste everyone's time by making castrated remarks impotently
directed at other people. As the great American satirist Tom Lehrer
once remarked: "I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very
least he can do is to shut up!"
my comment was not directed to you
On 20/11/2021 18:57, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:20:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/11/2021 15:47, abelard wrote:
his ego is more important to him
Whereas yours is so important to you that, despite having nothing to
contribute to rational debate and nothing worthy of the term
'communication' to say, you just can't bear to be ignored, so instead
you waste everyone's time by making castrated remarks impotently
directed at other people. As the great American satirist Tom Lehrer
once remarked: "I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very
least he can do is to shut up!"
my comment was not directed to you
However, it seemed to be directed about me, which gives me right of
response.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 19:54:15 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
However, it seemed to be directed about me, which gives me right of
response.
you are interesting as a subject...
On 20/11/2021 11:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are aiming at
On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
"balance of probability" can justify.
That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against all
rational evidence to the contrary".
a wrong target.
What I said was
<quote>
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
<end quote>
I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
It is true that you didn't mention bio-weapons specifically, but see your posts quoted below, which show a clear signal of subscribing to
conspiracy theories about a lab-leak origin of covid, and further a suggestion that perhaps military work was being undertaken at what is actually a civilian institution
On 20/11/2021 17:34, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are aiming at >>> a wrong target.
On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what >>>>> "balance of probability" can justify.
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against all >>>> rational evidence to the contrary".
What I said was
<quote>
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.
<end quote>
I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
It is true that you didn't mention bio-weapons specifically, but see your
posts quoted below, which show a clear signal of subscribing to
conspiracy theories about a lab-leak origin of covid, and further a
suggestion that perhaps military work was being undertaken at what is
actually a civilian institution
Not so. I didn't say I subscribed to any particular point of view.
On 20/11/2021 22:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 17:34, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are aiming at >>>> a wrong target.
On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what >>>>>> "balance of probability" can justify.
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against all >>>>> rational evidence to the contrary".
What I said was
<quote>
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability" >>>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer. >>>> <end quote>
I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
It is true that you didn't mention bio-weapons specifically, but see your >>> posts quoted below, which show a clear signal of subscribing to
conspiracy theories about a lab-leak origin of covid, and further a
suggestion that perhaps military work was being undertaken at what is
actually a civilian institution
Not so. I didn't say I subscribed to any particular point of view.
The quotes I gave strongly suggest an adherence to a particular
conspiracy point of view, and I don't think I need to be lectured on
'The Scientific Method' by a climate denialist either.
On 10:06 20 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:
xposting trimmed
In article <sn962g$rc5$2@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the
flu and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
All conspiracy theorists had to do was tell you a load of
dangerously stupid lies and you believed them.
You're assuming he believes anything he writes. (ahem) I've not seen
any evidence of that...
So far as I can tell his postings could simply be from a bored
no-mates 12 year old who wants to be the center of attention. Of
course I have no 'evidence' of this beyond it being compatable with
his behaviour here. ...So he might be older. :-)
And in fairness, some 12 year olds are well educated and smart, and
able to learn.
Jim
You're right that his posts seem so surreal that he couldn't possibly
beleive what he says.
On the other hand, there are some deeply troubled individuals out
there who live in an alternate reality to the rest of society.
xposting trimmed
In article <XnsADE7DC789D2F37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela ><pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
What do we do about Bill Gates' microchips that came in the vaccine?
Is it true they communicate with Windows 10? Should I wrap myself in
foil when I use the computer?
I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now having >'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate what sorts of >machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
Jim
You're right that his posts seem so surreal that he couldn't possibly >beleive what he says.
On the other hand, there are some deeply troubled individuals out
there who live in an alternate reality to the rest of society.
Oddly in another group his posts were always sensible.
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.
In article <6a6kpgdudi283vltq2bsaabdtiocujh741@4ax.com>,
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
You're right that his posts seem so surreal that he couldn't possibly
beleive what he says.
On the other hand, there are some deeply troubled individuals out
there who live in an alternate reality to the rest of society.
Oddly in another group his posts were always sensible.
Which group is that?
I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now
having 'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate
what sorts of machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
Jim
If Microsoft doesn't either relax their system requirements for Windows
11 or extend their support for existing Windows 10 installations, 2025
might be the year I'm finally pushed over the edge and decide to abandon Windows entirely. I'm ready when they are.
In article <dg6kpgp42ohg7hvkf304ggs83gkl7qea16@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now
having 'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate
what sorts of machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
Jim
If Microsoft doesn't either relax their system requirements for Windows
11 or extend their support for existing Windows 10 installations, 2025
might be the year I'm finally pushed over the edge and decide to abandon
Windows entirely. I'm ready when they are.
I always thought it was a poor OS and a PITA to use. So only ever used it when it was unavoidable. Until Ubuntu's impact on the experience of newbies to Linux I could understand why many preferred doze - particularly when habituated to it by work requirements or school. But from a few years after the impact of Ubuntu I've become baffled why so many stay captive to doze. Maybe it is acclimatisation and the need to have 'industry standard'
software as driven by the way MS behave wrt application software. Which has often made information transfer hard to do between platforms.
I guess the reality is that well over 90% of desktop/laptop computer users are actually simply users of Word/Excel/etc with no real grasp of more general computing let alone programming. Trained at school or office, not educated about computing more generally. Magic box effect. Similar to
'phone' users who have no idea how it works provided they know how to use
it and the 'apps'.
Jim
xposting trimmed
In article<sncuts$9l8$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.
It is certainly correct to say that many factors affect/change climate. And that many aren't 'man made'. That's one reason I keep recommending the book about the topic that I've mentioned at times.
I can't be certain off-hand, but it may help you resolve your question. One of its aims is to help people 'untangle' understanding the various climate drivers, etc. Both man-made and 'natural'.
Jim
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
On 21/11/2021 00:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 22:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 17:34, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are
On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what >>>>>>> "balance of probability" can justify.
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against >>>>>> all
rational evidence to the contrary".
aiming at
a wrong target.
What I said was
<quote>
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability" >>>>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible
answer.
<end quote>
I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
It is true that you didn't mention bio-weapons specifically, but see
your
posts quoted below, which show a clear signal of subscribing to
conspiracy theories about a lab-leak origin of covid, and further a
suggestion that perhaps military work was being undertaken at what is
actually a civilian institution
Not so. I didn't say I subscribed to any particular point of view.
The quotes I gave strongly suggest an adherence to a particular
conspiracy point of view, and I don't think I need to be lectured on
'The Scientific Method' by a climate denialist either.
You do, because you are a closed mind and therefore an irrelevant
irritation to those who are not.
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.
If you continue with your "my way or the wrong way" attitude, you will continue to be seen as less of a guru and more of an obsessive. That is
your loss, not mine.
On 21/11/2021 12:09, Tweed wrote:
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no otherI think some Linux distros are now sufficiently manageable at scale. The problem is that "at scale" implies a large user population, all of which
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of >> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
are familiar with the OS currently provided by the company, and the
training overhead of getting used to different a system appearance and different terminology in error messages is too big an overhead for most businesses which need to remain functional and profitable businesses.
Jim
Indy Jess John<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 12:09, Tweed wrote:
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no otherI think some Linux distros are now sufficiently manageable at scale. The
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central >>> IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of >>> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
problem is that "at scale" implies a large user population, all of which
are familiar with the OS currently provided by the company, and the
training overhead of getting used to different a system appearance and
different terminology in error messages is too big an overhead for most
businesses which need to remain functional and profitable businesses.
Jim
Not manageable at scale including the applications business demands. Very large companies, which know the cost of everything in detail, and pay huge sums to Microsoft each year, have shown no interest whatsoever in switching to Linux on the desktop.
And that's exactly how a computer to be used as a tool to get run of the
mill tasks done should be.
And as to programming, that's utterly irrelevant to most of the
population.
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a
central IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at
scale.
On 21/11/2021 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
xposting trimmed
In article<sncuts$9l8$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the
drivers of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently
modelled, and look forward to further research which might explain
why the start of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of
centuries of abnormally high temperatures, even before mankind
evolved.
It is certainly correct to say that many factors affect/change
climate. And that many aren't 'man made'. That's one reason I keep recommending the book about the topic that I've mentioned at times.
I bought the book and am part way through it, but real life has a habit
of eating into my reading time.
On 21/11/2021 12:09, Tweed wrote:
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a
central IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at
scale.
I think some Linux distros are now sufficiently manageable at scale. The problem is that "at scale" implies a large user population, all of
which are familiar with the OS currently provided by the company, and
the training overhead of getting used to different a system appearance
and different terminology in error messages is too big an overhead for
most businesses which need to remain functional and profitable
businesses.
In article <sndcth$1e7$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
And that's exactly how a computer to be used as a tool to get run of the
mill tasks done should be.
For run of the mill, perhaps, yes. cf below.
And as to programming, that's utterly irrelevant to most of the
population.
Yes, waste of time educating people or expecting them to learn or improve
how they work, etc, eh? Just dumn footsoldiers make less fuss I guess. :-)
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a
central IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or
thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at
scale.
Erm, more than ones place where I'vwe worked quite happily has an IT dept that supported various other OSs. Indeed, often more than one.
Jim
On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 21/11/2021 00:54, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 22:58, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 17:34, Java Jive wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/11/2021 11:08, Java Jive wrote:
I have never, ever, mentioned bio-weapons research, so you are
On 19/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 19/11/2021 21:36, Java Jive wrote:
"against all rational evidence to the contrary" goes way beyond what >>>>>>>> "balance of probability" can justify.
So what's new? I've never claimed otherwise!
That the lab-leak was from bio-weapons research is indeed "against >>>>>>> all rational evidence to the contrary".
aiming at a wrong target.
What I said was
<quote>
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability" >>>>>> position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible
answer.
<end quote>
I stand by that, and deny anything else you might dream I said.
It is true that you didn't mention bio-weapons specifically, but see >>>>> your
posts quoted below, which show a clear signal of subscribing to
conspiracy theories about a lab-leak origin of covid, and further a
suggestion that perhaps military work was being undertaken at what is >>>>> actually a civilian institution
Not so. I didn't say I subscribed to any particular point of view.
The quotes I gave strongly suggest an adherence to a particular
conspiracy point of view, and I don't think I need to be lectured on
'The Scientific Method' by a climate denialist either.
You do, because you are a closed mind and therefore an irrelevant
irritation to those who are not.
I could say the same with more truth about you.
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.
For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's time
here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of which you
could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable research online.
If you continue with your "my way or the wrong way" attitude, you will
continue to be seen as less of a guru and more of an obsessive. That is
your loss, not mine.
I could say the same with more truth about you and conspiracy theories:
Who was it a year and a half ago who first brought up covid coming to us
via pangolins, but when I found the original paper you'd read based on
your information it actually said exactly the opposite. Then just
recently, you made the same mistake all over again, and had to be
reminded of the actual facts all over again. *That* is a sign of a
closed mind.
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of >desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 12:09:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of >> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
But if you only have to manage your own computer it makes not a jot of difference. I already use Firefox and Libre Office, and for email and
usenet I could easily change to Thunderbird, all of which like many
other software applications also have Linux versions or similar
programs the do the same things. Even the Linux file manager works
pretty much the same way as the Windows one, so if I decided to change
my main system tomorrow I'd hardly have to learn anything new.
It's not even difficult, and it's a lot quicker, to install any of the
modern Linux distributions, and you can install it alongside Windows
or just run it from the DVD or USB stick without changing anything on
your computer to try it out.
Buyers for business or education are spending other people's money so
will naturally go for what's superficially easiest, but when support
for Windows 10 runs out in 2025 a lot of home users will have
expensive computers with years of life left in them. It would be nice
to think some of them could be persuaded to try a new system that
would obviate the need for all those computers to end up as landfill.
Rod.
On 21/11/2021 16:00, Indy Jess John wrote:
I haven't wasted "everybody's time", you chose to waste yours.
You found one of *several* papers I read last year, and I hadn't claimed
it came to us via pangolins, I merely queried how traces of pangolin DNA
was identified in the human virus that was supposed to have been a
natural mutation received from bats.
The choice of "conspiracy theories" rather than "possibilities" shows
your closed mind not mine. I have never denied probability, but I
remain opposed to the view that most_probable=certainty.
On 07/04/2020 22:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
"Virologists have identified elements of bat RNA and also pangolinRNA in the virus now infecting the world which is a pretty clear
indication that it was engineered in a laboratory rather than arising naturally; the suggestion that it originated in a Chinese "wet" market
is a useful bit of fake news to conceal the involvement of the Chinese Government. It was supposed to be incapacitating rather than fatal, and
in fact the first "field trial" in Wuhan, where China's only secure laboratory for studying deadly diseases is located, was relatively
benign but within weeks it had mutated from the original "S" variant to
the current "L" variant killer virus, and had escaped from Chinese control."
That is a conspiracy theory based on false evidence, and when I read the paper that you suggested the information might have come from, recently linked again up thread, it said the opposite, that the covid virus
contained no pangolin segments of virus, and contained a clear and unambiguous hereditary tree showing that.
I haven't wasted "everybody's time", you chose to waste yours.
You found one of *several* papers I read last year, and I hadn't claimed
it came to us via pangolins, I merely queried how traces of pangolin DNA
was identified in the human virus that was supposed to have been a
natural mutation received from bats.
The choice of "conspiracy theories" rather than "possibilities" shows
your closed mind not mine. I have never denied probability, but I
remain opposed to the view that most_probable=certainty.
"Virologists have identified elements of bat RNA and also pangolinRNA in the virus now infecting the world which is a pretty clear
Can’t you accept that there are a number of plausible but currently non provable theories as to how covid came about? I suspect a number of well funded western governmental agencies are putting significant effort and resource into this. Banging on about it here isn’t going to move things forwards.
On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the drivers
of climate are a bit more complicated than what is currently modelled,
and look forward to further research which might explain why the start
of each ice age has been preceded by a couple of centuries of abnormally
high temperatures, even before mankind evolved.
For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's time
here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of which you
could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable research online.
On 21/11/2021 16:52, Tweed wrote:
Can’t you accept that there are a number of plausible but currently non
provable theories as to how covid came about? I suspect a number of well
funded western governmental agencies are putting significant effort and
resource into this. Banging on about it here isn’t going to move things
forwards.
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance
of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to debunk it.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance
of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to
debunk it.
No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed,
and which, given their far greater effect on the climate than trace
gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need to
make.
On 21/11/2021 16:52, Tweed wrote:
Can’t you accept that there are a number of plausible but currently non
provable theories as to how covid came about? I suspect a number of well
funded western governmental agencies are putting significant effort and
resource into this. Banging on about it here isn’t going to move things
forwards.
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin
On 21/11/2021 17:11, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance
of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to >>> debunk it.
No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the
climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed,
and which, given their far greater effect on the climate than trace
gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need to
make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it doesn't call
into question the scientific evidence supporting AGW.
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:11, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance >>>> of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to >>>> debunk it.
No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.
No we don’t. We can go along with the notion that we don’t yet know and multiple avenues are still worth investigating. It’s not a civil court case.
On 21/11/2021 17:00, Java Jive wrote:
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin
Because the science is at best equivocal,
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the
climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed,
and which, given their far greater effect on the climate than trace
gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need to
make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of our
uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it doesn't call
into question the scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
And the science says "We don't know enough about the issue".
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 10:24:03 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <6a6kpgdudi283vltq2bsaabdtiocujh741@4ax.com>,
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
You're right that his posts seem so surreal that he couldn't possibly
beleive what he says.
Oddly in another group his posts were always sensible.
Which group is that?
URG
Not manageable at scale including the applications business demands.
Very large companies, which know the cost of everything in detail, and
pay huge sums to Microsoft each year, have shown no interest whatsoever
in switching to Linux on the desktop.
In article <mdakpghnssjvif070k8raohg890069fpsc@4ax.com>,
Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
URG
That is?... Sorry but for all I know it means Unicorns Ranching Group!
In article <sndi7i$3ac$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Not manageable at scale including the applications business demands.
Very large companies, which know the cost of everything in detail, and
pay huge sums to Microsoft each year, have shown no interest whatsoever
in switching to Linux on the desktop.
Oddly, when I used to read Linux mags I routinely saw news reports in them about big companies (and indeed so Goverments) switching to linux becase
they decided it was preferred.
And I can recall Mac-ers saying that modern versions of that are nix
variant based, yet various organisations seem to use it.
So I guess it depends on whose news/PR you're reading... and which ones you aren't.
Jim
On 21/11/2021 16:00, Indy Jess John wrote:
I haven't wasted "everybody's time", you chose to waste yours.
You found one of *several* papers I read last year, and I hadn't claimed
it came to us via pangolins, I merely queried how traces of pangolin DNA
was identified in the human virus that was supposed to have been a
natural mutation received from bats.
The choice of "conspiracy theories" rather than "possibilities" shows
your closed mind not mine. I have never denied probability, but I
remain opposed to the view that most_probable=certainty.
On 07/04/2020 22:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
> "Virologists have identified elements of bat RNA and also pangolin
RNA in the virus now infecting the world which is a pretty clear
indication that it was engineered in a laboratory rather than arising naturally; the suggestion that it originated in a Chinese "wet" market
is a useful bit of fake news to conceal the involvement of the Chinese Government. It was supposed to be incapacitating rather than fatal, and
in fact the first "field trial" in Wuhan, where China's only secure laboratory for studying deadly diseases is located, was relatively
benign but within weeks it had mutated from the original "S" variant to
the current "L" variant killer virus, and had escaped from Chinese control."
That is a conspiracy theory based on false evidence, and when I read the paper that you suggested the information might have come from, recently linked again up thread, it said the opposite, that the covid virus
contained no pangolin segments of virus, and contained a clear and unambiguous hereditary tree showing that.
On 21/11/2021 16:36, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 16:00, Indy Jess John wrote:
I haven't wasted "everybody's time", you chose to waste yours.
You found one of *several* papers I read last year, and I hadn't claimed >>> it came to us via pangolins, I merely queried how traces of pangolin DNA >>> was identified in the human virus that was supposed to have been a
natural mutation received from bats.
The choice of "conspiracy theories" rather than "possibilities" shows
your closed mind not mine. I have never denied probability, but I
remain opposed to the view that most_probable=certainty.
On 07/04/2020 22:53, Indy Jess John wrote:
> "Virologists have identified elements of bat RNA and also pangolin
RNA in the virus now infecting the world which is a pretty clear
indication that it was engineered in a laboratory rather than arising
naturally; the suggestion that it originated in a Chinese "wet" market
is a useful bit of fake news to conceal the involvement of the Chinese
Government. It was supposed to be incapacitating rather than fatal, and
in fact the first "field trial" in Wuhan, where China's only secure
laboratory for studying deadly diseases is located, was relatively
benign but within weeks it had mutated from the original "S" variant to
the current "L" variant killer virus, and had escaped from Chinese
control."
That is a conspiracy theory based on false evidence, and when I read the
paper that you suggested the information might have come from, recently
linked again up thread, it said the opposite, that the covid virus
contained no pangolin segments of virus, and contained a clear and
unambiguous hereditary tree showing that.
Again the use of "conspiracy theory" to justify your closed mind. As
for "false evidence", read on.
When I wrote the paragraph quoted above the information came from a
consensus of the various papers I read at the time. I started looking
out of curiosity as soon as Wuhan was mentioned as an epidemic centre
for the very first time because someone I knew had suffered mild
Covid-type symptoms at the end of December 2019 which he described as "a
bad cold that won't shift" for about 5 weeks; yet the pandemic wasn't declared until March.
The information quoted above is too damning of the Chinese Government to
have been left for those slower than me to find. There has been plenty
of time since then for papers to have been removed from public view, or apparently left in place though suitably edited. I don't suppose the
authors will be easy to trace either!
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which
has been your position. There is currently no way of telling whether
the evidence was false then or is false now,
though I don't remember
seeing an unambiguous heredity tree in that paper in 2020. I didn't keep copies (I wish I had, in hindsight). I have always had a pretty good
memory, and when I followed the link you offered and re-read the paper
it didn't seem to be as familiar as I expected it to be, which puzzled
me at the time.
But having seen how the Chinese protects a member of its Government from criticism by removing a world class tennis player from anything other
than unconvincing video footage,
my bet is that it wasn't false early in
2020
and is sanitised now so that you read the amended version and
invited me to read the same one. I still can't find now any of the other papers I read then via any of the search engines, so there has been some
sort of clean-up activity.
I have to admire your filing system though, that can quickly turn up
stuff from early last year. I do have to wonder why you thought it might
be necessary?
Even the Linux file manager works
pretty much the same way as the Windows one, so if I decided to change
my main system tomorrow I'd hardly have to learn anything new.
On 21/11/2021 17:25, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:00, Java Jive wrote:
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin
Because the science is at best equivocal,
FALSE! Equivocal means literally "equal voices" or more colloquially
equally likely, but the science is not equivocal, the balance of it is
firmly against the lab-leak conspiracy theory.
On 21/11/2021 17:26, Tweed wrote:
No we don’t. We can go along with the notion that we don’t yet know and >> multiple avenues are still worth investigating. It’s not a civil court
case.
No, we don’t support ideas that fly in the face of the what evidence is known, that is unscientific.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <sndcth$1e7$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
Erm, more than ones place where I'vwe worked quite happily has an IT
dept that supported various other OSs. Indeed, often more than one.
Jim
Do you honestly expect my wife who works in the law to take an interest
in programming?
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 12:09:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other >operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a
central IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or >thousands of desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at
scale.
But if you only have to manage your own computer it makes not a jot of difference. I already use Firefox and Libre Office, and for email and
usenet I could easily change to Thunderbird, all of which like many
other software applications also have Linux versions or similar programs
the do the same things. Even the Linux file manager works pretty much
the same way as the Windows one, so if I decided to change my main
system tomorrow I'd hardly have to learn anything new.
It's not even difficult, and it's a lot quicker, to install any of the
modern Linux distributions, and you can install it alongside Windows or
just run it from the DVD or USB stick without changing anything on your computer to try it out.
Buyers for business or education are spending other people's money so
will naturally go for what's superficially easiest, but when support for Windows 10 runs out in 2025 a lot of home users will have expensive
computers with years of life left in them. It would be nice to think
some of them could be persuaded to try a new system that would obviate
the need for all those computers to end up as landfill.
Yes, you will see from my comment above that I recognised it was
unlikely to happen. My "too big an overhead" is the clue.
"Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn8vdm$br1$1@dont-email.me...
On 19/11/2021 19:20, Alexander wrote:
Or are convincing evidence that you are away with the fairies!
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn6c7t$7u5$2@dont-email.me...
On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
"Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal >>>>>> experiences. That is real factual information.
On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information. >>>>
circumstances at the time.
I know that the alleged "personal experiences" you cited match the
narrative's false version of events, and not the actual reality.
This tells me that either you - or the people you claim to have spoken
with - are either lying or have been mislead.
All they had to do to strip you of your freedoms was re-brand the flu
and convince you that it's a threat to your existence.
On 21/11/2021 17:11, Tweed wrote:
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Why can't others accept what science suggests is most likely origin,
instead of putting forward conspiracy theories that ignore the balance
of evidence? If they stopped posting such crap, others wouldn't need to >>> debunk it.
No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.
I don't have a closed mind, then and now I was following the evidence
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <dg6kpgp42ohg7hvkf304ggs83gkl7qea16@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now
having 'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate
what sorts of machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
Jim
If Microsoft doesn't either relax their system requirements for Windows
11 or extend their support for existing Windows 10 installations, 2025
might be the year I'm finally pushed over the edge and decide to abandon >>> Windows entirely. I'm ready when they are.
