Re: [luv-talk] Fake Wikipedia entry on Bicholim Conflict finally deleted after five years
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au): [...]
One thing that's always annoying is when people make wild claims offering no evidence at all and then criticise people who reference Wikipedia.
Classic confirmation bias. Obligatory Wikipedia link follows. ;-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias I am still wary about openly editing Wikipedia because of several examples I've seen in the past of well-known open source figure X making Wikipedia edits that then not only were reverted by pseudonymous Wikipedia regulars but then resulted in scurrilous personal attacks carried out by those pseudonymous editors _within_ the pages of Wikipedia upon well-known open source figure X. (The worst case I'm aware of was the really rather vicious lashback against Eric Raymond.) FWIW, when someone created a Wikipedia page about me a few years ago, I marked the article with the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion template (the process for deletion that seemed least likely to raise a backlash of resistance), and put the following note on the Talk page: I am the subject of this article: Rick Moen, rick@linuxmafia.com, tel. +1 (1) 650-283-7902. Although not personally a Wikipedian, I'm a friendly observer and frequent user. I'm proposing article deletion through the "Wikipedia:Proposed deletion" process for uncontroversial candidates, for deletion after five days if nobody objects, on WP:N grounds. 1. The data cited in the article do not constitute encyclopaedic notability, as they do not show the "significant coverage in reliable sources" required by WP:N to establish general notability. Within the rather narrow publicity circle of Linux and open source, the article subject (yr. humble servant) has had coverage, but not the _significant_ coverage required. 2. The data cited are severely compromised by transgressing the "independent of the subject" clause of WP:N's general notability guideline, as substantively all of the works cited were not only "produced by those affiliated with the subject", but were written by the subject himself. 3. One of the major data cited is inaccurate in the direction of exaggeration: Yr. humble servant did not "contribute the Linux User Group HOWTO to the Linux Documentation Project", but rather merely assumed maintenance of that document when its actual creator, Kendall Clark, no longer could do so. -- Rick M. On the bright side, subsequent to 2008, it really _does_ seem as if Wikipedia has cracked down quite a bit on abuse of pages to attack living persons. It used to be a big risk, and maybe not so much any more.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
One thing that's always annoying is when people make wild claims offering no evidence at all and then criticise people who reference Wikipedia.
Classic confirmation bias.
Obligatory Wikipedia link follows. ;-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Actually Andrew and I have a history of debates that end when I cite references to support my claims and he refuses to provide any. You can consulte the list archives for examples. Of all the occasions when I've been involved in a debate about the accuracy of Wikipedia I can't recall a single occasion when the person criticising Wikipedia has offered ANY external references. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au):
One thing that's always annoying is when people make wild claims offering no evidence at all and then criticise people who reference Wikipedia.
Classic confirmation bias.
Obligatory Wikipedia link follows. ;-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Actually Andrew and I have a history of debates that end when I cite references to support my claims and he refuses to provide any. You can consulte the list archives for examples.
You may have misinterpreted my post. When I said 'classic confirmation bias', I merely meant that the practice of making wild claims while offering no evidence (and cherry-picking or exaggerating supposed data) is a good example of confirmation bias. In no way was I critiquing anyone in present company.
On 4/01/2013 4:57 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
Classic confirmation bias.
Obligatory Wikipedia link follows. ;-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Actually Andrew and I have a history of debates that end when I cite references to support my claims and he refuses to provide any. You can consulte the list archives for examples.
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths. You can believe the myth, I will not, regardless of how many Wikipedia links you send or other links, which IN MY OPINION ... usually offer false analysis [other opinions] of the real facts. Wikipedia can be as biased in political position as any other media type. Otherwise, Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information -- but you can never just rely on Wikipedia and/or it's "supporting" links that help the bias of opinion (in most cases, it is opinion, rather than fact -- or rather the interpretation of those facts, which ultimately comes back to opinion). Enough said. Cheers A.
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
Wikipedia can be as biased in political position as any other media type.
And example person X can be wrong, etc. Does it bother you that the above variety of rhetoric is basically tautologically correct and yet content-free? Unless Russell ever claimed that statements should be given credence _solely_ because they appear on a Wikipedia page and for no other reason -- and of course he never did -- you would seem to be raising a non-sequitur objection.
Otherwise, Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information -- but you can never just rely on Wikipedia and/or it's "supporting" links....
Again, Russell never claimed that.
in most cases, it is opinion, rather than fact -- or rather the interpretation of those facts
This would be more compelling if you gave a few relevant examples. Anyway, good luck with hanging tough on the stance that global warming and anthopogenic origin thereof being mere political advocacy and opinion. I personally urge that people still holding that view put their money behind their convictions. Like buying up low-altitude coastal real estate in Kiribati that science-deluded natives believe to be in danger from rising ocean levels. The Maldives is another good prospect. If you're right, you have one hell of an investment opportunity in low-lying areas. I say: Strike while the prospects are, um, high, Andrew. Get rich!
On 4/01/2013 6:31 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Anyway, good luck with hanging tough on the stance that global warming and anthopogenic origin thereof being mere political advocacy and opinion. I personally urge that people still holding that view put their money behind their convictions. Like buying up low-altitude coastal real estate in Kiribati that science-deluded natives believe to be in danger from rising ocean levels. The Maldives is another good prospect. If you're right, you have one hell of an investment opportunity in low-lying areas. I say: Strike while the prospects are, um, high, Andrew. Get rich!
My personal belief is that one day, got no idea when, we'll see an end to talks about global warming / climate change and it will end up the same as the "Mayan end of time" prophecy predictions, which were really just a end of one cycle and start of a new cycle. In the early '70s it was talk of global cooling. And whilst today is hot, you might expect that, we are as close [in distance] to the Sun as we'll be for the whole year. And no, I won't be buying up land anywhere in particular. Cheers A.
My personal belief is that one day, got no idea when, we'll see an end to talks about global warming / climate change and it will end up the same as the "Mayan end of time" prophecy predictions, which were really just a end of one cycle and start of a new cycle. In the early '70s it was talk of global cooling.
You are aware that even in the early '70s there was vastly more scientific papers proposing global warming, with only a few engaging in the suggestion of global cooling? (A more realistic suggestion of a form of 'global cooling' were from those who looked at the climatology of a nuclear winter). All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 0432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:53:09PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And whilst today is hot, you might expect that, we are as close [in distance] to the Sun as we'll be for the whole year.
you do realise that aphelion/perihelion has negligible affect on Earth's temperature, right? That the slightly elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun is NOT the cause of seasons? perhaps not...your understanding of science in general and climate science in particular seems deeply flawed. the following relevant excerpt from the Bad Astronomy blog may help you understand: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/02/perihelion_earth_is_clos... [...] The Earth orbits the Sun in an ellipse, not a circle. This fact wasn't discovered until the early 1600s, when astronomer Johannes Kepler published the first two of his three laws of planetary motion. Until that time, for thousands of years previously, everyone thought the planets orbited the Sun moved along perfectly circular paths. But orbit in an ellipse we do, which means sometimes we're closer to the Sun, and sometimes farther. For the Earth, the difference isn't all that much: about 5 million km (3 million miles) separate closest and farthest distance from the Sun - very roughly 147 - 152 million km (91 - 94 million miles). It's a change of only about 3%, which to the eye would make it look pretty much like a perfect circle. In fact, I used Wolfram Alpha to draw a circle and an ellipse with the same shape as Earth's orbit. Can you see the difference? [...] Some people think that the distance to the Sun is the reason we have seasons. But as you can see, this difference is so small it hardly has any affect at all. There's some, but it's small. We're a little bit cooler on average when we're farther away, but the tilt of the Earth's axis is a far bigger influence on temperature than our distance from the Sun. Note that we reach perihelion in January, in the dead of winter for the Northern Hemisphere! That's the opposite of what you would expect if distance to the Sun alone were the cause of the seasons. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
On 12/01/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
the following relevant excerpt from the Bad Astronomy blog may help you understand:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/02/perihelion_earth_is_clos...