I always thought it was a poor OS and a PITA to use. So only ever used it
when it was unavoidable. Until Ubuntu's impact on the experience of newbies >> to Linux I could understand why many preferred doze - particularly when
habituated to it by work requirements or school. But from a few years after >> the impact of Ubuntu I've become baffled why so many stay captive to doze. >> Maybe it is acclimatisation and the need to have 'industry standard'
software as driven by the way MS behave wrt application software. Which has >> often made information transfer hard to do between platforms.
I guess the reality is that well over 90% of desktop/laptop computer users >> are actually simply users of Word/Excel/etc with no real grasp of more
general computing let alone programming. Trained at school or office, not
educated about computing more generally. Magic box effect. Similar to
'phone' users who have no idea how it works provided they know how to use
it and the 'apps'.
Jim
And thats exactly how a computer to be used as a tool to get run of the
mill tasks done should be. A general phone/computer user should worry about >how their device works about as much as how they worry about how their TV >works. And as to programming, thats utterly irrelevant to most of the >population.
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of >desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
known either.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
And the science says "We don't know enough about the issue".
Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
On 21/11/2021 16:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Even the Linux file manager works pretty much the same way as the
Windows one, so if I decided to change my main system tomorrow I'd
hardly have to learn anything new.
A quick proof of the pudding -
I have a friend who has a home laptop she doesn't use a great deal, but
it does allow her to keep in touch by e-mail and to buy online tickets
for events or travel, and to write letters. It ran Vista.
When Microsoft declared the end of support for Vista, she asked me what
she should do, and I said I would upgrade it for her. She dropped the
laptop off at my house so that I could do that.
I dumped off all her personal files (usefully defaulted to "My
Documents" "My Music" etc, so nothing complicated there) to a pen drive.
Then I installed Linux Mint, which wiped the disc of Vista, and then I configured it to look exactly like the Vista desktop she was used to,
and ...
I gave it back to her simply saying I have updated it, and even a couple
of years later she still thinks she is running "upgraded Vista". I
haven't disillusioned her.
In article <sneh1i$qaj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John ><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 16:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Even the Linux file manager works pretty much the same way as theA quick proof of the pudding -
Windows one, so if I decided to change my main system tomorrow I'd
hardly have to learn anything new.
I have a friend who has a home laptop she doesn't use a great deal, but
it does allow her to keep in touch by e-mail and to buy online tickets
for events or travel, and to write letters. It ran Vista.
When Microsoft declared the end of support for Vista, she asked me what
she should do, and I said I would upgrade it for her. She dropped the
laptop off at my house so that I could do that.
I dumped off all her personal files (usefully defaulted to "My
Documents" "My Music" etc, so nothing complicated there) to a pen drive.
Then I installed Linux Mint, which wiped the disc of Vista, and then I
configured it to look exactly like the Vista desktop she was used to,
and ...
[snip]
I gave it back to her simply saying I have updated it, and even a couple
of years later she still thinks she is running "upgraded Vista". I
haven't disillusioned her.
Interesting. :-)
I've never tried doing that to anyone because I'd probably not get it right >because it is so long since I've used doze and I'd not 'fake it' well >enough.
Jim
In article <sndukf$pe6$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.
Neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics (standard model) have been 'proven'. That's not the way science works.
But both are regarded as fairly reliable and useful as descriptions of the bulk of what we have observed.
The scientific approach is always 'provisional' but given reasonable
evidence can allow us to draw conclusions upon which to base our decision *unless and until* clear evidence to the contrary is found to stand up to tests, when we change our view.
I only have limited awareness of the particular 'scrap' about the source of covid. But so far as I know the bulk of evidence and learned (about the relevant virology, etc) judgement is that it came to man via vectors via routes like 'wet meat' marketing, exposure to wild animals, etc. Not a leak from a 'suspect' lab.
So that's my personal assumption, until the body of those who have years or success in the relevant science may be able to show evidence to the
contrary.
If 'Spike' or some others can show they do understand these basic points
as well as present assesable evidence rather than claims we could all make
a better judgement over changing our conclusions.
On 22/11/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The scientific approach is always 'provisional' but given reasonable
evidence can allow us to draw conclusions upon which to base our decision
*unless and until* clear evidence to the contrary is found to stand up to
tests, when we change our view.
I only have limited awareness of the particular 'scrap' about the
source of
covid. But so far as I know the bulk of evidence and learned (about the
relevant virology, etc) judgement is that it came to man via vectors via
routes like 'wet meat' marketing, exposure to wild animals, etc. Not a
leak
from a 'suspect' lab.
So that's my personal assumption, until the body of those who have
years or
success in the relevant science may be able to show evidence to the
contrary.
If 'Spike' or some others can show they do understand these basic points
as well as present assesable evidence rather than claims we could all
make
a better judgement over changing our conclusions.
All perfectly fair for a scientific theory. But I wonder if that's the right "scientific" analogy. Suppose you had a tumour. Its presentation and the tests to date show there is a 95% probability it is benign and a
5% probability it is aggressively malign with less than 1% chance of 5+
years survival. If malign, treatment gives an 80% chance of 5+ years survival. Would you want further, non-lethal investigation to seek to establish which it is? Or would you settle for the 95%?
On 21/11/2021 17:37, Java Jive wrote:
the science is not equivocal, the balance of it is
firmly against the lab-leak conspiracy theory.
But anyway, can we now be clear that you are confirming that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that supports a WIV lab leak?
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure >>> laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which
has been your position. There is currently no way of telling whether
the evidence was false then or is false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let me
remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
"I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'
That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
blowing,
Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific evidence
that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
I don't have a closed mind, then and now I was following the evidence
The evidence is just a probability not a certainty.
Reading: GOOD
Writing: GOOD
Comprehension: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
You might enjoy banging continuously on the same drum, but I now have
more important things to do with my time than to try to educate a closed mind.
So I won't bother. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
On 22/11/2021 13:44, Robin wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The scientific approach is always 'provisional' but given reasonable
evidence can allow us to draw conclusions upon which to base our
decision
*unless and until* clear evidence to the contrary is found to stand
up to
tests, when we change our view.
I only have limited awareness of the particular 'scrap' about the
source of
covid. But so far as I know the bulk of evidence and learned (about the
relevant virology, etc) judgement is that it came to man via vectors via >>> routes like 'wet meat' marketing, exposure to wild animals, etc. Not
a leak
from a 'suspect' lab.
So that's my personal assumption, until the body of those who have
years or
success in the relevant science may be able to show evidence to the
contrary.
If 'Spike' or some others can show they do understand these basic points >>> as well as present assesable evidence rather than claims we could all
make
a better judgement over changing our conclusions.
All perfectly fair for a scientific theory. But I wonder if that's
the right "scientific" analogy. Suppose you had a tumour. Its
presentation and the tests to date show there is a 95% probability it
is benign and a 5% probability it is aggressively malign with less
than 1% chance of 5+ years survival. If malign, treatment gives an
80% chance of 5+ years survival. Would you want further, non-lethal
investigation to seek to establish which it is? Or would you settle
for the 95%?
That's not really a good analogy, because there is the possibility of
further investigation to clinch it, while with the origins of covid such
a further investigations is extremely unlikely ever to be possible.
So we have to go with what the science tells us at the moment, which is
that the origin was least likely to be a lab-leak, and most likely to be
via the wet-market.
If Spike wants to convince us otherwise, then he has to produce some
relevant and meaningful evidence, which thus far he has miserably failed
to do.
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the >>>>> climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not >>>>> known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have >>>>> never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed, >>>>> and which, given their far greater effect on the climate than trace
gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need to >>>>> make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of our
uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it doesn't call >>>> into question the scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't know,
we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse gas
emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called 'Climategate' with
denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions
as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were on the Berkeley
Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that
global warming is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU >> are not frauds. It means it’s not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over >> temperature so that we can focus on the part of the debate that really
matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
What should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation between
CO2 and temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
"Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
On 21/11/2021 13:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the
drivers of climate are a bit more complicated than what is
currently modelled, and look forward to further research which
might explain why the start of each ice age has been preceded by a
couple of centuries of abnormally high temperatures, even before
mankind evolved.
For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's
time here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of
which you could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable
research online.
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model
the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are
not known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the climate
than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need
to make.
On 21/11/2021 17:33, Java Jive wrote:
No, we don’t support ideas that fly in the face of the what evidence is
known, that is unscientific.
But do you support the science that throws doubt on the view of WIV
being benign?
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a
"secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free
access which has been your position. There is currently no way
of telling whether the evidence was false then or is false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let
me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
"I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'
That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
blowing,
Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific
evidence that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
In the case of the WIV, there is science supporting both sides, as Java
Jive repeatedly admits.
But "accept that the issue won't be clarified" does not equate to
"believe as an article of faith that it was the wet market and dismiss
the mere possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory". The latter strikes me as more reminiscent of the Supreme Sacred Congregation than
of a "desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness
to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in
order".
On 09:19 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a
"secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free
access which has been your position. There is currently no way
of telling whether the evidence was false then or is false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let
me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
"I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'
That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
blowing,
Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific
evidence that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?
Don't you distinguish between an authority's unfounded claim and the well-founded work of an authority? Citing the latter is not an "appeal to authority". Check your textbook.
On 22/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
What is it that they are afraid of?
They debunk people like you that propagate dishonest conspiracy theories.
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your
research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
"Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
I wouldn't have thought my quote above could possibly be misinterpreted,
but given your dishonest determination to do so, let me try again: after
the 'climategate' debacle concerning the global warming findings of the
CRU, denialist oil millionaires the Koch brothers funded Berkeley Earth
to investigate the findings of the CRU, presumably in the hope that they would expose some sort of fraud, bad science, or whatever. However,
Berkeley Earth, instead of finding against the CRU, actually *confirmed*
the CRU's findings.
So the CRU were cleared by a scientific investigation funded by
denialist money, and as it is often said, "He who pays the piper calls
the tune!", that could be seen as being worth rather more than being
cleared by an investigation that was funded otherwise.
And note the good correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.
On 17:15 21 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 21/11/2021 13:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the
drivers of climate are a bit more complicated than what is
currently modelled, and look forward to further research which
might explain why the start of each ice age has been preceded by a
couple of centuries of abnormally high temperatures, even before
mankind evolved.
For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's
time here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of
which you could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable
research online.
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model
the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are
not known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the climate
than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need
to make.
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last atom
doesn't mean can't run useful models.
What is it about the phrase still quoted above that you have such
difficulty in understanding the meaning of? I said the balance of
scientific evidence is firmly against a lab-leak, that doesn't imply
that there was no evidence at all.
On 22/11/2021 11:03, Spike wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
In the case of the WIV, there is science supporting both sides, as Java
Jive repeatedly admits.
But the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin, as
you will not admit.
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 12:09:21 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <dg6kpgp42ohg7hvkf304ggs83gkl7qea16@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I stopped using 'doze many years ago. However IIUC people are now
having 'doze 11 inflicted upon them, along with it trying to dictate >>>>> what sorts of machine the mere user is 'allowed'.
The good news is that other OS's exist. :-)
Jim
If Microsoft doesn't either relax their system requirements for Windows >>>> 11 or extend their support for existing Windows 10 installations, 2025 >>>> might be the year I'm finally pushed over the edge and decide to abandon >>>> Windows entirely. I'm ready when they are.
I always thought it was a poor OS and a PITA to use. So only ever used it >>> when it was unavoidable. Until Ubuntu's impact on the experience of newbies >>> to Linux I could understand why many preferred doze - particularly when
habituated to it by work requirements or school. But from a few years after >>> the impact of Ubuntu I've become baffled why so many stay captive to doze. >>> Maybe it is acclimatisation and the need to have 'industry standard'
software as driven by the way MS behave wrt application software. Which has >>> often made information transfer hard to do between platforms.
I guess the reality is that well over 90% of desktop/laptop computer users >>> are actually simply users of Word/Excel/etc with no real grasp of more
general computing let alone programming. Trained at school or office, not >>> educated about computing more generally. Magic box effect. Similar to
'phone' users who have no idea how it works provided they know how to use >>> it and the 'apps'.
Jim
And thats exactly how a computer to be used as a tool to get run of the
mill tasks done should be. A general phone/computer user should worry about >> how their device works about as much as how they worry about how their TV
works. And as to programming, thats utterly irrelevant to most of the
population.
What most Microsoft detractors fail to understand is that no other
operating system has come close to being properly manageable by a central
IT department. If you are an organisation that has hundreds or thousands of >> desktop machines you need an OS that is manageable at scale.
+1
On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure >>>> laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which >>>> has been your position. There is currently no way of telling whether >>>> the evidence was false then or is false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let me
remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to the
lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is just trying
to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
"I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'
That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
blowing,
Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific evidence
that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?
I've already linked to two ambivalent reports by the BBC.
On 22/11/2021 13:59, Java Jive wrote:
What is it about the phrase still quoted above that you have such
difficulty in understanding the meaning of? I said the balance of
scientific evidence is firmly against a lab-leak, that doesn't imply
that there was no evidence at all.
Whose 'balance'?
On 22/11/2021 14:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure >>>>> laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which >>>>> has been your position. There is currently no way of telling whether >>>>> the evidence was false then or is false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let me
remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to the
lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is just trying
to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
I don't have to 'provide the evidence', as it forms that part of your 'balance' that you wish to ignore. Which isn't scientific, of course.
I've already linked to two ambivalent reports by the BBC.
So you're saying that you might have your 'balance' wrong.
Well, I'm waiting for someone to cite a 'well-founded work of an
authority' in this matter.
On 22/11/2021 14:24, Pamela wrote:
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last atom
doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
On 22/11/2021 14:18, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
What is it that they are afraid of?
They debunk people like you that propagate dishonest conspiracy theories.
Name one.
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your
research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
"Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
I wouldn't have thought my quote above could possibly be misinterpreted,
but given your dishonest determination to do so, let me try again: after
the 'climategate' debacle concerning the global warming findings of the
CRU, denialist oil millionaires the Koch brothers funded Berkeley Earth
to investigate the findings of the CRU, presumably in the hope that they
would expose some sort of fraud, bad science, or whatever. However,
Berkeley Earth, instead of finding against the CRU, actually *confirmed*
the CRU's findings.
The programmers notes were damning.
So the CRU were cleared by a scientific investigation funded by
denialist money, and as it is often said, "He who pays the piper calls
the tune!", that could be seen as being worth rather more than being
cleared by an investigation that was funded otherwise.
And note the good correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.
The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/intergalcial periods. In every
one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years.
On 22/11/2021 14:25, Java Jive wrote:
I can't know until you provide some, we're still waiting for your
*EVIDENCE*!
You already have evidence, it's in your claim that you think there's a balance.
On 22/11/2021 14:30, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 11:03, Spike wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
In the case of the WIV, there is science supporting both sides, as Java
Jive repeatedly admits.
But the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin, as
you will not admit.
Whose balance?
On 22/11/2021 14:13, Robin wrote:
But "accept that the issue won't be clarified" does not equate to
"believe as an article of faith that it was the wet market and dismiss
the mere possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory". The
latter strikes me as more reminiscent of the Supreme Sacred
Congregation than of a "desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to
meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to
dispose and set in order".
The *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin. There is
in effect little or no reliable *EVIDENCE* for the WIV being the source
of the leak and, despite repeated requests to do so, Spike, Incubus,
Indy Jess John, and others have yet to come up with anything even
remotely convincing in support of this belief, what little produced
being either historically irrelevant or 'conspiracy theory' in nature. Moreover, there is an audit trail that shows that the very first reports
that the origin was the WIV were put about by a Chinese defector funded
by Trump supporters, and almost the entirety of its history since can
easily be understood as being the result of the ...
Garbage In => Garbage Out
... echo chamber amplifier of social media, often fomented by
politicians - particularly right-wing ones in the US who are still
sore at losing the presidential election and keen to blame anyone but themselves - which a few scientists have then taken seriously enough
to write papers on, but the only ones that I know of supporting a
lab-leak have been disproven since by subsequent findings. So we're
left with the fact that there is in effect little or no still upstanding evidence supporting a lab-leak origin of covid-19, and certainly nothing convincing. Therefore to persist in believing it is to believe in conspiracy theories, and it's noticeable that of the people we know best
who are doing so, they also believe in and/or have argued long and hard
in favour of others.
All perfectly fair for a scientific theory. But I wonder if that's the
right "scientific" analogy. Suppose you had a tumour. Its presentation
and the tests to date show there is a 95% probability it is benign and
a 5% probability it is aggressively malign with less than 1% chance of
5+ years survival. If malign, treatment gives an 80% chance of 5+
years survival. Would you want further, non-lethal investigation to
seek to establish which it is? Or would you settle for the 95%?
So we have to go with what the science tells us at the moment, which
is that the origin was least likely to be a lab-leak, and most likely
to be via the wet-market.
But "accept that the issue won't be clarified" does not equate to
"believe as an article of faith that it was the wet market and dismiss
the mere possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory".
On 22/11/2021 14:24, Pamela wrote:
On 17:15 21 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 21/11/2021 13:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the
drivers of climate are a bit more complicated than what is
currently modelled, and look forward to further research which
might explain why the start of each ice age has been preceded by
a couple of centuries of abnormally high temperatures, even
before mankind evolved.
For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of
everyone's time here in the past putting forward denialist
arguments, most of which you could easily have debunked for
yourself by suitable research online.
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to
model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the
components being numerous and not all being known, and the level
of their inputs are not known either. The current models, which
run a tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have
predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even 'predicted' past
climate. Clouds, for example, are not modelled - a set of standard
conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and which, given their
far greater effect on the climate than trace gasses, is
astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the
need to make.
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last
atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
On 22/11/2021 14:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a
"secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have
free access which has been your position. There is currently
no way of telling whether the evidence was false then or is
false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia.
Let me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May
2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to the
lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is just
trying to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
I don't have to 'provide the evidence', as it forms that part of
your 'balance' that you wish to ignore. Which isn't scientific, of
course.
On 22/11/2021 15:01, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 14:13, Robin wrote:
But "accept that the issue won't be clarified" does not equate to
"believe as an article of faith that it was the wet market and
dismiss the mere possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory".
The latter strikes me as more reminiscent of the Supreme Sacred
Congregation than of a "desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness
to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness
to dispose and set in order".
The *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin. There
is in effect little or no reliable *EVIDENCE* for the WIV being the
source of the leak and, despite repeated requests to do so, Spike,
Incubus, Indy Jess John, and others have yet to come up with anything
even remotely convincing in support of this belief, what little
produced being either historically irrelevant or 'conspiracy theory'
in nature. Moreover, there is an audit trail that shows that the very
first reports that the origin was the WIV were put about by a Chinese
defector funded by Trump supporters, and almost the entirety of its
history since can easily be understood as being the result of the ...
Garbage In => Garbage Out
... echo chamber amplifier of social media, often fomented by
politicians - particularly right-wing ones in the US who are still
sore at losing the presidential election and keen to blame anyone but
themselves - which a few scientists have then taken seriously enough
to write papers on, but the only ones that I know of supporting a
lab-leak have been disproven since by subsequent findings. So we're
left with the fact that there is in effect little or no still
upstanding evidence supporting a lab-leak origin of covid-19, and
certainly nothing convincing. Therefore to persist in believing it is
to believe in conspiracy theories, and it's noticeable that of the
people we know best who are doing so, they also believe in and/or have
argued long and hard in favour of others.
Pleased don't associate me with "belief" one way or the other. I abhor fundamentalists on both sides of debate.
Beyond that I'll leave you to educate the likes of the Washington Post
who only last week hadn't realised that "lab leak" was not fit to be
taken seriously.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/coronavirus-origins-wuhan-market-animals-science-journal/
In article<sneh1i$qaj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 16:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Even the Linux file manager works pretty much the same way as theA quick proof of the pudding -
Windows one, so if I decided to change my main system tomorrow I'd
hardly have to learn anything new.
I have a friend who has a home laptop she doesn't use a great deal, but
it does allow her to keep in touch by e-mail and to buy online tickets
for events or travel, and to write letters. It ran Vista.
When Microsoft declared the end of support for Vista, she asked me what
she should do, and I said I would upgrade it for her. She dropped the
laptop off at my house so that I could do that.
I dumped off all her personal files (usefully defaulted to "My
Documents" "My Music" etc, so nothing complicated there) to a pen drive.
Then I installed Linux Mint, which wiped the disc of Vista, and then I
configured it to look exactly like the Vista desktop she was used to,
and ...
[snip]
I gave it back to her simply saying I have updated it, and even a couple
of years later she still thinks she is running "upgraded Vista". I
haven't disillusioned her.
Interesting. :-)
I've never tried doing that to anyone because I'd probably not get it right because it is so long since I've used doze and I'd not 'fake it' well enough.
Jim
On 22/11/2021 16:06, Robin wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:01, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 14:13, Robin wrote:
But "accept that the issue won't be clarified" does not equate to
"believe as an article of faith that it was the wet market and
dismiss the mere possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory".
The latter strikes me as more reminiscent of the Supreme Sacred
Congregation than of a "desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness
to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider,
carefulness to dispose and set in order".
The *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin. There
is in effect little or no reliable *EVIDENCE* for the WIV being the
source of the leak and, despite repeated requests to do so, Spike,
Incubus, Indy Jess John, and others have yet to come up with anything
even remotely convincing in support of this belief, what little
produced being either historically irrelevant or 'conspiracy theory'
in nature. Moreover, there is an audit trail that shows that the very
first reports that the origin was the WIV were put about by a Chinese
defector funded by Trump supporters, and almost the entirety of its
history since can easily be understood as being the result of the ...
Garbage In => Garbage Out
... echo chamber amplifier of social media, often fomented by
politicians - particularly right-wing ones in the US who are still
sore at losing the presidential election and keen to blame anyone but
themselves - which a few scientists have then taken seriously
enough to write papers on, but the only ones that I know of
supporting a lab-leak have been disproven since by subsequent
findings. So we're left with the fact that there is in effect little
or no still upstanding evidence supporting a lab-leak origin of
covid-19, and certainly nothing convincing. Therefore to persist in
believing it is to believe in conspiracy theories, and it's
noticeable that of the people we know best who are doing so, they
also believe in and/or have argued long and hard in favour of others.
Pleased don't associate me with "belief" one way or the other. I
abhor fundamentalists on both sides of debate.
I wasn't, though I think you are being too generous to the side of the
debate that in its support has little evidence anyway and certainly none
at all that has been produced here.
Beyond that I'll leave you to educate the likes of the Washington Post
who only last week hadn't realised that "lab leak" was not fit to be
taken seriously.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/coronavirus-origins-wuhan-market-animals-science-journal/
That's a rather one-sided summary of the article, which, while in the interests of impartiality rightly mentions conflicting views,
nevertheless majors on the conversion of a scientist who previously had
been inclined to give prominence to the lab-leak origin but now thinks
it unlikely. Even the headline tells you that:
On 22/11/2021 15:25, Spike wrote:
On 22/11/2021 14:25, Java Jive wrote:
I can't know until you provide some, we're still waiting for your
*EVIDENCE*!
You already have evidence, it's in your claim that you think there's a
balance.
FALSE! Despite being challenged times beyond counting to do so, you
have yet to provide any relevant and convincing *EVIDENCE* to support
your claims for a lab-leak origin of covid; stop this childish and
dishonest whingeing, and give *EVIDENCE* to support your claims; put up
or shut up.
On 22/11/2021 15:24, Spike wrote:
On 22/11/2021 13:59, Java Jive wrote:
What is it about the phrase still quoted above that you have such
difficulty in understanding the meaning of? I said the balance of
scientific evidence is firmly against a lab-leak, that doesn't imply
that there was no evidence at all.
Whose 'balance'?
The balance of appropriately qualified scientists who have examined the issue.
You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
a balance.
On 22/11/2021 15:54, Java Jive wrote:
Already answered elsewhere in thread, the balance of scientists in the
field.
So a one-sided balance, then.
On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last
atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
fact?
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
capabilities. Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out
of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
outlived their usefulness.
On 22/11/2021 15:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:24, Spike wrote:
On 22/11/2021 13:59, Java Jive wrote:
What is it about the phrase still quoted above that you have such
difficulty in understanding the meaning of? I said the balance of
scientific evidence is firmly against a lab-leak, that doesn't imply
that there was no evidence at all.
Whose 'balance'?
The balance of appropriately qualified scientists who have examined the
issue.
So there's some scientists for a natural cause, and some for a lab leak.
On 22/11/2021 19:03, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 16:06, Robin wrote:
Beyond that I'll leave you to educate the likes of the Washington
Post who only last week hadn't realised that "lab leak" was not fit
to be taken seriously.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/coronavirus-origins-wuhan-market-animals-science-journal/
That's a rather one-sided summary of the article, which, while in the
interests of impartiality rightly mentions conflicting views,
nevertheless majors on the conversion of a scientist who previously
had been inclined to give prominence to the lab-leak origin but now
thinks it unlikely. Even the headline tells you that:
I offered no "summary"
so I regret your accusing me of being one-sided.
I stated the plain fact that the WP (like many others) did not treat
"lab leak" as a "conspiracy theory".
On 22/11/2021 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
No, I'm saying that you're deliberately ignoring what has already been
presented to you. Stop this childish and dishonest whingeing and let's
see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
a balance.
On 22/11/2021 15:37, Java Jive wrote:
TRANSLATION: I've been given lots of evidence but am dishonestly
ignoring it.
You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
a balance.
On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:23, Spike wrote:
The programmers notes were damning.
Except that, not only the above, but, I forget now, is 6, or 7, no 8,
independent inquiries since have found otherwise (yes, it's Wikipedia,
tough shit if you don't like it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
MRDA
And note the good correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.
The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/intergalcial periods. In everyWhich is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science. Look
one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years. >>
up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
Milankovich cycles have been debunked by the believer community, FWIW, probably due to their inconvenient truth.
On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
[Quoting broken: Pamela wrote:]
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last atom
doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were fact?
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant timescale,
and are highly unreliable due to their very limited capabilities.
Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out of the narrative,
in the same fashion as polar bears? They've outlived their usefulness.
On 15:29 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 22/11/2021 14:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a
"secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have
free access which has been your position. There is currently
no way of telling whether the evidence was false then or is
false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia.
Let me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May
2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to the
lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is just
trying to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
I don't have to 'provide the evidence', as it forms that part of
your 'balance' that you wish to ignore. Which isn't scientific, of
course.
Oh dear. Is that what passes for debate?
On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last
atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
fact?
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
capabilities.
Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped
out of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
outlived their usefulness.
On 22:53 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
capabilities. Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out
of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
outlived their usefulness.
I don't have a dog in this fight but NASA says: "Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right".
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are- getting-future-warming-projections-right/
On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
a balance.
Stop trying to lie your way out of this and give *EVIDENCE* to support
your claims; put up or shut up.
On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:37, Java Jive wrote:
TRANSLATION: I've been given lots of evidence but am dishonestly
ignoring it.
You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
a balance.
You have given no worthwhile *EVIDENCE* here to support a lab-leak
origin, let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of what you claim, put up or
shut up.
In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:25:48 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.
ESA NASA and the aerospace industries that go with them standardised on Microsoft especially Office. Do you really believe that they did that through ignorance?
On 22/11/2021 23:10, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's >>> a balance.
Stop trying to lie your way out of this and give *EVIDENCE* to support
your claims; put up or shut up.
You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's a balance.
On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:23, Spike wrote:
The programmers notes were damning.
Except that, not only the above, but, I forget now, is 6, or 7, no 8,
independent inquiries since have found otherwise (yes, it's Wikipedia, >>>> tough shit if you don't like it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
MRDA
They would say that because it happens to be true.
It took five huge Inquiries to get the Labour government off the hook
for taking us into an illegal war in the Middle East. Even so, we all
knew what really happened. Bailing out the CRU was comparative child's play.
The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/intergalcial periods. In every >>>>> one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years.
Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science. Look >>>> up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
Milankovich cycles have been debunked by the believer community, FWIW,
probably due to their inconvenient truth.
Nonsense, the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the
timings of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and
geologists alike as accepted science.
You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
hymn sheet.
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!
In article <j02lbgF9pjpU7@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
capabilities.
Correct, plus many are run by people with an agenda who are trying to
support that agenda. Be very suspicious of ALL computer modelling
especially those run by known activists. I would have thought the
last 18 months would have taught everyone that simple fact.
Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped
out of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
outlived their usefulness.
Yes, the narrative is always changing, have you noticed that The
Great Barrier Reef has also dropped out, once the darling of MSM but
no longer, can't think why. :-)
But it did the job in the public perception.
Wonder why the climate in Antarctica doesn't get on the news much? :-)
The Main Stream Media have group think and an agenda driven ideology.
They're not interested in presenting the truth that ship has long
sailed, they're interested in pressing their agenda.
On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
such difficulty in understanding?
particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!
Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation has
been ignored.
In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.
On 22/11/2021 10:25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.
I worked betimes with multinational IT consultants who said they might
have sold "free" alternatives to Word and Excel to some large businesses
but with nothing to match Outlook's functionalities senior managers
would just laugh as they showed them the door. I'd be interested to
hear of a medium-to-large enterprise* that has dumped Outlook.
*other than Munich's city admin :)
On 22:53 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last
atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
fact?
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant timescale,
and are highly unreliable due to their very limited capabilities.
Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out of the
narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've outlived their usefulness.
I don't have a dog in this fight but NASA says: "Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right".
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are- getting-future-warming-projections-right/
On 22/11/2021 23:17, Pamela wrote:
On 22:53 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
capabilities. Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped
out of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
outlived their usefulness.
I don't have a dog in this fight but NASA says: "Study Confirms
Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right".
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-
models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
MRDA
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 18:42:03 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15:29 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
On 22/11/2021 14:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being
a "secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists
have free access which has been your position. There is
currently no way of telling whether the evidence was false
then or is false now,
Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia.
Let me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May
2020:
BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to
the lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is
just trying to shoot the messenger because you don't like the
message.
I don't have to 'provide the evidence', as it forms that part of
your 'balance' that you wish to ignore. Which isn't scientific, of
course.
Oh dear. Is that what passes for debate?
It looks like a copy/paste battle, based on the principle that the
winner is whoever has the last word. "TLDR" as the youngsters say.
Rod.
On 23/11/2021 11:05, Spike wrote:
You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been
deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
hymn sheet.
I'm reading from the science sheet, not a hymn sheet. Milankovich
cycles explain the periodic episodes of ice ages very well, and,
contrary to what you claim in your ignorance of science, are entirely compatible with AGW.
I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited >experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on >actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed
manner.
ESA NASA and the aerospace industries that go with them standardised on Microsoft especially Office. Do you really believe that they did that
through ignorance?
I wonder why the free Office suite producers have never tried to take on Outlook? It's not an impossible coding task. Paid for eMclient on Windows
and Mac seems to be pretty similar.
On 23/11/2021 11:58, Java Jive wrote:
On 23/11/2021 11:05, Spike wrote:
You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been >>> deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
hymn sheet.
I'm reading from the science sheet, not a hymn sheet. Milankovich
cycles explain the periodic episodes of ice ages very well, and,
contrary to what you claim in your ignorance of science, are entirely
compatible with AGW.
COBBLERS
This from your favourite skepticalscience. Note the sting in the tail of this:
=====
There are still a number of unresolved questions that remain in the astronomical theory of climate change, even during the more familiar Quaternary timeframe. For instance, while we know changes in the orbit
pace ice ages, the precise way the three Milankovitch variations
conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is not
well known.
For example, about 800,000 years ago a shift of the dominant periodicity
from a 41,000 yr to 100,000 yr signal in glacial oscillations occurred (called the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, see e.g., Clark et al., 2006),
and while a lot of ideas exist for why this should be the case, there's
no bulletproof answer to this. Explaining the 100,000 yr recurrence
period of ice ages is difficult because although the 100,000 yr cycle dominates the ice-volume record, it is small in the insolation spectrum. Therefore, there's still a lot to be done here.
=====
And this this:
=====
t seems that the Earth listens to the Northern Hemisphere when deciding
to have an ice age. If the North and South are alternatively near and
far from the Sun during summer, why has glaciation been globally
synchronous? What connections are there between Northern insolation and Antarctic climate at the obliquity and precession timescales? What are
the competitive roles between a further distance from the sun during
summer and a longer summer, following Kepler's law? These questions are
still not resolved (for a flavor of the discussion, see Huybers,
2009...see also Kawamura et al 2007; Huybers and Denton, 2008; Cheng et
al 2009; Denton et al 2010 ). This problem also involves work at the interface of carbon cycle and ice sheet dynamics, processes that are in
their infancy in terms of modeling.
=====
On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
such difficulty in understanding?
I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak origin.
Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation hasparticularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here! >>
been ignored.
It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
you and others are doing in this thread.
On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE >>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
such difficulty in understanding?
I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
origin.
You obviously aren't taking that into account.
Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation hasparticularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here! >>>
been ignored.
It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
you and others are doing in this thread.
I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.
On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE >>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
such difficulty in understanding?
I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
origin.
You obviously aren't taking that into account.
Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation hasparticularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here! >>>
been ignored.
It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
you and others are doing in this thread.
I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 13:13:48 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
you and others are doing in this thread.
I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.
he has an either/or 'mindset'...nothing can
pass that barrier at present
still, spammy loves him...but s/he has the 'same' difficulty
On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE >>>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have >>>> such difficulty in understanding?
I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak >>> origin.
You obviously aren't taking that into account.
You obviously aren't taking the balance of scientific opinion into account.
Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation hasparticularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here! >>>>
been ignored.
It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
you and others are doing in this thread.
I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.
You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
the origin is zoonotic.
On 2021-11-24, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so >>>>>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not >>>>>>>> what flies in the face of it.
Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE >>>>>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have >>>>> such difficulty in understanding?
I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account, >>>> the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak >>>> origin.
You obviously aren't taking that into account.
You obviously aren't taking the balance of scientific opinion into account.
It's not balanced. A particular avenue of investigation was
deliberately not explored.
You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
the origin is zoonotic.
The evidence is incomplete and therefore does not support such a
conclusion.
here are still a number of unresolved questions that remain...
In article <j06e10F14aaU1@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
here are still a number of unresolved questions that remain...
As previous, the above is always accepted in science, but doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Newton's 'Laws' didn't
explain with absolute precision every detail of mechanics, but they remain highly accurate and useful in general. Walking out into the road in front
of a speeding car because the Laws are "just a theory" may be unwise... :-)
Another factor I've seen crop up in Hi-Fi as a particular breeding ground
is what I've come to call "MOOM".
Mountains Out Of Molehills.
The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which has had
some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some obscure minor aspects (allegedly) of its ability to convey signals. Often based on a bit of 'science' whose impact is bigged up by hype and the anxiety many Hi-Fi ethusiasts have that somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as good as someone else's.
Preys on a lack of real understanding of science in order to use selective claims about 'science' to be deployed to flog twaddle to the marks.
MOOM is in essence a form of cherry picking. Something that Bob and Spike have been using. Sadly, people can easily believe these things as a result
of not really understanding science.
Jim
In article <599056b7f5noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <j06e10F14aaU1@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Another factor I've seen crop up in Hi-Fi as a particular
breeding ground is what I've come to call "MOOM".
Mountains Out Of Molehills.
The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which
has had some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some
obscure minor aspects (allegedly) of its ability to convey
signals. Often based on a bit of 'science' whose impact is bigged
up by hype and the anxiety many Hi-Fi ethusiasts have that
somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as good as someone else's.
Preys on a lack of real understanding of science in order to use
selective claims about 'science' to be deployed to flog twaddle
to the marks.
MOOM is in essence a form of cherry picking. Something that Bob
and Spike have been using. Sadly, people can easily believe these
things as a result of not really understanding science.
I see others talking of the nasty cancel culture left on social
media, seems it's true, disagree with them and they attack personal
and dirty. So glad I'm not of the left.
No evidence about the world is ever entirely complete, so based
on that we should ignore all science and technical innovation and return
to being hunter gatherers using stone tools. Oh no, stone tools are technology based on evidence, which is incomplete, so we can't use those either, so we must just be hunter-gatherers using only what our bodies
alone can manage. Oh no, our minds are a tool that learns from
evidence, yet all evidence is incomplete, so we're not allowed to use
our minds either, and applying that to evolutionary 'learning' for every living thing on the planet means that evolution can not possibly occur.
But evolution does occur, and we do learn from experience, and we do
make useful tools, and we are always having to make decisions on
incomplete knowledge. Get used to it.
On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
I'm not ignoring the evidence; I'm saying no conclusions can be draw
from it other than it is possible that the origin is zoonotic.
You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
the origin is zoonotic.
On 2021-11-24, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 24/11/2021 13:13, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-11-23, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE*
that the origin is zoonotic.
The evidence is incomplete and therefore does not support such a
conclusion.
I recall back in the late 70s I was using the grey twin flex that
came with my KEF speakers at the time and a friend brought round some
QED 79 strand speaker cables. No science, no vast cost though they
were more money than the twin flex. I was shocked by the difference
they made, really shocked. Since then I try things myself, some
things make no difference for me, some do, some positive and some
negative.
Mountains Out Of Molehills.
The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which has had
some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some obscure minor
aspects (allegedly) of its ability to convey signals. Often based on a
bit of 'science' whose impact is bigged up by hype and the anxiety
many Hi-Fi ethusiasts have that somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as
good as someone else's.
I rememeber reading an article in what I believed to be a serious
magazine saying that gold plated mains plugs improved stereo separation.
Preys on a lack of real understanding of science in order to use selective claims about 'science' to be deployed to flog twaddle to
the marks.
I think we need to clear up some nonsense here being used to be nasty
and personal as usual as I've come to expect from certain quarters that should know better.
If you're talking about loudspeaker cables then their effect or lack of,
is dependent on other factors, things like the electrical load the
speaker presents to the amplifier and the type of music being listened
to and under what conditions.
On my loudspeakers, in my room listening to my test tracks I quite
clearly hear the effect some different speaker cables have on the sound reproduced.
I recall back in the late 70s I was using the grey twin flex that came
with my KEF speakers at the time and a friend brought round some QED 79 strand speaker cables. No science, no vast cost though they were more
money than the twin flex. I was shocked by the difference they made,
really shocked. Since then I try things myself, some things make no difference for me, some do, some positive and some negative.
The science involved is utterly irrelevant it only matters if it works
or not.
One thing I notice with all doubters on speaker cables, they've not
tried it much if at all because, they know "the science" and it can't
happen.
MOOM is in essence a form of cherry picking. Something that Bob and
Spike have been using. Sadly, people can easily believe these things
as a result of not really understanding science.
I see others talking of the nasty cancel culture left on social media,
seems it's true, disagree with them and they attack personal and dirty.
So glad I'm not of the left.
In article <599074c188charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
Mountains Out Of Molehills.
The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which
has had some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some
obscure minor aspects (allegedly) of its ability to convey
signals. Often based on a bit of 'science' whose impact is bigged
up by hype and the anxiety many Hi-Fi ethusiasts have that
somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as good as someone else's.
I rememeber reading an article in what I believed to be a serious
magazine saying that gold plated mains plugs improved stereo
separation.
That sort of thing crops up routinely.
The basic problem is that what we perceive *varies* - with time, and
with exposure. So even if you play exactly the same bit of music
twice, having not changed anything external, your *ears and brain*
may perceive things which they didn't the first time.
Move your ears an inch, change in sound due to room acoustic. Play
loud music and the physiology of the hearing system in your ears
alters and then takes time to 'relax'. Use the same speakers after
high levels, and the cone suspensions have warmed up and changed the
speaker behaviour.
And indeed, having listened the first time, the second time you may
simply notice details you missed the first time, or anticipate - and
hear as being 'clearer' - things you noticed the first time round
that got your attention.
If you look though the papers published by AES members, etc, you can
see all these things carefully explored. But many people judge the
item in ways that are easily misdirected by such effects.
Similarly, some changes do produce a measureable effect. But one so
slight as to be swamped by a slight movement of the head, etc. This
allows makers and reviewers to say "it makes a difference" when in
normal use, moving your head a centimeter produces a larger and more noticable change.
As a result, pro hearing comparisons tend to be well controlled in
terms of the experimental methods of science... and the 'amazing
discoveries' evaporate.
Jim
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:26:00 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I recall back in the late 70s I was using the grey twin flex that
came with my KEF speakers at the time and a friend brought round
some QED 79 strand speaker cables. No science, no vast cost though
they were more money than the twin flex. I was shocked by the
difference they made, really shocked. Since then I try things
myself, some things make no difference for me, some do, some
positive and some negative.
Did you change back to the grey twin flex *after* this experiment
and observe the sound quality returning to its previous level?
I would guess that in a lot of instances when trying out some new supercalifragilistic speaker cables, the old cables will have been
in situ for some time, and therefore the electrical contacts may
not be as good as they should, and may include a bit of diode
action from surface oxide. If this caused a slow degradation over
time it might not be noticed, and a sudden improvement could result
from the mere action of disturbing the connections for any reason.
Did you measure the resistance of the grey twin flex that came with
the speakers and compare it with the resistance of the 79 strand?
If the grey twin flex did reduce the quality after replacing it,
did you then try some ordinary non-fancy, but thick, speaker cable
from somewhere ordinary and non-fancy like B&Q? How did that sound?
On 24/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
the origin is zoonotic.
Who carried out, and on what basis did they do so. the statistical exercise?
On 24/11/2021 14:23, Java Jive wrote:
No evidence about the world is ever entirely complete, so based
on that we should ignore all science and technical innovation and return
to being hunter gatherers using stone tools. Oh no, stone tools are
technology based on evidence, which is incomplete, so we can't use those
either, so we must just be hunter-gatherers using only what our bodies
alone can manage. Oh no, our minds are a tool that learns from
evidence, yet all evidence is incomplete, so we're not allowed to use
our minds either, and applying that to evolutionary 'learning' for every
living thing on the planet means that evolution can not possibly occur.
But evolution does occur, and we do learn from experience, and we do
make useful tools, and we are always having to make decisions on
incomplete knowledge. Get used to it.
So tell us the reason *why* you feel the need to make a decision in the
case of the Wuhan virus. Are you considering sending in Bomber Command
to obliterate the lab?
On 24/11/2021 13:04, Java Jive wrote:
It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of
insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less
consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.
Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
On 25/11/2021 09:29, Spike wrote:
On 24/11/2021 13:04, Java Jive wrote:
It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of
insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less >>> consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.
Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
*are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
about exactly? Do you even know?
On 25/11/2021 09:28, Spike wrote:
On 24/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
the origin is zoonotic.
Who carried out, and on what basis did they do so. the statistical exercise?
I've linked to plenty enough evidence up thread that supports my
opinion, you have still to link to any relevant evidence whatsoever, so
will again be ignored.
On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
*are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
about exactly? Do you even know?
You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.
On 25/11/2021 13:50, Spike wrote:
On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
*are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
about exactly? Do you even know?
You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.
I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by Milankovic cycles.
On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 25/11/2021 09:29, Spike wrote:
On 24/11/2021 13:04, Java Jive wrote:
It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of >>>> insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less >>>> consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.
Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
*are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
about exactly? Do you even know?
You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.
On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
On 25/11/2021 13:50, Spike wrote:
On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
*are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not >>>> completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
about exactly? Do you even know?
You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.
I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
Milankovic cycles.
Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
But just to burst your bubble, I asked you this question:
"The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/interglacial periods. In every
one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years."
You then brought up the deflection of mentioning Milankovitch, whose
theory was that the ices ages came about as a result of orbital changes.
Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science.
Look up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the timings
of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and geologists
alike as accepted science.
Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.
I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.
On 25/11/2021 15:44, Spike wrote:
On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
Milankovic cycles.
Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
But well enough known to explain the recurring ice ages.
But just to burst your bubble, I asked you this question:
"The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/interglacial periods. In every
one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years."
You then brought up the deflection of mentioning Milankovitch, whose
theory was that the ices ages came about as a result of orbital changes.
An explanation is not a deflection. What I wrote was:
On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science.
Look up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
... and then ...
On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the timings
of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and geologists
alike as accepted science.
Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.
No,
but I never claimed that it did, I claimed that the ice ages
themselves were explained by Milankovic cycles.
I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.
Except that, to anyone that actually *UNDERSTANDS* the science, it's not embarrassing at all, because it fits predictions very well.
CO2 & temperature are both part of a positive feedback loop, where
increases in one cause increases in the other, and decreases in one
cause decreases in the other:
CO2 <-> Temperature
Increasing the concentration of CO2 traps heat that would otherwise be radiated out into space and reradiates some of it back down again, thus raising the temperature. Raising the temperature causes more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere by natural processes, such as fires and desertification on land, but mainly from the oceans, which can hold less
CO2 in solution as the temperature rises, and therefore they release it through their surface. It doesn't matter which side of this feedback
loop you begin by changing, the other will always act to amplify the
change still further and so on around the feedback loop until a new
point of equilibrium is reached.
But it's more complicated than that. A significant amplification factor around this feedback loop is water vapour in the atmosphere, the amount
of which is temperature dependent. Therefore if you increase the
temperature by any method you choose, that will cause more water vapour
to be carried in the atmosphere, and so trap more heat in the same
manner as does CO2 because it too is a greenhouse gas, and thus the temperature will rise further still, causing the release of still more
water vapour, and so on around the feedback loop until a new point of equilibrium is reached; similarly if the temperature falls for any
reason, less water vapour will be carried by the atmosphere, less heat trapped in by it, and so the temperature will fall still further, thus leading to even less water vapour in the atmosphere, and so on around
the feedback loop until a new point of equilibrium is reached. However, although there is very much more water vapour in the lower strata of the atmosphere than CO2, its lifetime there is days or weeks rather than
decades or centuries as is the case with CO2 and other 'problem'
greenhouse gases, hence water vapour responds too quickly to changes in ambient temperature to be able of itself to sustain climate change, it
can only amplify climate change caused by other factors, such as changes
in insolation caused by orbital cycles, as predicted by Milankovic, or changes in the amount of long lifetime greenhouse gases like CO2.
But it's more complicated even than that, because there are still more components of the positive feedback loop to consider. One is the
different albedo, reflectivity, of ice compared with land or sea. As
more ice melts, more solar energy is absorbed instead of being reflected
back into space, thus amplifying the original increase in temperature
that melted the ice. Another is that as permafrost melts, it releases methane trapped within it, and that too is a greenhouse gas. Another is
that as ocean floor temperatures increase, they too start to release
methane.
Thus it is that changes in CO2 concentration, that on initial or
ignorant assessment might seem almost homeopathically small, can lead to significant changes in temperature.
Hence it is entirely consistent that when such changes as described
above are initiated by orbital changes leading to changes in insolation, temperature tends to leads CO2, but that doesn't alter one jot the fact
that if you kick-start the same feedback loop from the other side by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as man is doing, you
will get exactly the same results as you would get by increasing
insolation, global warming.
Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.
No
On 25/11/2021 16:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 25/11/2021 15:44, Spike wrote:
On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by >>>> Milankovic cycles.
Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
But well enough known to explain the recurring ice ages.
Nobody needed them explained, so it's a mystery why you jumped in with Milankovitch.
But just to burst your bubble, I asked you this question:
"The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/interglacial periods. In every
one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years."
You then brought up the deflection of mentioning Milankovitch, whose
theory was that the ices ages came about as a result of orbital changes.
An explanation is not a deflection. What I wrote was:
On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
> Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science.