I've read that post before, and many similar, nothing changes for me. Did you read that I didn't want to debate this matter? I do not take as gospel truth the information provided by such (web)sites; particularly such sites that so strongly advocate a cause or belief which I personally and strongly believe to be false. Time, in the end, will tell, not any site like you've just presented (yet again). Kind Regards AndrewM
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
On 12/01/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
the following relevant excerpt from the Bad Astronomy blog may help you understand:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/02/perihelion_earth_is_clos...
I've read that post before, and many similar, nothing changes for me. Did you read that I didn't want to debate this matter?
I do not take as gospel truth the information provided by such (web)sites; particularly such sites that so strongly advocate a cause or belief which I personally and strongly believe to be false.
1. Phil Plait is a world-class professional astronomer. If he were either trying to fool you or were egregiously mistaken on something as squarely in the middle of his profession as the relative influence of aphelion/perihelion (orbital distance along the eliptical path) versus axial tilt on Earth temperatures, he would be sabotaging his own professional credibility. This hypothesis seems to fail Ockham's Razor to an epic degree. 2. Moreoever, Dr. Plait didn't ask readers to take his word on that question, in the first place. He gives you more than enough data that you can check for yourself. 3. Moreover, it's also really not that difficult to verify with or without anything Dr. Plait says. It's pretty much basic astronomy, so claiming your problem is that you 'don't take as gospel truth the information provided by such Web sites' is a non-sequitur objection.
On 12/01/2013 5:16 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
On 12/01/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
the following relevant excerpt from the Bad Astronomy blog may help you understand:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/02/perihelion_earth_is_clos...
I've read that post before, and many similar, nothing changes for me. Did you read that I didn't want to debate this matter?
Apologies, that exact reference is not something that I have read before. In any case, my "line" about being as close to the sun the other day as we will be in the whole year... well, it was basically a throw away line, in jest. I'm sure it didn't come across that way. I actually believe that the Earth's temperature is more related to sun or solar activity, rather than distance. When there is a high incidence of solar activity, the temperature is higher to those parts of the Earth that are subjected to such solar activity. Thank you for your efforts, but I am still not convinced -- the above link doesn't correlate with my views one way or another, nor do I dispute any of the claims made therein, but they are not actually relevant to my position in reality. Kind Regards AndrewM
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Thank you for your efforts, but I am still not convinced
ISTR a study showing the more evidence you provide, the more people tend to cling to their (contraindicated) beliefs. Anybody have a reference?
On 12/01/2013 7:18 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Thank you for your efforts, but I am still not convinced ISTR a study showing the more evidence you provide, the more people tend to cling to their (contraindicated) beliefs. Anybody have a reference?
What evidence? I'm sure the poor Dr is a great astronomer but how the hell does that prove your religious fervour toward climate change is correct? Even Rick Moen, who is normally the most intelligent of those on this list has been coming out with some total bullshit. Rick associated someone to something bad and suggested they were bad because of his association. Way to be a religious fundamentalist Rick! Note how I am using your attack methodology here. :-P I just laughed it off. The most ridiculous thing Rick did was to equate Kiribati sea level problems to climate change. Kiribati is a group of atolls, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati Atolls by their nature sink(1). Sinking has no corresponding connection whatsoever to any climate calamity. But that didn't stop Rick from attributing it to sacrilege, the offending of his great and holy god, the environment (blessed be His name). If we had a document that had been produced by eminent scientists from, say, the CSIRO, Tasmania and Canberra Uni as well as the Southampton Oceanography Centre that showed absolutely what sea levels had done since, oh say, 1841, then we would have a definitive starting point to measure that _actual_ effect of climate change. Oh wait, here it is: http://keyportarthur.org.au/extras/1044/The%20sea%20level%20at%20PA%20from%2... http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/index.php It shows that the sea has risen less than the lowest climate change prediction. Now that is a fact. Not that there is more or less CO2 in the atmosphere, that may or may not be a symptom. Does the lack of sea rise prove or disprove climate change? I have no idea. Human induced climate change may or may not still be happening but I am so sick and tired of either side claiming they know it all when they are bot full of shit. Usually, I might add, they are more interested in supporting their particular brand of religion than the truth. Rick, I know most of the people on this list are so narrow minded they they are terribly smart in the "field"but I expected far, far more from you "ow great and wise one". I hope I don't have to bitch-slap you again when it comes the zealotry. (1) For the completely stupid! Atolls are formed when volcanoes brake through sea surface and are rimmed by coral. Then the volcano sinks. Leaving the atoll. You can stop at the sinking part. Cheers, Mike PS Sorry Trent but my straw camel back just broke. ;-)
Quoting Mike Mitchell (m.mitch@exemail.com.au):
The most ridiculous thing Rick did was to equate Kiribati sea level problems to climate change. Kiribati is a group of atolls, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati Atolls by their nature sink(1).