> Look up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
... and then ...
On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
> the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the timings
> of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and geologists
> alike as accepted science.
All irrelevant as no-one asked for the glacial/interglacials to be
explained.
Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.
No,
Thanks.
but I never claimed that it did, I claimed that the ice ages
themselves were explained by Milankovic cycles.
No-one asked you to. The topic was irrelevant to the discussion.
I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.
Except that, to anyone that actually *UNDERSTANDS* the science, it's not
embarrassing at all, because it fits predictions very well.
CO2 & temperature are both part of a positive feedback loop, where
increases in one cause increases in the other, and decreases in one
cause decreases in the other:
CO2 <-> Temperature
Increasing the concentration of CO2 traps heat that would otherwise be
radiated out into space and reradiates some of it back down again, thus
raising the temperature. Raising the temperature causes more CO2 to be
released into the atmosphere by natural processes, such as fires and
desertification on land, but mainly from the oceans, which can hold less
CO2 in solution as the temperature rises, and therefore they release it
through their surface. It doesn't matter which side of this feedback
loop you begin by changing, the other will always act to amplify the
change still further and so on around the feedback loop until a new
point of equilibrium is reached.
But it's more complicated than that. A significant amplification factor
around this feedback loop is water vapour in the atmosphere, the amount
of which is temperature dependent. Therefore if you increase the
temperature by any method you choose, that will cause more water vapour
to be carried in the atmosphere, and so trap more heat in the same
manner as does CO2 because it too is a greenhouse gas, and thus the
temperature will rise further still, causing the release of still more
water vapour, and so on around the feedback loop until a new point of
equilibrium is reached; similarly if the temperature falls for any
reason, less water vapour will be carried by the atmosphere, less heat
trapped in by it, and so the temperature will fall still further, thus
leading to even less water vapour in the atmosphere, and so on around
the feedback loop until a new point of equilibrium is reached. However,
although there is very much more water vapour in the lower strata of the
atmosphere than CO2, its lifetime there is days or weeks rather than
decades or centuries as is the case with CO2 and other 'problem'
greenhouse gases, hence water vapour responds too quickly to changes in
ambient temperature to be able of itself to sustain climate change, it
can only amplify climate change caused by other factors, such as changes
in insolation caused by orbital cycles, as predicted by Milankovic, or
changes in the amount of long lifetime greenhouse gases like CO2.
But it's more complicated even than that, because there are still more
components of the positive feedback loop to consider. One is the
different albedo, reflectivity, of ice compared with land or sea. As
more ice melts, more solar energy is absorbed instead of being reflected
back into space, thus amplifying the original increase in temperature
that melted the ice. Another is that as permafrost melts, it releases
methane trapped within it, and that too is a greenhouse gas. Another is
that as ocean floor temperatures increase, they too start to release
methane.
Thus it is that changes in CO2 concentration, that on initial or
ignorant assessment might seem almost homeopathically small, can lead to
significant changes in temperature.
Hence it is entirely consistent that when such changes as described
above are initiated by orbital changes leading to changes in insolation,
temperature tends to leads CO2, but that doesn't alter one jot the fact
that if you kick-start the same feedback loop from the other side by
increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as man is doing, you
will get exactly the same results as you would get by increasing
insolation, global warming.
[1] Spike wrote:
Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.
Java Jive answered:
No
But later he goes on to quote from an article that suggests Milankovitch cycles /do/ affect the CO2.
So, which is it, Java Jive? Why are you tripping over yourself?
[2] At least you've explained why the Roman Warm Period accounts for the current rise in CO2.
[3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
CO2 now keeping the planet cool?
[4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101 skills, such as they are...
On 26/11/2021 10:48, Spike wrote:
On 25/11/2021 16:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 25/11/2021 15:44, Spike wrote:
On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by >>>>> Milankovic cycles.
Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
But well enough known to explain the recurring ice ages.
Nobody needed them explained, so it's a mystery why you jumped in with
Milankovitch.
You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
climate change.
Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.
No,
Thanks.
I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't >>>> want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.
Except that, to anyone that actually *UNDERSTANDS* the science, it's not >>> embarrassing at all, because it fits predictions very well.
[1] Spike wrote:
Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.
Java Jive answered:
No
But later he goes on to quote from an article that suggests Milankovitch
cycles /do/ affect the CO2.
So, which is it, Java Jive? Why are you tripping over yourself?
I'm not, both statements are correct
[2] At least you've explained why the Roman Warm Period accounts for the
current rise in CO2.
FALSE! It doesn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
[3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when
their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
CO2 now keeping the planet cool?
Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen Raymo's graph already linked.
[4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
skills, such as they are...
It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from
S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in
the scientific literature.
On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
climate change.
Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the correlation is less than good.
Got you off banging on about Wuhan, though, didn't it.
FALSE! It doesn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
So when the Climate Change Industry puts out a rendition of a combusting globe speckled in red splotches, we can say that Global Warming doesn't
exist because the warming wasn't global or even even.
You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
millennial cycle, or you wouldn't quote a Wikipedia entry as being scientifically robust.
[3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when >>> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
CO2 now keeping the planet cool?
Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen
Raymo's graph already linked.
Why don't *you* examine Maureen Raymo's graph, and explain it?
[4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
skills, such as they are...
It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from
S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in
the scientific literature.
Then your own 'description base' is missing something. Your research
appears to be poor.
I'll leave it as an exercise for your research skills to find out which
IPCC member admitted that 'climate change' wasn't about environmental
policy, it was about transfer of wealth. I take it you noted how many
times during COP26 you heard mention of '$100bn a year to poorer countries'.
And keep in mind that In the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Code Red Emergency Alarm
Justice system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being revised.
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to
model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the
components being numerous and not all being known, and the level
of their inputs are not known either. The current models, which
run a tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have
predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even 'predicted' past
climate. Clouds, for example, are not modelled - a set of
standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and which,
given their far greater effect on the climate than trace gasses,
is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the
need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of our
uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it
doesn't call into question the scientific evidence supporting
AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so
badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't
know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called 'Climategate'
with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to investigate the
CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same
conclusions as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were
on the Berkeley Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve
Mosher, now accept that global warming is happening, saying:
"What’s that mean? It means the CRU are not frauds. It means it’s
not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over temperature so that we
can focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2 will
warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What should we
do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation between CO2 and temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
"Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to go
along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears caused by
climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears are thriving".
"Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you won't be
able to go".
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to
model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the
components being numerous and not all being known, and the
level of their inputs are not known either. The current
models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the
climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of
our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it
doesn't call into question the scientific evidence supporting
AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so
badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't
know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to
investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to
*EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global warming
is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU are
not frauds. It means it’s
not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over temperature so that
we can focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What
should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation
between CO2 and temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to go
along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears caused
by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears are
thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you
won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to
model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the
components being numerous and not all being known, and the
level of their inputs are not known either. The current
models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the
climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of
our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate,
it doesn't call into question the scientific evidence
supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do
so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't
know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to
investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to
*EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global warming
is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU are
not frauds. It means it’s
not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over temperature so that
we can focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What
should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation
between CO2 and temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to go
along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears caused
by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears are
thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you
won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet
to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system,
the components being numerous and not all being known, and
the level of their inputs are not known either. The current
models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects
is assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on
the climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results
of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's
climate, it doesn't call into question the scientific
evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do
so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we
don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers
to investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came
to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
warming is happening, saying: "Whats that mean? It means
the CRU are not frauds. It means its not a hoax. So
lets end the debate over temperature so that we can focus
on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2 will warm
the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What should we
do about it?". Note the excellent correlation between CO2
and temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two
ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to
go along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears
caused by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears
are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your
funding, you won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet
to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system,
the components being numerous and not all being known, and
the level of their inputs are not known either. The current
models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects
is assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on
the climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results
of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's
climate, it doesn't call into question the scientific
evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do
so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we
don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers
to investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came
to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
warming is happening, saying: "What_s that mean? It means
the CRU are not frauds. It means it_s not a hoax. So
let_s end the debate over temperature so that we can focus
on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2 will warm
the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What should
we do about it?_". Note the excellent correlation between
CO2 and temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two
ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to
go along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears
caused by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar
bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with
your funding, you won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the
planet to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic
system, the components being numerous and not all being
known, and the level of their inputs are not known
either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of
the contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing,
and AFAICT have never even 'predicted' past climate.
Clouds, for example, are not modelled - a set of
standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and
which, given their far greater effect on the climate
than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might
feel the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the
earth's climate, it doesn't call into question the
scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't
do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe
their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we
don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after
so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the
Koch brothers to investigate the CRU 'Climategate'
findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions
as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were on
the Berkeley Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve
Mosher, now accept that global warming is happening,
saying: "What_s that mean? It means the CRU are not frauds.
It means it_s not a hoax. So let_s end the debate over
temperature so that we can focus on the part of the debate
that really matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much?
What can we do about it? What should we do about it?_".
Note the excellent correlation between CO2 and temperature
in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two
ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant
for your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming
the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you
to go along and present the picture of the plight of polar
bears caused by climate change". "I can't do that, because
polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem
with your funding, you won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research,
Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry", alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport holder,
alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly through the
medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry", alleged
glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport holder,
alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly through the
medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
On 28/11/2021 16:41, Pamela wrote:
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport
holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly
through the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread,
as we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the
planet to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic
system, the components being numerous and not all being
known, and the level of their inputs are not known
either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of
the contributors to the climate, have predicted
nothing, and AFAICT have never even 'predicted' past
climate. Clouds, for example, are not modelled - a set
of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed,
and which, given their far greater effect on the
climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might
feel the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the
earth's climate, it doesn't call into question the
scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they
don't do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe
their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we
don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after
so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the
Koch brothers to investigate the CRU 'Climategate'
findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions
as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were on
the Berkeley Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve
Mosher, now accept that global warming is happening,
saying: "What_s that mean? It means the CRU are not
frauds. It means it_s not a hoax. So let_s end the debate
over temperature so that we can focus on the part of the
debate that really matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How
much? What can we do about it? What should we do about
it?_". Note the excellent correlation between CO2 and
temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two
ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant
for your research centre to prove that a trace gas is
warming the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right
away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you
to go along and present the picture of the plight of polar
bears caused by climate change". "I can't do that, because
polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem
with your funding, you won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research,
Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry", alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport holder,
alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly through
the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:48:40 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 28/11/2021 16:41, Pamela wrote:
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport
holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly
through the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread,
as we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
Don't think that's true. Burt does like to be an expert in all things, though.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:41:24 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the
planet to model the climate, due to its being a
chaotic system, the components being numerous and not
all being known, and the level of their inputs are
not known either. The current models, which run a
tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have
predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are
not modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud
effects is assumed, and which, given their far
greater effect on the climate than trace gasses, is
astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you
might feel the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the
earth's climate, it doesn't call into question the
scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they
don't do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe
their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is
we don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up
after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil money
from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the
same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even former
denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
warming is happening, saying: "What_s that mean? It
means the CRU are not frauds. It means it_s not a hoax.
So let_s end the debate over temperature so that we can
focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
What should we do about it?_". Note the excellent
correlation between CO2 and temperature in their
findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of
two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended
grant for your research centre to prove that a trace gas
is warming the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it
right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for
you to go along and present the picture of the plight of
polar bears caused by climate change". "I can't do that,
because polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's
a problem with your funding, you won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research,
Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport
holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly
through the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a number
of years, which may explain some of his online behaviour. Loves
anything to do with The War (he was born in 1944, so that might
explain that). He's got a posting history as long as your arm on uk.radio.amateur if you're really interested. See also RVMJ on that
group, that was Burt too.
On 20:54 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:41:24 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the
planet to model the climate, due to its being a
chaotic system, the components being numerous and not
all being known, and the level of their inputs are
not known either. The current models, which run a
tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have
predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are
not modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud
effects is assumed, and which, given their far
greater effect on the climate than trace gasses, is
astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you
might feel the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the
earth's climate, it doesn't call into question the
scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they
don't do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe
their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is
we don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up
after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil money
from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the
same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even former
denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
warming is happening, saying: "What_s that mean? It
means the CRU are not frauds. It means it_s not a hoax.
So let_s end the debate over temperature so that we can
focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
What should we do about it?_". Note the excellent
correlation between CO2 and temperature in their
findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of
two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended
grant for your research centre to prove that a trace gas
is warming the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it
right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for
you to go along and present the picture of the plight of
polar bears caused by climate change". "I can't do that,
because polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's
a problem with your funding, you won't be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research,
Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport
holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly
through the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in
Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a number
of years, which may explain some of his online behaviour. Loves
anything to do with The War (he was born in 1944, so that might
explain that). He's got a posting history as long as your arm on uk.radio.amateur if you're really interested. See also RVMJ on that
group, that was Burt too.
I don't think I have the stamina to plough through dozens of old
radio amateur posts but I wonder if there's an audio clip of him
chatting as a radio ham.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:18:05 GMT
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20:54 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:41:24 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on
the planet to model the climate, due to its being
a chaotic system, the components being numerous
and not all being known, and the level of their
inputs are not known either. The current models,
which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for
example, are not modelled - a set of standard
conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and
which, given their far greater effect on the
climate than trace gasses, is
astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you
might feel the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on
the earth's climate, it doesn't call into question
the scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they
don't do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't
toe their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it
is we don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with our
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up
after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil
money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY*
the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth
team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now
accept that global warming is happening, saying:
"What_s that mean? It means the CRU are not frauds.
It means it_s not a hoax. So let_s end the debate
over temperature so that we can focus on the part of
the debate that really matters, CO2
will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about
it? What should we do about it?_". Note the excellent
correlation between CO2 and temperature in their
findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one
of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended
grant for your research centre to prove that a trace
gas is warming the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team
on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for
you to go along and present the picture of the plight
of polar bears caused by climate change". "I can't do
that, because polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm
sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you won't
be able to go".
Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any
research, Burt?
Why do you call him Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport
holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates
mainly through the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in
Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on
anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a
number of years, which may explain some of his online behaviour.
Loves anything to do with The War (he was born in 1944, so that
might explain that). He's got a posting history as long as your
arm on uk.radio.amateur if you're really interested. See also
RVMJ on that group, that was Burt too.
I don't think I have the stamina to plough through dozens of old
radio amateur posts but I wonder if there's an audio clip of him
chatting as a radio ham.
No, Burt would never reveal himself. He's a man of mystery.
On 27/11/2021 12:23, Spike wrote:
On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
climate change.
Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
correlation is less than good.
But the good correlation is happening now, when greenhouse gases are
leading the feedback loop, not hundreds of thousands of years ago, when temperature was leading it, so it was always a straw man rather than a
golden cross.
Got you off banging on about Wuhan, though, didn't it.
You're still not producing any relevant *EVIDENCE* about that, nor
indeed about this, so no need.
FALSE! It doesn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
So when the Climate Change Industry puts out a rendition of a combusting
globe speckled in red splotches, we can say that Global Warming doesn't
exist because the warming wasn't global or even even.
You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
millennial cycle, or you wouldn't quote a Wikipedia entry as being
scientifically robust.
Opinion stated as if it were fact, yet again unsupported by *EVIDENCE*.
Why am I not surprised!
[3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when >>>> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is >>>> CO2 now keeping the planet cool?
Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen
Raymo's graph already linked.
Why don't *you* examine Maureen Raymo's graph, and explain it?
I thought you said that my mentioning of Milankovic cycles was
irrelevant? If you claim enough knowledge to be able to declare them irrelevant, why do I need to explain to you, when really there should be nothing further to explain, that the graphs shows that previous
interglacials were predicted to be warmer by Milankovic's own calculations?
When are you going to produce some *EVIDENCE* for what you claim?
[4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101 >>>> skills, such as they are...
It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from
S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in >>> the scientific literature.
Then your own 'description base' is missing something. Your research
appears to be poor.
Still no *EVIDENCE* for what you claim!
I'll leave it as an exercise for your research skills to find out which
IPCC member admitted that 'climate change' wasn't about environmental
policy, it was about transfer of wealth. I take it you noted how many
times during COP26 you heard mention of '$100bn a year to poorer countries'.
I leave it as an exercise for your research to discover what he actually
said in what context, which is rather different from what you've tried
to imply above.
And keep in mind that In the Dangerous Unprecedented CatastrophicAnd keep in mind that due to the sustained efforts of bigoted and
Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Code Red Emergency Alarm
Justice system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being
revised
dishonest idiots like you and the people you read online over more than twenty years, that consequential lack of earlier effective action by
many governments, who allowed themselves to be conned thereby, means
that we've got twenty years' *EXTRA* emissions to deal with that we
could easily have avoided simply through people being honest.
Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
scientific knowledge here in this thread.
On 28/11/2021 16:48, Java Jive wrote:
Judging by what we already know from above description and up
thread, as we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
It could be worse - he could have got S101...
I'm taking this thread in the upm group, which is not in a good state
as regards on-topic postings. In order to make it readable, I run a
watch list of posters, which filters out the rubbish, and sometimes
also other stuff. Jim isn't in my watch list and so I have seen no
messages of his, or indeed any of his that have been replied to by
people who are.
Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a number of
years, which may explain some of his online behaviour. Loves anything
to do with The War (he was born in 1944, so that might explain that).
He's got a posting history as long as your arm on uk.radio.amateur if
you're really interested. See also RVMJ on that group, that was Burt
too.
If you like correlations. then here's an article for you:
<http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php>
On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:
Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
scientific knowledge here in this thread.
That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific knowledge.
All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate with
S101, which is a foundation course.
On 28/11/2021 16:48, Java Jive wrote:
Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread, as
we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
It could be worse - he could have got S101...
On 27/11/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
On 27/11/2021 12:23, Spike wrote:
On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a >>>> predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
climate change.
Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
correlation is less than good.
But the good correlation is happening now, when greenhouse gases are
leading the feedback loop, not hundreds of thousands of years ago, when
temperature was leading it, so it was always a straw man rather than a
golden cross.
If you like correlations. then here's an article for you:
<h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e s / V 2 4 / n o v / a 2 . p h p>
Good luck.
Got you off banging on about Wuhan, though, didn't it.
You're still not producing any relevant *EVIDENCE* about that, nor
indeed about this, so no need.
You're the one making the claims; you provide the evidence.
FALSE! It doesn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
So when the Climate Change Industry puts out a rendition of a combusting >>> globe speckled in red splotches, we can say that Global Warming doesn't
exist because the warming wasn't global or even even.
You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
millennial cycle, or you wouldn't quote a Wikipedia entry as being
scientifically robust.
Opinion stated as if it were fact, yet again unsupported by *EVIDENCE*.
Why am I not surprised!
You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
millennial cycle. Here's a summary for you:
<h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / s u b j e c t / d / s u m m a r i e s / r w p d a c p . p h p>
[3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when >>>>> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is >>>>> CO2 now keeping the planet cool?
Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen >>>> Raymo's graph already linked.
Why don't *you* examine Maureen Raymo's graph, and explain it?
I thought you said that my mentioning of Milankovic cycles was
irrelevant? If you claim enough knowledge to be able to declare them
irrelevant, why do I need to explain to you, when really there should be
nothing further to explain, that the graphs shows that previous
interglacials were predicted to be warmer by Milankovic's own calculations?
Then having jumped in with the subject, you need to explain, If
Milankovitch controls the interglacial temperature peaks, what CO2 has
got to do with it.
When are you going to produce some *EVIDENCE* for what you claim?
Your deflections, ground-shifting, abuse, and false arguments in this
thread are there for all to see.
[4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not >>>>> unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101 >>>>> skills, such as they are...
It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from >>>> S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in >>>> the scientific literature.
Try this, it's a bit long but should give you some of the science you need:
<h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / / e d u c a t i o n / r e p o r t s / h a n s e n / h a n s e n c r i t i q u e . p h p>
Then your own 'description base' is missing something. Your research
appears to be poor.
Still no *EVIDENCE* for what you claim!
Silly boy! You have to look for what *isn't* in your description base.
It's more difficult than finding a Wikipedia article but does assume you
know something about the topic.
[Snip abuse showing that you've lost the substantive argument]
I'll leave it as an exercise for your research skills to find out which >>> IPCC member admitted that 'climate change' wasn't about environmental
policy, it was about transfer of wealth. I take it you noted how many
times during COP26 you heard mention of '$100bn a year to poorer countries'.
I leave it as an exercise for your research to discover what he actually
said in what context, which is rather different from what you've tried
to imply above.
Evasion.
And keep in mind that In the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Code Red Emergency Alarm
Justice system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being >>> revised
And keep in mind that due to the sustained efforts of bigoted and
dishonest idiots like you and the people you read online over more than
twenty years, that consequential lack of earlier effective action by
many governments, who allowed themselves to be conned thereby, means
that we've got twenty years' *EXTRA* emissions to deal with that we
could easily have avoided simply through people being honest.
Emotive drivel. Dry your eyes and grow up.
On 29/11/2021 09:31, Spike wrote:
On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:
Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
scientific knowledge here in this thread.
That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific knowledge.
All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate
with S101, which is a foundation course.
I notice that you keep deliberately omitting S233 'Geology and the Environment', which is a second level course, on both of which I
gained distinction, and many years of interested reading before and
since, whereas your scientific qualification are what exactly? I'm
looking forward, not, to your explanation of earth science through
the medium of contemporary dance.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:10:34 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 29/11/2021 09:31, Spike wrote:
On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:
Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
scientific knowledge here in this thread.
That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific
knowledge.
All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate
with S101, which is a foundation course.
I notice that you keep deliberately omitting S233 'Geology and the
Environment', which is a second level course, on both of which I
gained distinction, and many years of interested reading before and
since, whereas your scientific qualification are what exactly? I'm
looking forward, not, to your explanation of earth science through
the medium of contemporary dance.
Good dancer though, isn't he? Light on his feet, fantastic changement
de pieds, and lashings of flourishes. A little flamboyant, for some,
perhaps?
Good dancer though, isn't he? Light on his feet, fantastic changement
de pieds, and lashings of flourishes. A little flamboyant, for some,
perhaps?
No, just another tiresomely ignorant internet troll who hasn't learnt
the truth of the old saying, that it is better to keep one's mouth
shut and let everyone think you're a fool than to open it and remove
all shadow of doubt, thus wasting the time of everyone else.
On 29/11/2021 09:31, Spike wrote
On 28/11/2021 22:00, Java Jive wrote:
Let me put it this way then, he has yet to display any significant
scientific knowledge here in this thread.
That's because he's trying to get *you* to display *your* scientific
knowledge.
All we have seen so far is someone's redacted degree certificate with
S101, which is a foundation course.
I notice that you keep deliberately omitting S233 'Geology and the Environment', which is a second level course, on both of which I gained distinction, and many years of interested reading before and since,
whereas your scientific qualification are what exactly? I'm looking
forward, not, to your explanation of earth science through the medium of contemporary dance.
On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
On 28/11/2021 16:48, Java Jive wrote:
Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread, as >>> we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.
It could be worse - he could have got S101...
I've obviously got you there, because despite repeated requests, you
can't even muster that, let a second-level course in earth sciences,
both gained with distinction.
How's denialism as proven by contemporary dance coming on?
An S2xx in an ology <swoon>
Kindly stop appealing to (your assumed) authority. It makes you look inadequate.
On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
<h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e s / V 2 4 / n o v / a 2 . p h p>
Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run
by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
So, you've no answer to their paper other than to attack the people.
Why didn't you answer their analysis? S101 didn't give you the tools, obviously.
Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?
It's crap - get over it.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 22:38:53 +0000
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
No, just another tiresomely ignorant internet troll who hasn't
learnt the truth of the old saying, that it is better to keep one's
mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool than to open it and
remove all shadow of doubt, thus wasting the time of everyone else.
I suspect that Burt will reflect that back on you and claim that
he's practising a psychological technique of reflecting bad
behaviour back to the perpetrator. It's not a displacement activity
at all when Burt does such things. No, no ,no ,no, no, not at all.
It is what he says it is, of course.
On 30/11/2021 09:52, Spike wrote:
Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?
It's crap - get over it.
But apparently still better than yours. How's Denialism By Dance
coming on? Found a theatre yet?
On 23:03 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:18:05 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20:54 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:41:24 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 SpikeWhy do you call him Burt?
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research,
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on the
planet to model the climate, due to its being a
chaotic system, the components being numerous and not
all being known, and the level of their inputs are
not known either. The current models, which run a
tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have
predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are
not modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud
effects is assumed, and which, given their far
greater effect on the climate than trace gasses, is
astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you
might feel the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the
earth's climate, it doesn't call into question the
scientific evidence supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they
don't do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it is
we don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with ourScience is controlled through funding. It goes in one of
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up
after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil money
from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the
same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even former
denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
warming is happening, saying: "What_s that mean? It
means the CRU are not frauds. It means it_s not a hoax.
So let_s end the debate over temperature so that we can
focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
What should we do about it?_". Note the excellent
correlation between CO2 and temperature in their
findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended
grant for your research centre to prove that a trace gas
is warming the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it
right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for
you to go along and present the picture of the plight of
polar bears caused by climate change". "I can't do that,
because polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's
a problem with your funding, you won't be able to go".
Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport
holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly
through the medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.
Anything else?
Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a number
of years, which may explain some of his online behaviour.
Loves anything to do with The War (he was born in 1944, so that
might explain that). He's got a posting history as long as your arm
on uk.radio.amateur if you're really interested. See also RVMJ on
that group, that was Burt too.
I don't think I have the stamina to plough through dozens of old radio
amateur posts but I wonder if there's an audio clip of him chatting as
a radio ham.
No, Burt would never reveal himself. He's a man of mystery.
Another poster there, Jim, has no such qualms and has even cross posted YouTubes of himself in action to the DIY group.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 23:37:39 +0000, Pamela wrote:
On 23:03 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:18:05 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20:54 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 16:41:24 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 SpikeWhy do you call him Burt?
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any
On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't
On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
There isn't currently enough computing power on
the planet to model the climate, due to its
being a chaotic system, the components being
numerous and not all being known, and the level
of their inputs are not known either. The
current models, which run a
tiny subset of the contributors to the climate,
have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never
even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for
example, are not modelled - a set of standard
conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and
which, given their far greater effect on the
climate than trace gasses, is
astonishing.
Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you
might feel the need to make.
The above merely makes it difficult to predict
the results of our uncontrolled but live
experiment on the earth's climate, it doesn't
call into question the scientific evidence
supporting AGW.
It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task,
they don't do so badly:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
toe their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
But you're saying that although we don't know what it
is we don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
That's a brave position to take.
The science says we are warming the planet with ourScience is controlled through funding. It goes in one
greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set
up after so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil
money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY*
the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth
team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now
accept that global warming is happening, saying:
"What_s that mean? It means the CRU are not frauds.
It means it_s not a hoax. So let_s end the debate
over temperature so that we can
focus on the part of the debate that really
matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much? What
can we do about it? What should we do about it?_".
Note the excellent correlation between CO2 and
temperature in their findings:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
of two ways:
"So, Professor James. we're offering you an
open-ended grant for your research centre to prove
that a trace gas is warming the planet". "Thanks,
I'll get the team on it right away".
The other way goes like this:
"The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds
for you to go along and present the picture of the
plight of polar bears caused by climate change". "I
can't do that, because polar bears are thriving".
"Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding,
you won't be able to go".
research, Burt?
He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
background?
Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry",
alleged glittering career, alleged former diplomatic
passport holder, alleged radio amateur, enormous ego,
communicates mainly through the medium of contemporary
dance, and lives in Torquay,
Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on
anything.
Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas
and arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the
way of diplomacy.
Anything else?
Um... He was terrorised by some of his local children for a
number of years, which may explain some of his online
behaviour. Loves anything to do with The War (he was born in
1944, so that might explain that). He's got a posting history
as long as your arm on uk.radio.amateur if you're really
interested. See also RVMJ on that group, that was Burt too.
I don't think I have the stamina to plough through dozens of old
radio amateur posts but I wonder if there's an audio clip of him
chatting as a radio ham.
No, Burt would never reveal himself. He's a man of mystery.
Another poster there, Jim, has no such qualms and has even cross
posted YouTubes of himself in action to the DIY group.
yes, sickening isn't it.
"Denialism By Dance" ... lol
Maybe Spike/Burt would call it "negatio ab saltatio". Although I haven't attempted the correct dative case for dance.
On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
An S2xx in an ology <swoon>
Kindly stop appealing to (your assumed) authority. It makes you look
inadequate.
You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm merely correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.
How's Denialism By Dance coming on?
On 30/11/2021 10:29, Java Jive wrote:
You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm merely
correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.
"I have an ology and I think you don't" is an appeal to authority.
Stop using it as an argument, it makes you look small.
On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the
argument, because you're going for the man.
It's *EVIDENCE*!
*EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did
really know, you wouldn't say that.
How's Denialism By Dance coming on?
That makes you look petty.
On 30/11/2021 10:30, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/11/2021 09:52, Spike wrote:
Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?
It's crap - get over it.
But apparently still better than yours. How's Denialism By Dance coming
on? Found a theatre yet?
That's even sillier than you normally manage.
On 01/12/2021 10:35, Spike wrote:
On 30/11/2021 10:29, Java Jive wrote:
You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm merely >>> correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.
"I have an ology and I think you don't" is an appeal to authority.
Stop using it as an argument, it makes you look small.
You are a pathetic hypocrite, it was you who first started going for the
man, for example ...
On 13/11/2021 14:33, Spike wrote:
On 13/11/2021 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
That is not *EVIDENCE*! It's obvious now that you've lost the
argument, because you're going for the man.
It's *EVIDENCE*!
*EVIDENCE* that you don't know what you're talking about - if you did really know, you wouldn't say that.
... only to discover that I have a 1st in Sci-Tech subjects,
How's Denialism By Dance coming on?
That makes you look petty.
You should know all about that.
Further replies in this subthread lacking substantive argument based on *EVIDENCE* will be ignored henceforth.
On 01/12/2021 10:35, Spike wrote:
On 30/11/2021 10:30, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/11/2021 09:52, Spike wrote:
Still appealing to (your assumed) authority?
It's crap - get over it.
But apparently still better than yours. How's Denialism By Dance coming >>> on? Found a theatre yet?
That's even sillier than you normally manage.
Hypocrite! See other reply along the same lines, further replies in
this subthread lacking substantive argument based on *EVIDENCE* will be ignored henceforth.
On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
<http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php>
Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run >>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
So, you've no answer to their paper other than to attack the people.
Why didn't you answer their analysis? S101 didn't give you the tools,
obviously.
I did, but you snipped it.
More to the point, why did you post so many links to an obviously fake 'science' site?
On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
<h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e s / V 2 4 / n o v / a 2 . p h p >
Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with >>>> the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run >>>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
So, you've no answer to their paper other than to attack the people.
Why didn't you answer their analysis? S101 didn't give you the tools,
obviously.
I did, but you snipped it.
You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
huge destruction of the web site and the authors.
Java Jive wrote:
"Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
untrustworthy denialist site, run by obvious
untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest snipped
This is, of course, completely unscientific.
Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
they forecast has turned out to be wrong"
being much like the climate hysterics forecasts of no Arctic summer ice
by 2013,
or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015, 2018, etc,
the
statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever destruction of
a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete with its inference
of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you have made no
effective response at all, always presuming you understood it in the
first place.
Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key findings of the analysis I linked to.
You don't seem to aware of the
importance of looking for what is not being said, an example of which is
your having missed a key factor in a piece of work of your own which you quoted a little while ago.
More to the point, why did you post so many links to an obviously fake
'science' site?
Ignoring your pre-formed opinion, the idea was to see if you would trip
over yourself in your hysterical rush to condemn. You didn't disappoint.
You have not been charged for these lessons.
On 30/11/2021 10:29, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
An S2xx in an ology <swoon>
Kindly stop appealing to (your assumed) authority. It makes you
look inadequate.
You're the person who keeps mentioning my (actual) authority, I'm
merely correcting you when you deliberately misrepresent it.
"I have an ology and I think you don't" is an appeal to authority.
Stop using it as an argument, it makes you look small.
How's Denialism By Dance coming on?
That makes you look petty.
On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
<http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php>
Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with
the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run >>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
Java Jive wrote:
"Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
untrustworthy denialist site, run by obvious
untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest snipped
Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
they forecast has turned out to be wrong"
For one of them, yes, virtually *EVERYTHING* he has forecast has indeed turned out to be wrong!
the statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever destruction of >> a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete with its inference
of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you have made no
effective response at all, always presuming you understood it in the
first place.
Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
findings of the analysis I linked to.
There were no 'key findings' because the calculation was meaningless.
Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
can always give a reference where necessary.
Recognise when you've been outclassed.
On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
[snip self-opinionated bullshit]
Love it!
On 01/12/2021 21:05, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
<http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php>
Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal with >>>> the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist site, run >>>> by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
huge destruction of the web site and the authors.
What you should have done was destroy their *argument*, which, of course
you *COMPLETELY* *FAILED* to do in your rush to condemn.
Java Jive wrote:
"Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
untrustworthy denialist site, run by obvious
untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest snipped
Have you ever read a peer-reviewed scientific paper that started with an emotional attack on another author?
Thought not.
Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
they forecast has turned out to be wrong"
For one of them, yes, virtually *EVERYTHING* he has forecast has indeed
turned out to be wrong!
Much like the claims of climate hysterics like yourself predicting no
Arctic summer ice by 2013, or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015,
2018, etc
the statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever destruction of >>> a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete with its inference
of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you have made no
effective response at all, always presuming you understood it in the
first place.
Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
findings of the analysis I linked to.
There were no 'key findings' because the calculation was meaningless.
Oh dear.
You don't seem to aware of the importance of looking for what is not
being said, an example of which is your having missed a key factor in a
piece of work of your own which you quoted a little while ago.
The *EVIDENCE* is there, in both cases. To miss one key point speaks of misfortune; to miss two speaks of carelessness. Is putting your fingers
in your ears a SCIENTIFIC response, in your world of S101? Good luck in finding your missing links.
In future:
Don't reply with an emotional appeal based on ad homs
Don't reply with /any/ false arguments
Don't reply with an appeal to your assumed authority
Don't reply with a wall of text that you think supports your case
Don't assume that everything you don't agree with is wrong
Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
can always give a reference where necessary.
Recognise when you've been outclassed.
HTH
On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
can always give a reference where necessary.
See previous replies. The site is bullshit run by bullshitters, and the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a meaningless result.
Recognise when you've been outclassed.
I'm still waiting for *EVIDENCE* in the form of another example of an R program done in reverse order like the one you linked to, and which has
got a correct and meaningful result. I expect to be waiting a very long time, so I won't be holding my breath.
On 04/12/2021 09:24, Spike wrote:
And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are *determined* not to understand it in the first place?
Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
2 * 45 tan =
... and ...
45 * 2 tan =
... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.
Let's see some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread!
Cough up or shut up.
On 03/12/2021 10:10, Java Jive wrote:
On 03/12/2021 09:09, Spike wrote:
Try to answer points with a succinct, considered - rather than
cut-and-paste - response written by you rather than someone else. You
can always give a reference where necessary.
See previous replies. The site is bullshit run by bullshitters, and the
so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it performed the statistical
operations in the wrong order, leading to a meaningless result.
That's a meaningless statement.
I'm still waiting for *EVIDENCE* in the form of another example of an R
program done in reverse order like the one you linked to, and which has
got a correct and meaningful result. I expect to be waiting a very long
time, so I won't be holding my breath.
You fool. You *still* haven't worked out what it is you've missed. Your previous wall of text quotation didn't mention it either, largely
because it would have exposed their weakness. Recognise when you've been bamboozled, probably because of your limited knowledge of statistics.
On 04/12/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 04/12/2021 09:24, Spike wrote:
And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it
performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are
*determined* not to understand it in the first place?
Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
2 * 45 tan =
... and ...
45 * 2 tan =
... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.
That's an *arithmetical* *calculation*, *NOT* a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
It's hardly my fault that you were either badly taught or didn't understand.
Let's see some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread!
Cough up or shut up.
So far, the *EVIDENCE* is that you can't tell the difference between an
*arithmetical* *calculation* and a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
No wonder you bluster and post walls of text.
On 04/12/2021 12:10, Spike wrote:
On 04/12/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
On 04/12/2021 09:24, Spike wrote:
And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it
performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are
*determined* not to understand it in the first place?
Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
2 * 45 tan =
... and ...
45 * 2 tan =
... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.
That's an *arithmetical* *calculation*, *NOT* a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
Earth shattering a shock to you it may be, but everyone else in the
world has known for a long time that statistics is based on arithmetical operations.
It's hardly my fault that you were either badly taught or didn't understand.
It is entirely your fault, your failure in character in fact, that you continue to flog a horse so very long and so very dead, just because you can't accept losing an argument.
So far, the *EVIDENCE* is that you can't tell the difference between an
*arithmetical* *calculation* and a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
No wonder you bluster and post walls of text.
Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
or shut up.
On 04/12/2021 12:23, Java Jive wrote:
On 04/12/2021 12:10, Spike wrote:
On 04/12/2021 11:17, Java Jive wrote:
And what is it about "the so-called 'analysis' was bullshit because it >>>> performed the statistical operations in the wrong order, leading to a
meaningless result" that is so very hard to understand, unless you are >>>> *determined* not to understand it in the first place?
Hint: Try keying into a calculator ...
2 * 45 tan =
... and ...
45 * 2 tan =
... and notice that on most calculators the results will differ.
BTW, that's a low-quality calculator's way of expressing the operation.
A mathematically-correct one would say
2 <enter>45<tan><x> and it's hard to get that wrong.
That's an *arithmetical* *calculation*, *NOT* a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
Earth shattering a shock to you it may be, but everyone else in the
world has known for a long time that statistics is based on arithmetical
operations.
So you're saying that 2x3=6 is different from 3x2=6??
2 * 45 tan =
45 * 2 tan =
You're batshit crazy.
It's hardly my fault that you were either badly taught or didn't understand.
It is entirely your fault, your failure in character in fact, that you
continue to flog a horse so very long and so very dead, just because you
can't accept losing an argument.
Keep telling yourself that. if it brings you any comfort.
So far, the *EVIDENCE* is that you can't tell the difference between an
*arithmetical* *calculation* and a *STATISTICAL* *PROCEDURE*.
No wonder you bluster and post walls of text.
Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
or shut up.
Learn some maths, microbiology, statistics, and Cold War history, and
you might not make so many fundamental errors.
Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
or shut up.
In article <sog1s3$bpl$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
or shut up.
So far as I can tell, "Spike" just wants to get attention and "have the
last word". i.e. waste of time to respond.
On 04/12/2021 13:32, Spike wrote:
You're batshit crazy.
I'm simply correct, and you just can't stand it, can you?
Learn some maths, microbiology, statistics, and Cold War history, and
you might not make so many fundamental errors.
On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
What is misleading in this short quote from <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
=====
About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
=====
Why would no real scientist write that?
On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
What is misleading in this short quote from
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
=====
About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
=====
Why would no real scientist write that?
Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
What is misleading in this short quote from
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
=====
About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline >>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s >>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
=====
Why would no real scientist write that?
Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic: >>
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
the 'climate change' believers methods.
But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.
On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:untrustworthy
On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
<h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e >>>>>> s / V 2 4 / n o v / a 2 . p h p >
Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal
with the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist
site, run by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
So, you've no answer to their paper other than to attack the people.
Why didn't you answer their analysis? S101 didn't give you the tools,
obviously.
I did, but you snipped it.
You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
huge destruction of the web site and the authors.
You made the climate denialist fanatic's mistake of making multiple
links to an obviously bogus fake 'science' site, and I destroyed it as a lesson to you that such sources cannot be relied upon.
Java Jive wrote:
"Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
timeseries.htmldenialist site, run by obvious untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest
snipped
This is, of course, completely unscientific.
It's completely valid, even scientific, to show that people who are
peddling lies are liars, and therefore cannot be relied upon.
Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
they forecast has turned out to be wrong"
For one of them, yes, virtually *EVERYTHING* he has forecast has indeed turned out to be wrong!
, so apart from that claim
being much like the climate hysterics forecasts of no Arctic summer ice
by 2013,
Not a comparison of like with like: your links were supposedly to
scientists, whereas Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and the scientist whose research he claimed to be quoting repudiated Al Gore's
quotes of his work at the time.
or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015, 2018, etc,
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
the statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever
destruction of a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete
with its inference of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you
have made no effective response at all, always presuming you understood
it in the first place.
On the contrary, you obviously failed to understand the repudiation, I suspect because you just didn't bother to read it properly if at all, or
else failed to understand it, which wouldn't be surprising, given that
you were dumb enough to link to the crap in the first place. Here's
some R-language documentation on time-series analysis, show me an
example of A N D Y M A Y's calculation being done in the same
manner as he did:
https://a-little-book-of-r-for-time-series.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/
His use of the R-language struck me as being like a chimpanzee trying to
use a calculator; a calculator makes no mistakes, but you have to enter meaningful data into one to get meaningful answers out of it. Similarly
the R-language's calculations are not in error, but the calculations he
asked it to do were meaningless.
Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
findings of the analysis I linked to.
There were no 'key findings' because the calculation was meaningless.
You don't seem to aware of the importance of looking for what is not
being said, an example of which is your having missed a key factor in a
piece of work of your own which you quoted a little while ago.
You still have given no *EVIDENCE* of that, and given your other proven evasions, ad hominems, abuse, and other like bullshitting, I'll just
continue to ignore it until you do.
More to the point, why did you post so many links to an obviously fake
'science' site?
Ignoring your pre-formed opinion, the idea was to see if you would trip
over yourself in your hysterical rush to condemn. You didn't
disappoint.
You have not been charged for these lessons.
Good thing, otherwise I'd be demanding my money back for their total
lack of useful learning. Don't bother replying until you've found an R calculation being done in the same manner as A N D Y M A Y's,
because any further replies lacking substantive argument based on
*EVIDENCE* will be ignored.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:05:26 +0000, Java Jive wrote:
On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
Good thing, otherwise I'd be demanding my money back for their total
lack of useful learning. Don't bother replying until you've found an
R calculation being done in the same manner as A N D Y M A Y's,
because any further replies lacking substantive argument based on *EVIDENCE* will be ignored.
The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Ireland Reference
McDermott, F., Mattey, D.P. and Hawkesworth, C. 2001.
..once again demonstrating there is nothing unusual - or unprecedented,
as climate alarmists are fond of saying - about the global warming of
the past century or so.
What it means
The authors state that the coherent ð18O variations in the records from
both sides of the North Atlantic "indicate that many of the subtle multicentury ð18O variations in the Greenland ice cores reflect regional North Atlantic margin climate signals rather than local effects." And, of course, their data confirm the reality of the Medieval Warm Period /
Little Ice Age cycle (which climate alarmists refuse to acknowledge),
as
well as the even-more-strongly-expressed preceding Roman Warm Period /
Dark Ages Cold Period cycle, once again demonstrating there is nothing unusual - or unprecedented, as climate alarmists are fond of saying -
about the global warming of the past century or so.
On 06/12/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
What is misleading in this short quote from
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
=====
About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid, >>>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline >>>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s >>>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
=====
Why would no real scientist write that?
Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
the 'climate change' believers methods.
It's a simple statement of fact, and by definition that cannot be
misleading.
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.
The only person I know of being misdirected is yourself, and from your posting history that's clearly your problem, not the scientific community's
On 06/12/2021 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/12/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
What is misleading in this short quote from
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
=====
About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the >>>>> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid, >>>>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline >>>>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s >>>>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
=====
Why would no real scientist write that?
Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
the 'climate change' believers methods.
It's a simple statement of fact, and by definition that cannot be
misleading.
/Part/ of it is a simple statement of fact, and part of it is designed
to mislead, as I carefully explained to you, by blending information
using a logarithmic scale with information on a linear one, the general public being unlikely to be familiar with logarithms.
But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.
The only person I know of being misdirected is yourself, and from your
posting history that's clearly your problem, not the scientific community's
I take it you have not used this skill to any real extent, as you don't appear to have recognised the techniques used in the paragraph I quoted.
I suggest you adopt a cautious approach to whatever is being said where science is being used as an apparently-authoritative source of information.
On 07/12/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
On 06/12/2021 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
On 06/12/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:
On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:
On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
What is misleading in this short quote from
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
=====
About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the >>>>>> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical >>>>>> exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid, >>>>>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline >>>>>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
=====
Why would no real scientist write that?
Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the >>>> pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit >>>> would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
the 'climate change' believers methods.
It's a simple statement of fact, and by definition that cannot be
misleading.
/Part/ of it is a simple statement of fact, and part of it is designed
to mislead, as I carefully explained to you, by blending information
using a logarithmic scale with information on a linear one, the general
public being unlikely to be familiar with logarithms.
You didn't carefully explain, you claimed, and I didn't and still don't accept your claim, which anyway is hypocritical, because you've linked
to a denialist site that is by several degrees more dishonest than the
one you are claiming to see dishonesty in, which I don't.
But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.
The only person I know of being misdirected is yourself, and from your
posting history that's clearly your problem, not the scientific community's
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked. While the mean value we obtained was in line with his, the
standard deviations he reported were very much smaller than ours, tiny
by comparison. We checked our methodology, procedures, and analysis but
could find nothing wrong. We wrote to the eminent scientist, pointing
out as gently as we could that while our means agreed with his, our
standard deviations were considerably greater, and could he account for
the difference. He wrote back saying in effect that what he had
published were the standard deviations of his standard deviations. This
was a major sleight of hand on his part to make his data look better
than it was. When we calculated our standard deviations of our standard
deviations, our results were indistinguishable from his. As far as I
know, no-one in the field, either before or since, has ever published
their standard deviations of their standard deviations in their results.
Clearly the peer-review process had failed. It was an early lesson to
'trust but verify' whatever was being claimed, no matter what the source.
The point of this is that if one doesn't have a keen eye for these
things, what looks like simple scientific statements by eminent
scientists in peer-reviewed papers published in leading journals could
be accepted as relevant facts when in reality the way in which the words
are used are designed to mislead or misdirect the unwary or
ill-informed. The situation is even worse where scientific articles
written for public consumption are concerned. A secondary point is that
eminent scientists are sometimes quite happy to mislead others for their
own benefit, especially where funding, travel, promotion, honours, or
prestige are concerned.
I take it you have not used this skill to any real extent, as you don't
appear to have recognised the techniques used in the paragraph I quoted.
I suggest you adopt a cautious approach to whatever is being said where
science is being used as an apparently-authoritative source of information.
I take it you have not used this skill to any real extent, as you don't
appear to have recognised the techniques used in the paragraph I quoted.
I suggest you adopt a cautious approach to whatever is being said where
science is being used as an apparently-authoritative source of information.
Yet I've debunked successfully everything that you've posted here
that last paragraph seems to apply much more closely to you than it does
to me.
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something, following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked.
On 07/12/2021 13:47, Java Jive wrote:
Yet I've debunked successfully everything that you've posted here
No, you have not 'successfully debunked everything' that I've posted
here.
I note with interest that you dismissed my early experience of learning
the hard way that eminent people sometimes had feet of clay. Clearly you never ever even got that far, so you are lacking a key skill of a
critical faculty, and it shows.
that last paragraph seems to apply much more closely to you than it does
to me.