Hi, Mike. One big problem: The subsidence rate of coral atolls is about _8 metres per 100,000 years_. (See for example French drilling studies at Mururoa through the carbonate cap and into the underlying volcanic rocks, which found the subsidence rate to be that as the mean, over the preceding 7.2 million years before present.) That is of course the overall subsidence rate over geologic timescales, ignoring the temporary (by geological standards) effect of rising and falling sea levels as ice ages have come and gone. Anyway, what's lately threatening parts of Kiribati and the Seychelles is (1) many, many orders of magnitude faster than what subsidence supports, and (2) not subsidence in the first place: _Surprise_, scientists have instruments capable of measuring altitude and are able to distinguish between land falling and ocean rising. (Some coral formations are thought to be able to grow quickly enough that they are likely to keep pace with rising ocean levels -- a matter noticed as early as Charles Darwin's study of the matter. Perhaps that effect will help some affected islands. Time will tell.)
13 millimetres in the last 160 years, that's the total measurable sea rise. I suspect that's about the same we would have expected as a result of the end of the last ice-age 12,000 years ago (or was it 12,000 BC - doesn't really matter). The minimum expected by climate change was greater than the measured see rise. It would, I suspect, be reasonable to conclude that climate change advocates have screwed up so far at best or have no idea at worst (well, really at next-best). As for the atolls sinking faster than expected (damn I didn't think I'd need to go this far but I always underestimate the mind of a super-villain). Archaeologists have dug down their middens and the sea shells get larger and larger until they strike thousands and thousands of giant clams shells. I think if they hadn't eaten themselves out of house and home, the sand would have been replenished by the shells breaking up. There is an atoll near Vanautu or the Solomon Islands that barely breaks the surface and it has maintained its level above sea. It's too far away to be harvested and too small to be settled. Although the area just underwater is quite large. I suspect the difference in these atolls in near proximity to be the result of excessive human exploitation. Nonetheless, the document attached to the previous post showed the change to be 13 mm since 1841 near Tasmania. 13 mm is not enough to "sink" islands, destroy the planet, change property values or anything really. If climate change was as advertised, the amount would be substantially higher. Perhaps 500mm since 1841. If there is other proof being offered, I haven't seen or heard it. It may be true it may not. I would like to see something a little more tangible than has been offered so far. Cheers, Mike On 13/01/2013 5:44 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Mike Mitchell (m.mitch@exemail.com.au):
The most ridiculous thing Rick did was to equate Kiribati sea level problems to climate change. Kiribati is a group of atolls, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati Atolls by their nature sink(1). Hi, Mike. One big problem: The subsidence rate of coral atolls is about _8 metres per 100,000 years_. (See for example French drilling studies at Mururoa through the carbonate cap and into the underlying volcanic rocks, which found the subsidence rate to be that as the mean, over the preceding 7.2 million years before present.)
That is of course the overall subsidence rate over geologic timescales, ignoring the temporary (by geological standards) effect of rising and falling sea levels as ice ages have come and gone.
Anyway, what's lately threatening parts of Kiribati and the Seychelles is (1) many, many orders of magnitude faster than what subsidence supports, and (2) not subsidence in the first place: _Surprise_, scientists have instruments capable of measuring altitude and are able to distinguish between land falling and ocean rising.
(Some coral formations are thought to be able to grow quickly enough that they are likely to keep pace with rising ocean levels -- a matter noticed as early as Charles Darwin's study of the matter. Perhaps that effect will help some affected islands. Time will tell.)
Quoting Mike Mitchell (m.mitch@exemail.com.au):
13 millimetres in the last 160 years, that's the total measurable sea rise.
The indicator to look at in that area isn't the amount over the prior 160 years, but rather more-recent observed rise: 3.3 mm over the sixteen years from 1993 to 2009, as measured by satellite altimetry.[1] That is a radical acceleration. That's not even paying attention to the various -other- bits handwriting on the wall such as worldwide retreat of almost all glaciers and ice caps including Greenland and Anarctica. (Even the ongoing melt of the Arctic Ocean ice cap matters, on account of singificant lowering of surface albedo, hence greater heat retention.)
There is an atoll near Vanautu or the Solomon Islands that barely breaks the surface and it has maintained its level above sea.
Yes, this probably reflects one of the factors not often adequately taken into account, though I did mention it in my earlier posting (and even Charles Darwin's study mentioned it, I think): Coral colonies are known to grow upwards during periods of sea-level rise, and they _may_ be able to keep pace in some areas (and maybe not in some others). As I said earlier, time will tell how that works out in particular cases. (The limiting factor that keeps atolls at most not too far above the ocean surface is wind erosion.) [1] http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Nicholls%20%26%20Cazenave%2...
13 millimetres in the last 160 years, that's the total measurable sea rise.
The indicator to look at in that area isn't the amount over the prior 160 years, but rather more-recent observed rise: 3.3 mm over the sixteen years from 1993 to 2009, as measured by satellite altimetry.[1] That is a radical acceleration.
I must admit one of the things that quite surprised when I first started researching this subject many years ago is that sea level rise varies by location. You'd expect it to be the same! But this is not the case... for example; http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/sea_level_fig2.j... -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 0432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 14/01/2013, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
If there is other proof being offered, I haven't seen or heard it. It may be true it may not. I would like to see something a little more tangible than has been offered so far.
Apparently, it varies by new source. A smh article [1] today reports that: 1) Two leading scientists confirm "Sea level rise 'linked to climate change'"; and 2) "The Australian newspaper reported on Tuesday that the latest science on sea levels found no link to global warming or the increased rate of glacier melting." [1] http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sea-level-rise-linked-to-clima...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, David wrote:
2) "The Australian newspaper reported on Tuesday that the latest science on sea levels found no link to global warming or the increased rate of glacier melting."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/sea-rise-not-linked-to-w... It's behind a login so not readable for me now. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/sea-level-rise-where-w... .. gives you another opinion relatted to the same science paper. The Australian is citing a corrected forecast of the Britain's Met Office to cast doubt on climate change. I have not the article at hand (it was in the newspaper I read on the aeroplane two days ago) but here is a similar article: http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2411/inconvenient_truths_met_office_bu... and this is the source http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/... and a clarification by the Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts I love: (The Commentator): "The Met Office, which is part publicly funded, has a long history of incorrect projections and forecast in its over 150 year history. .. "Labour MP Graham Stringer .. said it should give up climate change forecasts as well as long-term predictions." I look at the map in the source, "Observations and five-year mean forecast from November 2007". Furthermore, the climate sceptics are using this source, and a forecast declared experimental by them, as evidence - while otherwise claiming that this source would be very unreliable. Regards Peter
On 15/01/13 12:42, Peter Ross wrote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/sea-rise-not-linked-to-w...
It's behind a login so not readable for me now.
Most pay-walled News.com articles are accessible in full via Google. This link should get you there: http://goo.gl/WQOsE
Geoff D'Arcy wrote:
Most pay-walled News.com articles are accessible in full via Google.
If so, then tell your browser --user-agent='Hi I'm the booblegot' or whatever their spider sends, and you should be golden.