"False or incorrect beliefs will cause the Conscious Critical Faculty to reject ideas that could actually be beneficial to us, but that do not
fit in with the tried and tested criteria. The human psyche will not act
upon a rejected idea, even though it may be exactly what we need for beneficial change. Of course, there will have to be a rationalization of
the reason for the rejection and this will usually be along the lines
of: No I don't think would work for me. I don't like the feel of it...
or something remarkably similar.
The Conscious Critical Faculty is based on nothing more credible than
the teachings you have received since the moment you were born. We all
have learned beliefs and acquired behaviour patterns, many of which will
have come about from a most inappropriate source, somebody else's belief system! The Conscious Critical Faculty is a part of this belief system, seeking to maintain its integrity by rejecting out of hand anything
which does not fit, whether it is good or bad."
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
it?)
On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
On 07/12/2021 13:47, Java Jive wrote:
Yet I've debunked successfully everything that you've posted here
No, you have not 'successfully debunked everything' that I've posted
here.
You may not accept it, but I think anyone else here can see that mostly
you don't supply convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, and that
what pathetically little *EVIDENCE* you have come up with has been very easily shown to be false.
On 08/12/2021 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
You may not accept it, but I think anyone else here can see that mostly
you don't supply convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, and that
what pathetically little *EVIDENCE* you have come up with has been very
easily shown to be false.
That's clearly untrue, as others have told you where you have been going wrong.
Your problem is that you see what you believe in as 'evidence', and what others advance as evidence as 'denier hyposhite'. You simply have not demonstrated the ability to weigh one piece of evidence with another,
due to your blinkered view.
Some people live and learn, the others merely live.
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted >>> paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and >> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present >> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I >> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
it?)
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.
You might get an answer to your query by going back to the beginning and
ask the OP why she chose to cross-post OT in the two groups. That place
might have been the best place to start, rather than raise the matter so
late in the day, after a total so far of 458 posts of which some 165
are by Java Jive.
No, you have not 'successfully debunked everything' that I've posted
here. You've done everything but. You've used emotional appeals, ad
homs, false arguments,
appeals to your assumed authority, walls of text that you think supports
your case,
assumptions that everything you don't agree with is wrong, and you've deflected, dissembled, abused, boasted of your 'good sci-tech degree'
(mainly in electronics) but you've shown no real understanding of the
science that you fiercely if not blindingly support.
At the first whiff of a contrary case you merely mount Rocinante and
tilt at anything that challenges your beliefs rather than trying to understand the scientific discourse.
I note with interest that you dismissed my early experience of learning
the hard way that eminent people sometimes had feet of clay. Clearly you never ever even got that far, so you are lacking a key skill of a
critical faculty, and it shows.
I really admire your writing style.
On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:It was, of course, an excellent example of the Scientific Method, where
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was >>>> misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted >>>> paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and >>> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for >>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present >>> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I >>> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
it?)
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.
That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
about actually answering it?
You might get an answer to your query by going back to the beginning and
ask the OP why she chose to cross-post OT in the two groups. That place
might have been the best place to start, rather than raise the matter so
late in the day, after a total so far of 458 posts of which some 165
are by Java Jive.
On 08/12/2021 14:32, williamwright wrote:
I really admire your writing style.
But praise from a quasi-religious denialist like you is hardly helping > him, more like the kiss of death.
On 08/12/2021 13:17, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
You may not accept it, but I think anyone else here can see that mostly
you don't supply convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, and that
what pathetically little *EVIDENCE* you have come up with has been very
easily shown to be false.
That's clearly untrue, as others have told you where you have been going
wrong.
Such few as have been, have been repeating claims which are not backed
up by *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.
Your problem is that you see what you believe in as 'evidence', and what
others advance as evidence as 'denier hyposhite'. You simply have not
demonstrated the ability to weigh one piece of evidence with another,
due to your blinkered view.
Some people live and learn, the others merely live.
Again applies to you much better than it applies to me. Let's see
*EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread, cough up or shut up.
On 08/12/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
Such few as have been, have been repeating claims which are not backed
up by *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.
So you're saying that after all your hyposhite that you haven't seen all
the evidence?
Again applies to you much better than it applies to me. Let's see
*EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread, cough up or shut up.
Haven't *you* seen the evidence, then?
On 08/12/2021 14:58, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
Such few as have been, have been repeating claims which are not backed
up by *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.
So you're saying that after all your hyposhite that you haven't seen all
the evidence?
The hyposhite is all yours, I'm saying that you have yet to produce
anything worthy of being described as *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.
On 08/12/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something, >>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had >>>>> been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for >>>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present >>>> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I >>>> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was >>>> it?)
That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
about actually answering it?
It was, of course, an excellent example of the Scientific Method, where
the team relied on it rather than having blind faith in a peer-reviewed
paper by an eminent scientist. That, of course, is what you should be
doing rather than sounding off about facts you don't like and calling
them 'denier hyposhite'.
On 08/12/2021 14:57, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something, >>>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had >>>>>> been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for >>>>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was >>>>> it?)
That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
about actually answering it?
It was, of course, an excellent example of the Scientific Method, where
the team relied on it rather than having blind faith in a peer-reviewed
paper by an eminent scientist. That, of course, is what you should be
doing rather than sounding off about facts you don't like and calling
them 'denier hyposhite'.
Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are not,
which is why the links that you have posted here have been so
comprehensively debunked.
You have yet to produce anything worthy ofIn it's way, the scientific method is like a big red bus. Take no notice
being described as *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut
up. Failure to produce any will lead to you being ignored from now on.
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the
quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.
On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that
the quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn
hope but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.
That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
about actually answering it?
Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are not,
I wasn't aware, and am highly surprised, to see you're claiming that Jim
uses phrases such as your 'HYPOSHITE''
In article <j1c2acF86obU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are
not,
I wasn't aware, and am highly surprised, to see you're claiming
that Jim uses phrases such as your 'HYPOSHITE''
I'm wondering if 'Spike' is a bot. 'His' responses seem to 'flower
arrange' previous comments. 8-]
Jim
In article <j1bplcF6gr6U2@mid.individual.net>, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the
quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't aAlas, that doesn't answer my questions.
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental
On 08/12/2021 14:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <j1bplcF6gr6U2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
Alas, that doesn't answer my questions.
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the >>>>> quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something, >>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had >>>>> been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope >>> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental
That's probably because they've either already been answered, or have no relevance to the discussion.
Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:
[Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
already in this
very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea that you read *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing the mark
as a result."
It still is a nutter conspiracy theory.
Even then you had nothing substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.
On 09/12/2021 10:30, Spike wrote:
On 08/12/2021 14:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, >>>>>> was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the >>>>>> quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something, >>>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had >>>>>> been tasked.
Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and >>>>> yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an >>>>> off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to >>>>> uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope >>>> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental
Alas, that doesn't answer my questions.
That's probably because they've either already been answered, or have no
relevance to the discussion.
If the subject of your past experience has no relevance to the
discussion, why did you introduce that subject in the first place?
Still evading answering questions, still no *EVIDENCE* for anything you claim, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.
The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't aAlas, that doesn't answer my questions.
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn
hope but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental
That's probably because they've either already been answered, or have
no relevance to the discussion.
If the subject of your past experience has no relevance to the
discussion, why did you introduce that subject in the first place?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way, don't bother trying to answer
it because we know the answer already, it was because you have nothing substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.
On 09/12/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:
[Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
already in this very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea
that you read *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing
the mark as a result."
Thank you for proving to everyone else that you are so shit incompetent
that you can't even find my first post in this thread accurately, which
began as follows:
On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
Even then you had nothing substantive and evidence-based to add to a
discussion such as this.
I have given around 40 links to scientific data, news reports, etc, to support my claims and to disprove the claims of others such as yourself, whereas by contrast then and ever since you have had nothing relevant, substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.
Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.
On 09/12/2021 13:53, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/12/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:
[Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
already in this very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea >>> that you read *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing
the mark as a result."
Thank you for proving to everyone else that you are so shit incompetent
that you can't even find my first post in this thread accurately, which
began as follows:
Apologies. It arose due to broken threading. Perhaps it would have been better for you not to have pointed out your post... Let's see what your 'debunking' consisted of...
On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
"It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."
....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
your prejudices.
I have given around 40 links to scientific data, news reports, etc, to
support my claims and to disprove the claims of others such as yourself,
whereas by contrast then and ever since you have had nothing relevant,
substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.
Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.
When I asked you how many original scientific papers you had read on the Wuhan issue, you failed to reply. You also failed to reply the second
time I raised the matter. I'll draw my own conclusions, since you have
had nothing relevant, substantive and evidence-based to add to a
discussion such as this, but thanks for pointing me to your emotive
claptrap.
On 09/12/2021 19:41, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/12/2021 16:59, Spike wrote:
Perhaps it would have been better for you not to have pointed out
your post... Let's see what your 'debunking' consisted of...
On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
"It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling >>> this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people >>> voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."
....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support >>> your prejudices.
Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.
On 09/12/2021 16:59, Spike wrote:
Perhaps it would have been better for you not to have pointed out
your post... Let's see what your 'debunking' consisted of...
On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
"It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."
....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
your prejudices.
Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.
None of your actions reflects the *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*, but it may well suggest a delicate psyche that strives to defend itself by any bizarre
method that falls to hand.
On 09/12/2021 16:59, Spike wrote:
On 09/12/2021 13:53, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/12/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:
[Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
already in this very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea >>>> that you read *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing
the mark as a result."
Thank you for proving to everyone else that you are so shit incompetent
that you can't even find my first post in this thread accurately, which
began as follows:
Apologies. It arose due to broken threading. Perhaps it would have been
better for you not to have pointed out your post... Let's see what your
'debunking' consisted of...
On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
"It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."
....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
your prejudices.
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons research.
On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely >>> restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post >>> in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism >>> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days >>> later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
bioweapons research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that theres also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely
restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days
later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
bioweapons research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely >>> restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post >>> in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism >>> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days >>> later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
bioweapons research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and
well beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year,
I was merely restating the position as currently best understood
in this ng. When that wasn't sufficient for those in
uk.politics.misc, I then restated the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in
subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36 and
plenty more subsequently. I note that at the time, you didn't
reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post in that
particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread
now because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to
find some more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at
all until four days later, and that merely contained an
irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now
'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there's also a
high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-
engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-
now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.
Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of bioweapon
research. We should still consider the possibility, however.
On 11:46 16 Dec 2021, Incubus said:
On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and
well beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year,
I was merely restating the position as currently best understood
in this ng. When that wasn't sufficient for those in
uk.politics.misc, I then restated the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in
subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36 and
plenty more subsequently. I note that at the time, you didn't
reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post in that
particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread
now because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to
find some more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at
all until four days later, and that merely contained an
irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now
'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there's also a
high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-
engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-
now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.
Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of bioweapon
research. We should still consider the possibility, however.
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of pinning
it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around the world
including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of bioweapon
research. We should still consider the possibility, however.
I'm sure that someone somewhere will state that 97% of scientists refuse
to believe that after two years we still haven't found a single infected animal that could be the progenitor.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
h t t p s : / / s u m m i t . n e w s / 2 0 2 1 / 1 2 / 1 5 / m p s - t o l d - c o v i d - l i k e l y - e n g i n e e r e d - i n - w u h a n - l a b /
h t t p s : / / w w w . t e l e g r a p h . c o . u k / n e w s / 2 0 2 1 / 1 2 / 1 5 / w u h a n - l a b - l e a k - n o w - l i k e l y - o r i g i n - c o v i d - m p s - t o l d /
Ouch.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creationWell yeah because it's more evidence that China is out to dominate the
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of
pinning it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for
zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around
the world including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the
creation of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a
wider political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over
my head?
On 16/12/2021 17:00, Spike wrote:
I'm sure that someone somewhere will state that 97% of scientists refuse
to believe that after two years we still haven't found a single infected
animal that could be the progenitor.
TROLL! Proven lie repeated!
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
On 16/12/2021 16:31, Pamela wrote:
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
Well yeah because it's more evidence that China is out to dominate the
world. And they really are.
In article <XnsAE02A814AB9FF37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of
pinning it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for
zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around
the world including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the
creation of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a
wider political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over
my head?
So if it did come the laboratory even by accident, that accident
killed thousands of people and ruined the lives of most of the world
for a number of years. In addition, it would mean the Chinese
government hid the truth (lied) to the world about what they had
done.
You don't think other countries attitude to China and to paying that
lab for research should change if that were the case?
Or are you a communist?
On 16/12/2021 20:26, Java Jive wrote:
On 16/12/2021 17:00, Spike wrote:
I'm sure that someone somewhere will state that 97% of scientists refuse >>> to believe that after two years we still haven't found a single infected >>> animal that could be the progenitor.
TROLL! Proven lie repeated!
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
Non-definitive.
=====
They identified three viruses in particular (BANAL-103, BANAL-236 and BANAL-52) with genomic similarities to SARS-CoV-2, especially in a key
domain of the spike protein that enables the virus to bind to host
cells. Using direct affinity measurements, crystallography and
computational simulations of molecular dynamics, the scientists
demonstrated that the affinity of these three bat coronaviruses for the
human ACE2 receptor is similar to that of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that
they are also able to enter human cells via the same receptor.
=====
Ask yourself these questions:
Do all viruses have spikes?
Are all spikes the same?
Then note that article you quoted doesn't mention whether the BANAL
virus spike is the same kind as that of SARS-COV-2.
Lessons for you today: read more critically; do not leap to judgements.
On 17/12/2021 05:24, williamwright wrote:
On 16/12/2021 16:31, Pamela wrote:
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
Well yeah because it's more evidence that China is out to dominate the
world. And they really are.
But even if they are, would any rational person choose as a weapon to accomplish this, a gun that fires 99 blanks and 1 bullet out of every
shot it fires, and the single real shot is as likely to kill the person behind the gun as the person it's aimed at?
The idea that SARS-CoV-2 is an escaped bio-weapon is just absurd.
The Soviet plan was to fly their Tu-95 bombers at 500' above the British cities, dropping cluster bombs containing modified versions of plague, anthrax, and haemorrhagic fever.
With today's technology, it would be easy to create a virus more transmissible than Omikron which itself contained a far deadlier virus. Under such an attack, the souped-up Omicron would spread the disease,
and the other virus would kill people. When the facts became known,
panic would kill more people than the virus. The gratis research
provided by SARS-COV-2 won't be wasted by those countries with a
bioweapons interest. Anyone who has read about bioweapons will be aware
of these possibilities.
But even if they are, would any rational person choose as a weapon to accomplish this, a gun that fires 99 blanks and 1 bullet out of every
shot it fires, and the single real shot is as likely to kill the person behind the gun as the person it's aimed at?
On 17/12/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
The Soviet plan was to fly their Tu-95 bombers at 500' above the British
cities, dropping cluster bombs containing modified versions of plague,
anthrax, and haemorrhagic fever.
With today's technology, it would be easy to create a virus more
transmissible than Omikron which itself contained a far deadlier virus.
Under such an attack, the souped-up Omicron would spread the disease,
and the other virus would kill people. When the facts became known,
panic would kill more people than the virus. The gratis research
provided by SARS-COV-2 won't be wasted by those countries with a
bioweapons interest. Anyone who has read about bioweapons will be aware
of these possibilities.
So if China's aim was to produce a military bio-weapon in a civilian
lab, why are we all still alive?
On 17/12/2021 09:16, Spike wrote:
On 16/12/2021 20:26, Java Jive wrote:
On 16/12/2021 17:00, Spike wrote:
I'm sure that someone somewhere will state that 97% of scientists refuse >>>> to believe that after two years we still haven't found a single infected >>>> animal that could be the progenitor.
TROLL! Proven lie repeated!
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
Non-definitive.
The fact that wild viruses have been shown to exist and samples from the
wet market were taken, both of which are genetically closer to
SARS-CoV-2 than anything in the WIV, is sufficient to show your argument above is false.
=====
They identified three viruses in particular (BANAL-103, BANAL-236 and
BANAL-52) with genomic similarities to SARS-CoV-2, especially in a key
domain of the spike protein that enables the virus to bind to host
cells. Using direct affinity measurements, crystallography and
computational simulations of molecular dynamics, the scientists
demonstrated that the affinity of these three bat coronaviruses for the
human ACE2 receptor is similar to that of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that
they are also able to enter human cells via the same receptor.
=====
QED
Ask yourself these questions:
Do all viruses have spikes?
No, they don't.
Are all spikes the same?
No, they aren't.
Then note that article you quoted doesn't mention whether the BANAL
virus spike is the same kind as that of SARS-COV-2.
The very quote that you give above talks about 'genomic similarities',
and there are other reports by or about the same group which have
already been quoted in this thread that are more explicit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
BBC Inside Science, 23/09/2021, 16:42-23:28
Origins of SARS-Cov-2
17:03 "A team from the Pasteur Institute, in Paris, investigating
bats in caves in northern Laos, have discovered that the bats in the
caves are infected with a coronavirus that's genetically almost
identical to the one that's causing covid in humans"
Further detail on same story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
Science In Action, 23/09/2021, 00:40-07:36
New Evidence For SARSCoV2's Origin In Bats
Lessons for you today: read more critically; do not leap to judgements.
Lessons for you from the entirety of this thread: Don't bullshit.
With today's technology, it would be easy to create a virus more >transmissible than Omikron which itself contained a far deadlier virus. >Under such an attack, the souped-up Omicron would spread the disease,
and the other virus would kill people. When the facts became known,
panic would kill more people than the virus.
On 16/12/2021 16:31, Pamela wrote:
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
Well yeah because it's more evidence that China is out to dominate the
world. And they really are.
Bill
On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:56:55 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:
With today's technology, it would be easy to create a virus more >transmissible than Omikron which itself contained a far deadlier virus. >Under such an attack, the souped-up Omicron would spread the disease,
and the other virus would kill people. When the facts became known,
panic would kill more people than the virus.
It's arguable that panic is already killing more than the virus. Wait
till we see the true figures for all the postponed or cancelled
operations and undiagnosed illnesses that aren't covid.
In any case, the question remains, what is the point of a weapon that
kills everyone including the nation that uses it? If this really is
what the Chinese had in mind, let's hope they've learned from the
experience that anything infectious that spreads everywhere is
probably not much use for this purpose.
On 17/12/2021 10:04, Java Jive wrote:
So if China's aim was to produce a military bio-weapon in a civilian
lab, why are we all still alive?
We aren't. We're dying by the million from the virus. Do keep up.
On 17/12/2021 09:32, Java Jive wrote:
But even if they are, would any rational person choose as a weapon to
accomplish this, a gun that fires 99 blanks and 1 bullet out of every
shot it fires, and the single real shot is as likely to kill the person
behind the gun as the person it's aimed at?
Of course they would, because having created the means it requires no
effort to spread it. It is the same principle that the scammers use, sending out millions of e-mails with the expectation that enough mugs
will believe it to give them an income. The "99 blanks" don't matter, it
is the one effective one that brings the benefit.
It isn't a weapon that needs aiming, it just needs to bother people
enough to create economic havoc.
You really aren't familiar with the technique of weasel-wording, or the ability of an institute to over-egg the cake in order to improve
funding, recognition, prestige, honours, etc etc.
It's not something you learn in S101.
In article <XnsAE02A814AB9FF37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of
pinning it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for
zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around
the world including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the
creation of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a
wider political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over
my head?
So if it did come the laboratory even by accident, that accident
killed thousands of people and ruined the lives of most of the world
for a number of years. In addition, it would mean the Chinese
government hid the truth (lied) to the world about what they had
done.
You don't think other countries attitude to China and to paying that
lab for research should change if that were the case? Or are you a
communist?
Bob.
On 17/12/2021 10:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/12/2021 09:32, Java Jive wrote:
But even if they are, would any rational person choose as a weapon to
accomplish this, a gun that fires 99 blanks and 1 bullet out of every
shot it fires, and the single real shot is as likely to kill the person
behind the gun as the person it's aimed at?
Of course they would, because having created the means it requires no
effort to spread it. It is the same principle that the scammers use,
sending out millions of e-mails with the expectation that enough mugs
will believe it to give them an income. The "99 blanks" don't matter, it
is the one effective one that brings the benefit.
You've overlooked a vital part of the argument, that the one bullet is
as likely to kill the person behind the gun as the one it's aimed at.
It isn't a weapon that needs aiming, it just needs to bother people
enough to create economic havoc.
Including in China itself. No, however fond of conspiracy theories you choose to be, the idea never did and still doesn't make any rational sense.
On 09:19 17 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:
In article<XnsAE02A814AB9FF37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of
pinning it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for
zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around
the world including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the
creation of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a
wider political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over
my head?
So if it did come the laboratory even by accident, that accident
killed thousands of people and ruined the lives of most of the world
for a number of years. In addition, it would mean the Chinese
government hid the truth (lied) to the world about what they had
done.
You don't think other countries attitude to China and to paying that
lab for research should change if that were the case? Or are you a
communist?
Bob.
I wish the attitude of countries to China had a real effect but all too
often it's like water off a duck's back.
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass them into making changes.
On 17/12/2021 19:18, Java Jive wrote:
On 17/12/2021 10:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/12/2021 09:32, Java Jive wrote:
But even if they are, would any rational person choose as a weapon to
accomplish this, a gun that fires 99 blanks and 1 bullet out of every
shot it fires, and the single real shot is as likely to kill the person >>>> behind the gun as the person it's aimed at?
Of course they would, because having created the means it requires no
effort to spread it. It is the same principle that the scammers use,
sending out millions of e-mails with the expectation that enough mugs
will believe it to give them an income. The "99 blanks" don't matter, it >>> is the one effective one that brings the benefit.
You've overlooked a vital part of the argument, that the one bullet is
as likely to kill the person behind the gun as the one it's aimed at.
The person behind the gun is the scientist who created the virus in the dangerous to humans state. I know that someone has found a bat virus
with similar characteristics in northern Laos, but there is no
associated claim that it is as infectious to humans as Covid-19, and if enough time and effort is devoted to the search, some coincidences are
likely to appear.
I don't believe that the weapon was intended to get out when it did[1],It isn't a weapon that needs aiming, it just needs to bother people
enough to create economic havoc.
Including in China itself. No, however fond of conspiracy theories you
choose to be, the idea never did and still doesn't make any rational sense. >>
so the fact that the first victims were the local Chinese is what the military call "collateral damage". It is also worth noting that the
Chinese have never been reported to have bought any of the currently
used vaccines available outside China, which could suggest that as well
as enhancing an existing virus they were also developing its antidote.
That doesn't alter the fact that it would have worked as a biological
weapon useful outside China if its delivery had been properly timed and controlled. The lack of symptoms for some days while an infected person
is able to pass the virus on to others makes the actual delivery almost impossible to detect, and the person chosen for the role doesn't even
need to know they are the carrier.
I appreciate that this is speculation, but the lack of clear evidence
doesn't render it impossible. The fact that the Chinese Government has
gone to great lengths to prevent a proper examination if the Wuhan
facility does suggest that there is a deliberate attempt to erase it
from the list of possibilities rather than allowing an independent
observer to record that there was noting to find there.
I recognise that you are convinced by the evidence you have seen, but it
does look to me that it has been carefully stage managed. Yes, it might
be true nevertheless. It doesn't necessarily exclude other possible scenarios though. I am not a conspiracy advocate, I am a sceptic
prepared to keep an open mind.
[1] When the outbreak among the residents of Wuhan first hit the news, someone leaked a photo of what was claimed to be safe storage for
viruses showing some visible damage to the door which was originally
intended to keep everyone safe. I saw it online early in 2010. That
photo was nowhere to be found a couple of months later when I tried to
find it again. It does suggest that the original leak (if that was what
it was) was accidental.
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass them into making changes.
On 17/12/2021 20:13, Pamela wrote:
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass them into
making changes.
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Bill
On 17/12/2021 10:42, Spike wrote:
You really aren't familiar with the technique of weasel-wording, or the
ability of an institute to over-egg the cake in order to improve
funding, recognition, prestige, honours, etc etc.
I'm completely familiar with it because you do it all the time in a
pathetic attempt to cover up your total lack of logical argument and scientific knowledge.
It's not something you learn in S101.
But apparently something you learn in the realm of contemporary dance.
How's 'Denialism By Dance' coming on, found a theatre to take it yet?
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
On 17/12/2021 20:13, Pamela wrote:
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass them into >> making changes.
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Bill
Is Boris a foreigner?
That doesn't alter the fact that it would have worked as a biological
weapon useful outside China if its delivery had been properly timed and >controlled. The lack of symptoms for some days while an infected person
is able to pass the virus on to others makes the actual delivery almost >impossible to detect, and the person chosen for the role doesn't even
need to know they are the carrier.
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
On 17/12/2021 20:13, Pamela wrote:
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass them into >>> making changes.
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Bill
Is Boris a foreigner?
The Soviet plan was to fly their Tu-95 bombers at 500' above the British cities, dropping cluster bombs containing modified versions of plague, anthrax, and haemorrhagic fever.
He seems to be a foreigner to rational thought, or honesty.
Except that he wasn't; he was a robot bomb programmed not to know that
he was a robot or a bomb. Different death mechanism, but same basic
idea. One day we'll be able to do this for real. Maybe we already can.
Isn't technology wonderful?
The only effective weapon would be a financial one - stopping all new contracts with China would starve them of funds and make most of their factories redundant. Unfortunately, too many countries around the world
want cheap goods.
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
On 17/12/2021 20:13, Pamela wrote:
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass
them into making changes.
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Bill
Is Boris a foreigner?
In article <a09rrgptdcp2pkd1s3ibs7s2ailgb46ree@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Except that he wasn't; he was a robot bomb programmed not to know that
he was a robot or a bomb. Different death mechanism, but same basic
idea. One day we'll be able to do this for real. Maybe we already can.
Isn't technology wonderful?
No need for man-sized. Something the size of a robot bee would do the job >now.
Jim
On 08:20 18 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
On 17/12/2021 20:13, Pamela wrote:
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass
them into making changes.
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Bill
Is Boris a foreigner?
Turkish ancestry?
On 16/12/2021 16:31, Pamela wrote:
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
Well yeah because it's more evidence that China is out to dominate the
world. And they really are.
Bill
On 05:24 17 Dec 2021, williamwright said:
On 16/12/2021 16:31, Pamela wrote:
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
Well yeah because it's more evidence that China is out to dominate the
world. And they really are.
Bill
We already know China is aiming at world domination.
On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 11:07:11 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08:20 18 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
On 17/12/2021 20:13, Pamela wrote:
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass
them into making changes.
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Bill
Is Boris a foreigner?
Turkish ancestry?
Difficult to tell if it's a problem unless you know where somebody has
pinned their primary allegiance. It's not nationality or ancestry for >everyone. Some people have personal philosophies based on ideas.
For example, I happen to know that my ancestry is 100% Scottish for at
least six generations back (because I had an uncle who traced our
family tree as a hobby), but I have no animosity towards any English
people on account of the highland clearances. I may be technically a >foreigner of sorts because I live in England, but nobody need consider
me a danger to anybody.
On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 13:28:15 +0000, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 11:07:11 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08:20 18 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
On 17/12/2021 20:13, Pamela wrote:
Proving China has lied about something doesn't seem to embarass
them into making changes.
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Bill
Is Boris a foreigner?
Turkish ancestry?
Difficult to tell if it's a problem unless you know where somebody has >>pinned their primary allegiance. It's not nationality or ancestry for >>everyone. Some people have personal philosophies based on ideas.
For example, I happen to know that my ancestry is 100% Scottish for at >>least six generations back (because I had an uncle who traced our
family tree as a hobby), but I have no animosity towards any English
people on account of the highland clearances. I may be technically a >>foreigner of sorts because I live in England, but nobody need consider
me a danger to anybody.
Unless of course you have been programmed to be a danger to someone
but, you don't know. ;-)
We already know China is aiming at world domination.
The next question is, if a human being could be programmed in this way,
i.e. not to know their true purpose, how could you ever detect them
until it was too late, and where would the blame lie?
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Is Boris a foreigner?
On 18/12/2021 08:20, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 18/12/2021 07:23, williamwright wrote:
This a is general problem with foreigners.
Is Boris a foreigner?
Touche (e acute)
On 11:46 16 Dec 2021, Incubus said:
On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and
well beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year,
I was merely restating the position as currently best understood
in this ng. When that wasn't sufficient for those in
uk.politics.misc, I then restated the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in
subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36 and
plenty more subsequently. I note that at the time, you didn't
reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post in that
particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread
now because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to
find some more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at
all until four days later, and that merely contained an
irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now
'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there's also a
high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-
engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-
now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.
Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of bioweapon
research. We should still consider the possibility, however.
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of pinning
it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around the world
including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
On 2021-12-16, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11:46 16 Dec 2021, Incubus said:
On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and
well beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last
year, I was merely restating the position as currently best
understood in this ng. When that wasn't sufficient for those
in uk.politics.misc, I then restated the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE*
in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36
and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the time, you
didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any
criticism of it then, and therefore are only trawling through
the thread now because you're running out of mud to sling and
desperate to find some more. In fact you didn't post anything
in thread at all until four days later, and that merely
contained an irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons
research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now
'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there's also a
high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-
engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-
now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.
Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of
bioweapon research. We should still consider the possibility,
however.
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of
pinning it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for
zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around
the world including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the
creation of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a
wider political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over
my head?
If we weren't clients of China's manufacturing, China would be
deemed a rogue state. Their research into viruses and weaponry
would have everyone frothing at the mouth. The fact that they have
us where they want us means that no official will even dare
criticise them much less take further measures against them.
Why are you such a China apologist?
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 05:24 17 Dec 2021, williamwright said:
On 16/12/2021 16:31, Pamela wrote:
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
Well yeah because it's more evidence that China is out to dominate the
world. And they really are.
Bill
We already know China is aiming at world domination.
Or maybe they just see it as gaining their rightful place in the world.
On 09:52 20 Dec 2021, Incubus said:
On 2021-12-16, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11:46 16 Dec 2021, Incubus said:
On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and
well beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last
year, I was merely restating the position as currently best
understood in this ng. When that wasn't sufficient for those
in uk.politics.misc, I then restated the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE*
in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36
and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the time, you
didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any
criticism of it then, and therefore are only trawling through
the thread now because you're running out of mud to sling and
desperate to find some more. In fact you didn't post anything
in thread at all until four days later, and that merely
contained an irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons
research.
Have you seen the latest?
"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now
'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there's also a
high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-
engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-
now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
Ouch.
It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.
Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of
bioweapon research. We should still consider the possibility,
however.
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of
pinning it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for
zoonotic diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around
the world including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the
creation of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a
wider political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over
my head?
If we weren't clients of China's manufacturing, China would be
deemed a rogue state. Their research into viruses and weaponry
would have everyone frothing at the mouth. The fact that they have
us where they want us means that no official will even dare
criticise them much less take further measures against them.
Why are you such a China apologist?
China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove it.
Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making a territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for
military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it makes
no difference.
Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to
light, China would just stonewall the West.
I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart and
hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.
China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove it.
Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making a territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for
military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it makes
no difference.
Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to
light, China would just stonewall the West.
I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart and
hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.
In article <XnsAE067E6936BE937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove it.
Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making a territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for
military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it makes
no difference.
Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to
light, China would just stonewall the West.
I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart and
hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.
Agreed. Part of the problem is the extent to which we now rely upon them
for manufactured goods because as a country we failed to act so as to
avoid so much of our industry and IPR from being shifted there.
Jim
In article <599dcb3047noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE067E6936BE937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove it.
Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making a
territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for
military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it makes
no difference.
Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to
light, China would just stonewall the West.
I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart and
hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.
Agreed. Part of the problem is the extent to which we now rely upon them
for manufactured goods because as a country we failed to act so as to
avoid so much of our industry and IPR from being shifted there.
Jim
I think "failed to act" is a bit kind - MT actively encouraged it.
In article <j02lbgF9pjpU7@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the
last atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
fact?
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited capabilities.
Correct, plus many are run by people with an agenda who are trying
to support that agenda. Be very suspicious of ALL computer
modelling especially those run by known activists. I would have
thought the last 18 months would have taught everyone that simple
fact.
In article <598fcf5ec4bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <j02lbgF9pjpU7@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the
last atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
Rubbish.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it
were fact?
The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
capabilities.
Correct, plus many are run by people with an agenda who are trying
to support that agenda. Be very suspicious of ALL computer
modelling especially those run by known activists. I would have
thought the last 18 months would have taught everyone that simple
fact.
Great revealing article in the telegraph...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid- modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/
So with covid as with everything else, computer models are
propaganda tools just pay for the result you want. Only useful to
manipulate the gullible public who are daft enough to take them
seriously.
They're always miles out and always carry an agenda.
Write out 100 times...
Don't pay any attention to computer models. !!!!!
Bob.
On 17/12/2021 21:00, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/12/2021 19:18, Java Jive wrote:
On 17/12/2021 10:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 17/12/2021 09:32, Java Jive wrote:
But even if they are, would any rational person choose as a weapon to >>>>> accomplish this, a gun that fires 99 blanks and 1 bullet out of every >>>>> shot it fires, and the single real shot is as likely to kill the
person
behind the gun as the person it's aimed at?
Of course they would, because having created the means it requires no
effort to spread it. It is the same principle that the scammers use, >>>> sending out millions of e-mails with the expectation that enough mugs
will believe it to give them an income. The "99 blanks" don't
matter, it
is the one effective one that brings the benefit.
You've overlooked a vital part of the argument, that the one bullet is
as likely to kill the person behind the gun as the one it's aimed at.
The person behind the gun is the scientist who created the virus in the
dangerous to humans state. I know that someone has found a bat virus
with similar characteristics in northern Laos, but there is no
associated claim that it is as infectious to humans as Covid-19, and if
enough time and effort is devoted to the search, some coincidences are
likely to appear.
It doesn't matter how often you insist on making specious argumentsIt isn't a weapon that needs aiming, it just needs to bother people
enough to create economic havoc.
Including in China itself. No, however fond of conspiracy theories you >>> choose to be, the idea never did and still doesn't make any rational
sense.
I don't believe [snip tl;dr]
On 2021-12-16, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of pinning
it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for zoonotic
diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around the world
including seasonal flu.
How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?
If we weren't clients of China's manufacturing, China would be deemed a
rogue state. Their research into viruses and weaponry would have
everyone frothing at the mouth. The fact that they have us where they
want us means that no official will even dare criticise them much less
take further measures against them.
Why are you such a China apologist?
On 17/12/2021 19:21, Java Jive wrote:
I'm completely familiar with it because you do it all the time in a
pathetic attempt to cover up your total lack of logical argument and
scientific knowledge.
You might be /familiar/ with the technique of weasel-wording, but you
don't seem to be able to /recognise it/, even if it occurs several times
in a short paragraph.
It's not something you learn in S101.
But apparently something you learn in the realm of contemporary dance.
How's 'Denialism By Dance' coming on, found a theatre to take it yet?
The Laotian discovery is of mild interest but very little relevance to
the Wuhan case.
Any /real/ evidence to offer? Thought not.
Great revealing article in the telegraph...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid-modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/
So with covid as with everything else, computer models are propaganda
tools just pay for the result you want. Only useful to manipulate the gullible public who are daft enough to take them seriously.
They're always miles out and always carry an agenda.
Write out 100 times...
Don't pay any attention to computer models. !!!!!
Nonsense, [Wuhan's] research into viruses is an international collaboration with labs in France and America, and was part funded by the US.
The article author must be very naive if he ever thought SAGE and
other advisory committees simply generated reports on topics they
chose rather than reply to government queries.
Oh it's written by Fraser Nelson who's hardly an unbiassed
commentator.
This is a nothingburger.
In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The article author must be very naive if he ever thought SAGE and
other advisory committees simply generated reports on topics they
chose rather than reply to government queries.
Oh, I think there was far more to it than a reply to a government
enquiry, they were told what it needed to portray.
Computer models are propaganda and almost always wrong by an
enormous margin, nothing more.
Bob.
Also you should remember, god knows you've had it explained to you
often enough,
The person behind the gun is the government of China, what possible
motive would they have for killing their own population
indiscriminately?
Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by foreigners?
On 00:04 21 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
Also you should remember, god knows you've had it explained to you
often enough,
Bob's post about modelling has a troll-like quality about it. It's
perfectly possible he remembers what's been explained but he has to
ignore that to attempt another round of baiting
Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Neither you nor anyone else has ever
been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.
On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
what possible motive would [the Chinese] have for killing their own
population indiscriminately? Why would they be doing military work
in a civilian lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently >> visited by foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc. Neither you nor anyone else
has ever been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.
Your knowledge of Communist methodology is breathtaking in its paucity.
On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
The person behind the gun is the government of China, what possible
motive would they have for killing their own population
indiscriminately?
Remember Tienanmen Square? Remember the Hong Kong crackdown?
Also, elsewhere in this thread you will find I described the infection
of the Chinese population as collateral damage.
Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
foreigners?
This is a communist regime. There is *no* distinction between military
and civilian. Hiding in plain sight is a standard tactic world-wide.
Never mind - I discovered long ago how blinkered you are by your own
world view.
On 20/12/2021 23:38, Java Jive wrote:
Nonsense, [Wuhan's] research into viruses is an international collaboration >> with labs in France and America, and was part funded by the US.
And what certain knowledge do you have that such work is /all/ that is carried out there?
On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Easily done. BTDT etc, etc, etc.
Neither you nor anyone else has ever
been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.
There is no need to.
On 20/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/12/2021 09:05, Spike wrote:
You might be /familiar/ with the technique of weasel-wording, but you
don't seem to be able to /recognise it/, even if it occurs several times >>> in a short paragraph.
The Laotian discovery is of mild interest but very little relevance to
the Wuhan case. Any /real/ evidence to offer? Thought not.
I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
So far you have not answered.
The Laotian discovery is real evidence
Of what?
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
On 20/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
The Laotian discovery is real evidence
Of what?
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
On 20/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
On 18/12/2021 09:05, Spike wrote:
You might be /familiar/ with the technique of weasel-wording, but
you don't seem to be able to /recognise it/, even if it occurs
several times in a short paragraph.
The Laotian discovery is of mild interest but very little
relevance to the Wuhan case. Any /real/ evidence to offer?
Thought not.
I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant
scientific papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata -
you have read. So far you have not answered.
I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications,
which I suspect are non-existent or trivial, and to supply
*EVIDENCE* to support your claims. When you answer both of those,
I'll answer yours, but I can already tell that it's more than you
have.
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
what possible motive would [the Chinese] have for killing their own
population indiscriminately? Why would they be doing military work
in a civilian lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently >>> visited by foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc. Neither you nor anyone else >>> has ever been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.
Your knowledge of Communist methodology is breathtaking in its paucity.
At least it's knowledge
On 21/12/2021 15:52, Spike wrote:
On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Easily done. BTDT etc, etc, etc.
No, the Chinese have both military and civilian labs, and you haven't answered why they would be doing top secret military research in a
civilian lab frequented by foreign nationals and part funded by foreign governments.
[Snip irrelevant emotive bullshit]
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
So far you have not answered.
I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.
This is a nothingburger.
On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because itIf it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
already existed in nature.
rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world.
But it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere
near as infectious to humans.
Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a similarity. Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.
In article <599dcb3047noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE067E6936BE937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove
it.
Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making
a territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it
makes no difference.
Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to light, China would just stonewall the West.
I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart
and hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.
Agreed. Part of the problem is the extent to which we now rely upon
them for manufactured goods because as a country we failed to act so
as to avoid so much of our industry and IPR from being shifted there.
Jim
I think "failed to act" is a bit kind - MT actively encouraged it.
On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant
scientific papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata
- you have read. So far you have not answered.
I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications
Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.
On 21/12/2021 19:16, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/12/2021 15:52, Spike wrote:
On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by >>> foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Easily done. BTDT etc, etc, etc.
No, the Chinese have both military and civilian labs, and you haven't answered why they would be doing top secret military research in a
civilian lab frequented by foreign nationals and part funded by foreign governments.
In a Communist regime, /everyone/ works for the state.
The Top Secret part of the bioweapon programme will be handled by
virology labs staffed by the military. Basic research, genome
determination, etc, can be carried out in a nominal civilian lab
monitored by a military liaison officer (who in order to fool the
foreigners, would be in civilian dress and have a nominal cover role).
You're very wet behind the ears, aren't you.
[Snip irrelevant emotive bullshit]
The so-called 'irrelevant emotive bullshit' was taken from an account of those times in Stalin''s Soviet Union by a district governor. In
addition millions more fell victim to forced labour, deportation,
famine, massacres, and detention and interrogation by Stalins henchmen.
I'm surprised you so lightly dismiss the random deaths of millions in a communist state, especially when you yourself posed the question to
which this was an answer.
--
In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a nothingburger.
Bob's MO.
Jim
On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:If it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.
rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world. But
it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere near
as infectious to humans.
Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a similarity. Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.
On 21/12/2021 19:05, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
Your knowledge of Communist methodology is breathtaking in its paucity.
At least it's knowledge, not baseless conspiracy theories unsupported by any evidence.
No knowledge = no knowledge
On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
So far you have not answered.
I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications
Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.
And the authoritative, definitive, peer-reviewed paper stating this is
where?
On 21/12/2021 23:41, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.
If it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world.
But it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere
near as infectious to humans.
Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a
similarity. Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary
tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.
Someone with a peculiar world-view
seems to have made a leap from 'a
virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one' to 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' on the basis of no discernible evidence
whatsoever - not even the Laotians are claiming that.
In article <599e404af7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a nothingburger.
Bob's MO.
And there's Jim's - attack the person - again.
In article <599e404af7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a nothingburger.
Bob's MO.
Jim
And there's Jim's - attack the person - again.
Bob.
On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read. >>>> So far you have not answered.
I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications
Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.
LIAR!
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.
And the authoritative, definitive, peer-reviewed paper stating this is
where?
You've already been shown links to it.
On 00:04 21 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
Also you should remember, god knows you've had it explained to you
often enough,
Bob's post about modelling has a troll-like quality about it. It's
perfectly possible he remembers what's been explained but he has to
ignore that to attempt another round of baiting
It's only 'peculiar' to irrational conspiracy theorists like you, to
everyone else it's just rational deduction from known facts.
The link you posted was to a puff-piece. It was /not/ a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
It is /not/ evidence for your /supposition/ that
'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words)
Not even the Laotians are claiming that.
On 22/12/2021 17:38, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.
LIAR!
You're quite a vulgar little person, aren't you.
That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.
And the authoritative, definitive, peer-reviewed paper stating this is
where?
You've already been shown links to it.
The link you posted was to a puff-piece. It was /not/ a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
In article <599e404af7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a nothingburger.
Bob's MO.
Jim
And there's Jim's - attack the person - again.
On 23/12/2021 09:12, Spike wrote:
So clearly you haven't bothered to even read any of the
links either to the original material, or even just of the reporting of
it in plain non-scientific English
So let's turn a question that you are fond of
asking others back on yourself, how many papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its
origins have *YOU* even bothered to read even a little of, let alone
actually understood?
On 23/12/2021 09:12, Spike wrote:
On 22/12/2021 17:38, Java Jive wrote:
On 22/12/2021 10:16, Spike wrote:
Just because you need to brag of your qualifications, with S101
Foundation and S201 Geology, doesn't mean others need to.
It was you who first doubted other's, in particular my, qualifications,
only to discover that they're better than yours; well there's an obvious answer to that, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the question,
don't use casting groundless doubts on the qualifications and
understanding of others to bolster a losing argument when yours are
obviously too poor to piss into the wind with. You created this scourge
for your back, and it's going be applied as long as you keep trolling here.
You're quite a vulgar little person, aren't you.
LIAR! As already proven, you haven't even read it.
So let's turn a
question that you are fond of asking others back on yourself, how many
papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its origins have *YOU* even bothered to read
even a little of, let alone actually understood?
On 23/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
So clearly you haven't bothered to even read any of the
links either to the original material, or even just of the reporting of
it in plain non-scientific English
In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your /supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one' means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).
So let's turn a question that you are fond of
asking others back on yourself, how many papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its
origins have *YOU* even bothered to read even a little of, let alone
actually understood?
Since I have posed that question to you already, several times in fact,
and received no answer to date, one can only suppose that you get your embarrassing science, such as it is, from red-top newspapers.
On 23/12/2021 23:54, Java Jive wrote:
So let's turn a
question that you are fond of asking others back on yourself, how many
papers on SARS-CoV-2 and its origins have *YOU* even bothered to read
even a little of, let alone actually understood?
I'm waiting for you to publish your Literature Search. It'll be a hoot.
On 24/12/2021 11:55, Spike wrote:
In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your
/supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one'
means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).
Read it again, properly this time, the only difference between the
closest virus found in Laos and those that began the pandemic in Wuhan
is the FCS, a single mutation away ...
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
... and to avoid you trying to deny it as a puff-piece, here's the
preprint paper itself, not that I think you have a snowball's chance in
hell of ever understanding it ...
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1
"Our findings therefore indicate that bat-borne SARS-CoV-2-like viruses potentially infectious for humans circulate in Rhinolophus spp. in the Indochinese peninsula."
As above, I get it from decent sources,
including original scientific
papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated
are clearly too
complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that you're doing in every post you make here?
On 24/12/2021 17:41, Java Jive wrote:
On 24/12/2021 11:55, Spike wrote:
In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your
/supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one' >>> means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).
Read it again, properly this time, the only difference between the
closest virus found in Laos and those that began the pandemic in Wuhan
is the FCS, a single mutation away ...
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
*EIGHT* out of the ten References are to the Institut Pasteur work. One
is to a vet school and one from the Laotians. IOW, it's not comprehensive.
... and to avoid you trying to deny it as a puff-piece, here's the
preprint paper itself, not that I think you have a snowball's chance in
hell of ever understanding it ...
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1
"Our findings therefore indicate that bat-borne SARS-CoV-2-like viruses
potentially infectious for humans circulate in Rhinolophus spp. in the
Indochinese peninsula."
How much weaselling can you find in the claim that "SARS-CoV-2-related viruses capable of infecting human cells discovered in bats in northern Laos"?
But there's no weaselling here:
"But the scientists showed that the
viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial
cells."
Plus: "The identification of these new coronaviruses opens up new
avenues for investigation into host-virus interactions and could improve
our understanding of the factors that led to the emergence of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus" which reads as "Gimme gimme gimme funding..."
As above, I get it from decent sources,
....such as the BBC, the media, and anecdata.
including original scientific
papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated
So far you've only referred to one limited paper. Where is the rest of
your comprehensive Literature Search?
are clearly too
complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that
you're doing in every post you make here?
What a vulgar little man you are.
On 26/12/2021 11:53, Spike wrote:
On 24/12/2021 17:41, Java Jive wrote:
On 24/12/2021 11:55, Spike wrote:
In plain non-scientific English the brochure is /not/ evidence for your >>>> /supposition/ that 'a virus that has some similarities to the Wuhan one' >>>> means 'the Wuhan virus already existed in nature' (your words).
Read it again, properly this time, the only difference between the
closest virus found in Laos and those that began the pandemic in Wuhan
is the FCS, a single mutation away ...
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
*EIGHT* out of the ten References are to the Institut Pasteur work. One
is to a vet school and one from the Laotians. IOW, it's not comprehensive.
You missed the most important one, the one to the original paper, still quoted below.
... and to avoid you trying to deny it as a puff-piece, here's the
preprint paper itself, not that I think you have a snowball's chance in
hell of ever understanding it ...
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-871965/v1
"Our findings therefore indicate that bat-borne SARS-CoV-2-like viruses
potentially infectious for humans circulate in Rhinolophus spp. in the
Indochinese peninsula."
How much weaselling can you find in the claim that "SARS-CoV-2-related
viruses capable of infecting human cells discovered in bats in northern
Laos"?
But there's no weaselling here:
"But the scientists showed that the
viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus
membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial
Exactly as I said above, a single mutation away from SARS-CoV-2.
Plus: "The identification of these new coronaviruses opens up new
avenues for investigation into host-virus interactions and could improve
our understanding of the factors that led to the emergence of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus" which reads as "Gimme gimme gimme funding..."
Reads to me as scientific speak for: "SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from
bats, not a lab!"
As above, I get it from decent sources,
....such as the BBC, the media, and anecdata.
No, that's you, we are currently discussing evidence from a scientific
paper, just one of several creditable sources linked to by me, showing
that SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from a natural source, whereas by
contrast we're still waiting for *EVIDENCE* justifying your contention
that the virus escaped from the lab, all we've had so far being "the [dodgiest] media, and anecdata".
including original scientific
papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated
So far you've only referred to one limited paper. Where is the rest of
your comprehensive Literature Search?
As has already been proven, initially you were too lazy to read this
one, so it's not surprising that you've forgotten all the others that
you were also too lazy to read, which is your problem not mine, and
therefore if you want to continue this discussion you must provide the solution by going back and looking them all up. From a rough
calculation, I've given around 30 links to some source or other,
possibly as many as 40, but as I know some of them had to be repeated
because of you're being too lazy to read them, and a few were supplied
by others, I'm happy to settle for around 30, but even only 20, less
than half the links counted, would be approximately 20 times more than
what you have produced that is actually in any way relevant to the
question of whether the virus arose naturally or escaped from a lab.
are clearly too
complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt,
is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a
real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that >>> you're doing in every post you make here?
What a vulgar little man you are.
Although not originally from Yorkshire, like its inhabitants I merely
call a spade, a spade, and a liar, a liar.
On 26/12/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 26/12/2021 11:53, Spike wrote:
"But the scientists showed that the
viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus
membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial
Exactly as I said above, a single mutation away from SARS-CoV-2.
So, no scientists are claiming that, or you would have trumpeted it.
Plus: "The identification of these new coronaviruses opens up new
avenues for investigation into host-virus interactions and could improve >>> our understanding of the factors that led to the emergence of the
SARS-CoV-2 virus" which reads as "Gimme gimme gimme funding..."
Reads to me as scientific speak for: "SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from
bats, not a lab!"
IYHO, of course.
As above, I get it from decent sources,
....such as the BBC, the media, and anecdata.
No, that's you, we are currently discussing evidence from a scientific
paper, just one of several creditable sources linked to by me, showing
that SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from a natural source, whereas by
contrast we're still waiting for *EVIDENCE* justifying your contention
that the virus escaped from the lab, all we've had so far being "the
[dodgiest] media, and anecdata".
And I'm still waiting for you to publish the list of papers, which of
course would cover all the field, that formed the opinion you so
trenchantly defend.
including original scientific
papers, which, as this thread has clearly demonstrated
So far you've only referred to one limited paper. Where is the rest of
your comprehensive Literature Search?
As has already been proven, initially you were too lazy to read this
one, so it's not surprising that you've forgotten all the others that
you were also too lazy to read, which is your problem not mine, and
therefore if you want to continue this discussion you must provide the
solution by going back and looking them all up. From a rough
calculation, I've given around 30 links to some source or other,
possibly as many as 40, but as I know some of them had to be repeated
because of you're being too lazy to read them, and a few were supplied
by others, I'm happy to settle for around 30, but even only 20, less
than half the links counted, would be approximately 20 times more than
what you have produced that is actually in any way relevant to the
question of whether the virus arose naturally or escaped from a lab.
But, where is your list of papers, which of course would cover all the
field, that formed the opinion you so trenchantly defend.
are clearly too
complicated to understand for someone who's only known enthusiasm,
though expertise even just in that unknown and therefore open to doubt, >>>> is contemporary dance. How's Denialism By Dance coming on? Twisted a >>>> real ankle yet, to match the metaphorical falling flat on your face that >>>> you're doing in every post you make here?
What a vulgar little man you are.
Although not originally from Yorkshire, like its inhabitants I merely
call a spade, a spade, and a liar, a liar.
And doubtless there's a Yorkshire word for a vulgar little man, someone
who is 'nobbut piss and wind'.
Publish your list, which of course would cover all the field, and be damned.
On 28/12/2021 09:27, Spike wrote:
On 26/12/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
On 26/12/2021 11:53, Spike wrote:
"But the scientists showed that the
viruses do not have a furin cleavage site, as is found in SARS-CoV-2.
Furin is a protease that cleaves the spike protein, allowing the virus >>>> membrane to fuse with the human cell membrane.[1] This cleavage site
plays a key role in mediating viral entry into respiratory epithelial
Exactly as I said above, a single mutation away from SARS-CoV-2.
So, no scientists are claiming that, or you would have trumpeted it.
Keep up at the back there, they are saying that, as still quoted by you above.
Reads to me as scientific speak for: "SARS-CoV-2 most likely came from
bats, not a lab!"
IYHO, of course.
In the opinion of someone following the evidence without a particular
axe to grind.
And I'm still waiting for you to publish the list of papers, which of
course would cover all the field, that formed the opinion you so
trenchantly defend.
Then you're still waiting for someone else to make up for your own
laziness, and that's never going to happen and you must provide the> solution by yourself reading back through the thread.
See above, do your own fucking work to make up for for your own arrogant laziness.
Links have already been given up thread; go back and read them and
provide some counter *EVIDENCE* of your own, or if as usual you have
nothing useful to say, just shut the fuck up.
I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not be seen
as such by others, so asking others to 'prove' your claims by going
through all your posts may well result in far fewer references than you believe you have given. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide the
evidence. That's how science works.
What you have provided so far is laughable.
On 30/12/2021 11:04, Spike wrote:
I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not be seen
as such by others, so asking others to 'prove' your claims by going
through all your posts may well result in far fewer references than you
believe you have given. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide the
evidence. That's how science works.
If you're too fucking lazy to do the work, stop complaining.
What you have provided so far is laughable.
What I have provided up thread is *EVIDENCE*, whereas what you have
provided is zilch, nowt, nothing, nada, zero, nought. Let's see some *EVIDENCE* for your claims, put up, shut up, or be ignored.
On 28/12/2021 13:26, Java Jive wrote:
[...]
Links have already been given up thread; go back and read them and
provide some counter *EVIDENCE* of your own, or if as usual you
have nothing useful to say, just shut the fuck up.
I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking
for your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not
be seen as such by others,
so asking others to 'prove' your claims
by going through all your posts may well result in far fewer
references than you believe you have given. /You/ made the claims,
/you/ provide the evidence. That's how science works.
What you have provided so far is laughable.
On 11:04 30 Dec 2021, Spike said:
On 28/12/2021 13:26, Java Jive wrote:
[...]
Links have already been given up thread; go back and read them and
provide some counter *EVIDENCE* of your own, or if as usual you
have nothing useful to say, just shut the fuck up.
I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking
for your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not
be seen as such by others,
Speaking as one of those "others" who occasionally browses this thread,
Java appears to have made a reasonably strong case. From my previous discussions with you, some of your "facts" are closer to fabrications and
can not be relied upon.
On 30/12/2021 11:04, Spike wrote:
I have no intention of wading through >200 posts of yours looking for
your 'evidence', such as it is. What you say is evidence may not be seen
as such by others, so asking others to 'prove' your claims by going
through all your posts may well result in far fewer references than you believe you have given. /You/ made the claims, /you/ provide the
evidence. That's how science works.
If you're too fucking lazy to do the work, stop complaining.
Java Jive wants me to prove his claims.
On 30/12/2021 17:22, Spike wrote:
Java Jive wants me to prove his claims.
No, I don't, because I don't need to, because I've already proved my
claims with up to 45 different links (though some of those will be in
quote blocks, and therefore possibly not originally my own, or else repetitions of previous links). I want you to prove *YOUR" claim that
the pandemic virus originated in a WIV lab, and so far you have
manifestly failed to come with any convincing evidence for that claim.
Your problem further is that, as we have now had some definite proof of,
you didn't bother to read my links at the time, and are now trying to
deny their existence, and further that I'm perfectly content to amuse
myself letting you carry on making an arse of yourself in this manner
because the record of this thread is there for others to see, and as
others still reading it have agreed, it supports me, not you.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
On 30/12/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.
When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.
On 30/12/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
On 30/12/2021 17:22, Spike wrote:
Java Jive wants me to prove his claims.
No, I don't, because I don't need to, because I've already proved
my claims with up to 45 different links (though some of those will
be in quote blocks, and therefore possibly not originally my own,
or else repetitions of previous links). I want you to prove *YOUR"
claim that the pandemic virus originated in a WIV lab, and so far
you have manifestly failed to come with any convincing evidence for
that claim.
Your problem further is that, as we have now had some definite
proof of, you didn't bother to read my links at the time, and are
now trying to deny their existence, and further that I'm perfectly
content to amuse myself letting you carry on making an arse of
yourself in this manner because the record of this thread is there
for others to see, and as others still reading it have agreed, it
supports me, not you.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.
On 31/12/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.
When you're in a hole, stop lying.
Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC, an organisation
not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.
Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia, again an organisation not noted for
its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
peer-reviewed science.
On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson http://www.filippalentzos.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47 https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463 https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445 https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.
Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,
an organisation
not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.
Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,
again an organisation not noted for
its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
peer-reviewed science.
The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
or coronavirus case statistics.
Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17% difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
"Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".
This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
be somewhat lacking.
In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus,
your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the
bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural mutations.
On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.
When you're in a hole, stop lying.
In the tedious 204 messages that I can find of yours in this
549-post thread, you've put forward the following links as evidence
for your entrenched position:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson http://www.filippalentzos.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47 https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463 https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world- needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19
_misinformation#Virus_origin_hy potheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak- from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445 https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings. After
that, you degenerate into calling people 'unbalanced' and their
postings 'hyposhite' or 'emotive bullshit', with the odd 'liar'
thrown in doubtless for good measure - quite why you took this
approach to defending your position remains unclear. It appeared to
be a triumph of hope over experience to continue searching your
postings for 'links'.
Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC, an
organisation not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is
certainly not regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science
papers.
Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia, again an organisation not noted
for its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of peer-reviewed science.
The remainder of your links seem to be either to business
publications or coronavirus case statistics.
Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17% difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
"Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides
between SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV;
RaTG13), the difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence* between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than
previously *estimated".
This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your
entire Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific
research papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your
list seems to be somewhat lacking.
In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan
virus, your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to
include the peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are
currently missing from it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the bat SARS-related coronavirus
(SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you have merely asserted as
your personal opinion - which is based on the very limited media
sources you have so far mentioned - were natural mutations.
HTH
On 09:34 2 Jan 2022, Spike said:
On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
On 31/12/2021 11:57, Spike wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop asking me to prove your claims.
When you're in a hole, stop lying.
In the tedious 204 messages that I can find of yours in this
549-post thread, you've put forward the following links as evidence
for your entrenched position:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
http://www.filippalentzos.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-
needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19
_misinformation#Virus_origin_hy potheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-
from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings. After
that, you degenerate into calling people 'unbalanced' and their
postings 'hyposhite' or 'emotive bullshit', with the odd 'liar'
thrown in doubtless for good measure - quite why you took this
approach to defending your position remains unclear. It appeared to
be a triumph of hope over experience to continue searching your
postings for 'links'.
Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC, an
organisation not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is
certainly not regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science
papers.
Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia, again an organisation not noted
for its impartial reporting, and certainly not as a publisher of
peer-reviewed science.
The remainder of your links seem to be either to business
publications or coronavirus case statistics.
Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
"Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides
between SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV;
RaTG13), the difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the*
*divergence* between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than
previously *estimated".
This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your
entire Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific
research papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your
list seems to be somewhat lacking.
In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan
virus, your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to
include the peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are
currently missing from it that cover the totality of the topic, and
especially the ones that prove the *much* *larger* than previously
*estimated" pathway from the bat SARS-related coronavirus
(SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you have merely asserted as
your personal opinion - which is based on the very limited media
sources you have so far mentioned - were natural mutations.
HTH
Oh my goodness! That post says far more about your obsessionality
than you may have intended.
It also suggsts you have too much time on your hands, which might
explain why you are able to devote yourself to so much trolling.
On 02/01/2022 09:34, Spike wrote:
On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
http://www.filippalentzos.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.
So do not include at least 24 more, though I have admitted that some of
the total of 45 counted may be in quote sections and therefore
repetitions of the above or of links provided by others, the latter of
which actually I think 1 or 2 of the above may be anyway.
Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,
6 of the 10 were links to BBC science programmes, which give details of
the original source scientific papers both in their reports and via
links on each programme episode webpage. The other 4 are to news
reports, which likewise commonly contain links to source and related material.
an organisation
not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.
Your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were established
fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and biased opinion.
Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,
Likewise Wikipedia pages contain links to source material, including
where relevant published scientific papers.
Again, your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were
established fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and
biased opinion.
The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
or coronavirus case statistics.
Which were relevant in some way to the point being made. For example:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely"
Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
"Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the
difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".
So clearly still you haven't found them all, because you haven't
included the most recent one discussed of the French research in Laos,
as linked again below, and ...
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
be somewhat lacking.
... even just the 21 you've bothered to find above, which we know cannot
be all because there is at least the one above known to be missing from
your list, is 21 times the number of links to relevant research that
*YOU* have supplied! Anyone in the world with even a glowing fag-end of human intelligence would have recognised by now that 21-1 is a lost
scoreline - in plain English, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus,
your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the
bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
mutations.
Now that you've bothered to do the work, which you claimed you'd never
do, and found (some of) the links I've previously given, incidentally
thereby self-contradicting your own previous assertions that I hadn't provided any, this time around go back and actually read or listen to
them, including if you wish original scientific papers linked from the
above.
On 02/01/2022 18:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 02/01/2022 09:34, Spike wrote:
On 31/12/2021 12:25, Java Jive wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
http://www.filippalentzos.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.
So do not include at least 24 more, though I have admitted that some of
the total of 45 counted may be in quote sections and therefore
repetitions of the above or of links provided by others, the latter of
which actually I think 1 or 2 of the above may be anyway.
You have only yourself to blame. When your posts descended to calling
people unbalanced, liars, and your declarations of hyposhite, it was
time to stop searching.
Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,
6 of the 10 were links to BBC science programmes, which give details of
the original source scientific papers both in their reports and via
links on each programme episode webpage. The other 4 are to news
reports, which likewise commonly contain links to source and related
material.
Then you could have chosen to provide the original scientific papers -
which, by the way, you have never claimed to have read - instead of
being evasive and gratuitously abusive.
an organisation
not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.
Your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were established
fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and biased opinion.
You don't seem to have the critical gift of being able to see what is
not being said, a vital component of determining what the programme's
agenda really is.
Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,
Likewise Wikipedia pages contain links to source material, including
where relevant published scientific papers.
Like the BBC, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of peer-reviewed scientific publications, which is what you have been demanding others
supply.
Again, your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were
established fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and
biased opinion.
Like your stance over the origins of the Wuhan virus?
The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications
or coronavirus case statistics.
Which were relevant in some way to the point being made. For example:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan virology lab gives 4 reasons
why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely"
That is NOT peer-reviewed science, it's merely anecdata.
Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
"Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the
difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".
So clearly still you haven't found them all, because you haven't
included the most recent one discussed of the French research in Laos,
as linked again below, and ...
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
"press-documents" is NOT peer-reviewed scientific publication.
This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to
be somewhat lacking.
... even just the 21 you've bothered to find above, which we know cannot
be all because there is at least the one above known to be missing from
your list, is 21 times the number of links to relevant research that
*YOU* have supplied! Anyone in the world with even a glowing fag-end of
human intelligence would have recognised by now that 21-1 is a lost
scoreline - in plain English, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
The real lesson here is for you. If you want a discussion about science,
stop using abusive terms such as 'unbalanced', 'liar', or 'hyposhite'.
There are other opinions than yours, and your opinions do not over-ride
those of others. It is not the fault of others if they they see the
issue in a different light than you.
In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus,
your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the >>> peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from >>> it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the
bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
mutations.
Now that you've bothered to do the work, which you claimed you'd never
do, and found (some of) the links I've previously given, incidentally
thereby self-contradicting your own previous assertions that I hadn't
provided any, this time around go back and actually read or listen to
them, including if you wish original scientific papers linked from the
above.
Your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
it, that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated* pathway from the
bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural mutations.
Oh my goodness! That post says far more about your obsessionality than
you may have intended.
It also suggsts you have too much time on your hands, which might
explain why you are able to devote yourself to so much trolling.
Then you could have chosen to provide the original scientific papers -
which, by the way, you have never claimed to have read - instead of
being evasive and gratuitously abusive.
On 03/01/2022 10:36, Spike wrote:
On 02/01/2022 18:02, Java Jive wrote:
On 02/01/2022 09:34, Spike wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoHealth_Alliance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072hlw8
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Fedson
http://www.filippalentzos.com/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z0r1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000zv3t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l47
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Virus_origin_hypotheses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-55364445
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51235105
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data
These 21 links were found in the first half of your postings.
So do not include at least 24 more, though I have admitted that some of
the total of 45 counted may be in quote sections and therefore
repetitions of the above or of links provided by others, the latter of
which actually I think 1 or 2 of the above may be anyway.
You have only yourself to blame. When your posts descended to calling
people unbalanced, liars, and your declarations of hyposhite, it was
time to stop searching.
HYPOSHITE! Your own posts have rarely including any references to any supporting *EVIDENCE* whatsoever, and most, I think all but one and that
may actually have come from someone else, of what you have produced has
not even been relevant, yet here you are still trolling!
Almost half of your links, 10 out of 21, are to the BBC,
6 of the 10 were links to BBC science programmes, which give details of
the original source scientific papers both in their reports and via
links on each programme episode webpage. The other 4 are to news
reports, which likewise commonly contain links to source and related
material.
Then you could have chosen to provide the original scientific papers -
which, by the way, you have never claimed to have read - instead of
being evasive and gratuitously abusive.
I link to the BBC's reporting largely to suit the level of those I'm
arguing against, because they report in plainer English what is said in scientific papers in more obscure science-speak English, which probably trolls like you would not understand.
an organisation
not noted for its impartial reporting, and which is certainly not
regarded as a publisher of peer-reviewed science papers.
Your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were established
fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and biased opinion.
You don't seem to have the critical gift of being able to see what is
not being said, a vital component of determining what the programme's
agenda really is.
I have sufficient of this gift to be aware that you are *STILL* not
supplying any *EVIDENCE* to support your claim that SARS-CoV-2
originated in a lab rather than in the wild as scientists believe, yet
are still arguing here.
Of the rest, 3 are from Wikipedia,
Likewise Wikipedia pages contain links to source material, including
where relevant published scientific papers.
Like the BBC, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of peer-reviewed
scientific publications, which is what you have been demanding others
supply.
Where either supply links to supporting scientific publications, by what mythical mechanism are those publications supposed suddenly to be
worthless just because they have been linked to by the BBC or Wikipedia?
Again, your personal and biased opinion stated as though it were
established fact, but of course it's not, it's just your personal and
biased opinion.
Like your stance over the origins of the Wuhan virus?
My stance on SARS-CoV-2 is supported by the science, yours is not.
The remainder of your links seem to be either to business publications >>>> or coronavirus case statistics.
Which were relevant in some way to the point being made. For example:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-coronavirus-did-not-leak-from-wuhan-lab-researcher-2020-4/amp
A US researcher who worked with a Wuhan virology lab gives 4 reasons
why a coronavirus leak would be extremely unlikely"
That is NOT peer-reviewed science, it's merely anecdata.
It was highly relevant to the point being made, and was still way
stronger *EVIDENCE* than anything you have produced on the subject.
Merely one of your links is to an abstract only that mentions a 17%
difference between SARS-Cov-2 and a bat virus, the key point being:
"Although we found only 4% variability in genomic nucleotides between
SARS-CoV-2 and a bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13), the >>>> difference at neutral sites was 17%, suggesting *the* *divergence*
between the two viruses is *much* *larger* than previously *estimated".
So clearly still you haven't found them all, because you haven't
included the most recent one discussed of the French research in Laos,
as linked again below, and ...
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/sars-cov-2-related-viruses-capable-infecting-human-cells-discovered-bats-northern-laos
"press-documents" is NOT peer-reviewed scientific publication.
As you have been told before that the original paper is linked from
within the report, that is in effect another lie.
This would appear to be a good time to ask you to present your entire
Literature Search, preferably concentrating on scientific research
papers published in peer-reviewed journals, of which your list seems to >>>> be somewhat lacking.
... even just the 21 you've bothered to find above, which we know cannot >>> be all because there is at least the one above known to be missing from
your list, is 21 times the number of links to relevant research that
*YOU* have supplied! Anyone in the world with even a glowing fag-end of >>> human intelligence would have recognised by now that 21-1 is a lost
scoreline - in plain English, when you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING!
The real lesson here is for you. If you want a discussion about science,
stop using abusive terms such as 'unbalanced', 'liar', or 'hyposhite'.
The real lesson here is for you, I call a spade 'a spade', a liar 'a
liar', and a hypocritical time-wasting shit 'a hyposhite', if you want
to avoid these terms being applied to you, learn to debate in a rational fashion; start by accepting that 1-21 is a lost scoreline and stop
trolling when you've run out of ammunition.
There are other opinions than yours, and your opinions do not over-ride
those of others. It is not the fault of others if they they see the
issue in a different light than you.
It is the fault of others if they ignore rational evidence and persist
in trolling irrational beliefs, as you are *STILL* doing here.
In order to sustain your entrenched position regarding the Wuhan virus, >>>> your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the >>>> peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from >>>> it that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated" pathway from the >>>> bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you >>>> have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the >>>> very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
mutations.
Now that you've bothered to do the work, which you claimed you'd never
do, and found (some of) the links I've previously given, incidentally
thereby self-contradicting your own previous assertions that I hadn't
provided any, this time around go back and actually read or listen to
them, including if you wish original scientific papers linked from the
above.
Your Literature Search, when finally published, will need to include the
peer-reviewed scientific-research papers that are currently missing from
it, that cover the totality of the topic, and especially the ones that
prove the *much* *larger* than previously *estimated* pathway from the
bat SARS-related coronavirus (SARSr-CoV; RaTG13) to SARS-CoV-2 that you
have merely asserted as your personal opinion - which is based on the
very limited media sources you have so far mentioned - were natural
mutations.
When the score is 1-21 against you, you've lost. When you're in a hole,
stop digging.
On 03/01/2022 11:26, Java Jive wrote:
When the score is 1-21 against you, you've lost. When you're in a hole,
stop digging.
When it finally dawns on you that you've scuppered your own case, give up.
On 04/01/2022 17:04, Spike wrote:
On 03/01/2022 11:26, Java Jive wrote:
When the score is 1-21 against you, you've lost. When you're in a
hole, stop digging.
When it finally dawns on you that you've scuppered your own case,
give up.
'Denialism by Dance' doesn't seem to be making much progress. When
the score is 1-21 against you, you've lost.
Troll plonked.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:19:37 |
| Calls: | 6,656 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,332,148 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