On 16/01/13 10:28, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Geoff D'Arcy wrote:
Most pay-walled News.com articles are accessible in full via Google.
If so, then tell your browser --user-agent='Hi I'm the booblegot' or whatever their spider sends, and you should be golden.
I did try that and it didn't seem to work. I didn't put a lot of effort in though, I only checked using the UA of Google's current robot.
On 16 January 2013 10:28, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Geoff D'Arcy wrote:
Most pay-walled News.com articles are accessible in full via Google.
If so, then tell your browser --user-agent='Hi I'm the booblegot' or whatever their spider sends, and you should be golden.
My (untested) theory is that is looks at the Referer: header, not the user-agent header. -- Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
On 16/01/13 11:12, Brian May wrote:
On 16 January 2013 10:28, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com <mailto:trentbuck@gmail.com>> wrote:
Geoff D'Arcy wrote: > Most pay-walled News.com articles are accessible in full via Google.
If so, then tell your browser --user-agent='Hi I'm the booblegot' or whatever their spider sends, and you should be golden.
My (untested) theory is that is looks at the Referer: header, not the user-agent header.
Yes I suspect the same thing, I'll test with a debug proxy next time I'm using one.
On 15/01/2013 11:49 AM, David wrote:
2) "The Australian newspaper reported on Tuesday that the latest science on sea levels found no link to global warming or the increased rate of glacier melting."
If there is ONE paper I wouldn't trust it is "The Australian", it is NOT a major newspaper, but it is a national one -- it gives AU a bad name in my opinion and it brings to mind the phrase: "What the Murdoch?" Cheers A.
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Thank you for your efforts, but I am still not convinced
ISTR a study showing the more evidence you provide, the more people tend to cling to their (contraindicated) beliefs. Anybody have a reference?
I don't, but I'm reminded of a passage I put into the User Group HOWTO (which I maintain for the Linux Documentation Project): Along those lines, bear in mind that, for many people, perhaps most, an "advocate" is perceived as a salesman, and thus classified as someone to resist rather than listen to fairly. They've never heard of someone urging them to adopt a piece of software without benefiting materially, so they assume there must be something in it for you and will push back, and act as if they're doing you a personal favour to even listen, let alone try your recommendations. I recommend bringing such discussions back to Earth immediately, by pointing out that software policy should be based in one's own long-term self interest, that you have zero personal stake in their choices, and that you have better uses for your time than speaking to an unreceptive audience. After that, if they're still interested, at least you won't face the same artificial obstacle. Passage concerns the noxious effects most often produced by _software_ advocacy, but the point has general application. http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/User-Group-HOWTO-4.html Unfortunately, the Internet is full of people who imagine that it's your job to convince them of things, and telling you that you need to try _harder_ as if you had nothing else to do in life.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 05:03:16PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 12/01/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
the following relevant excerpt from the Bad Astronomy blog may help you understand:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/02/perihelion_earth_is_clos...
I've read that post before, and many similar
i doubt that very much (see below).
, nothing changes for me.
that i have no doubt about.
Did you read that I didn't want to debate this matter?
then stop pushing your idiotic opinions. YES, you have a right to hold whatever opinion you like, no matter how cretinous. NO, you do not have a right to utter them and expect to be immune from being challenged about them.
I do not take as gospel truth the information provided by such (web)sites;
here's the source of my doubt: "such (web)sites" it's blindingly obvious that you did not even read the page. or anything on the site. (and, i'd wager, any scientific information on any web site - or printed books or journals either for that matter) the Bad Astronomy site is not, as you assume, a climate science blog, or a global warming propaganda site. it's an astronomy site that just happened to have a post about the perihelion (a topic which is very relevant to the discipline of astronomy), which had a pretty good layman's explanation of what it is and why it doesn't have much effect on the earth's temperature.
particularly such sites that so strongly advocate a cause or belief
BA doesn't strongly advocate a cause or belief - expect perhaps that astronomy in particular (and science in general) is cool and interesting, and that photoastronomy can result in spectacularly beautiful and informative images.
which I personally and strongly believe to be false.
the trouble with faith-based reality is not only that wearing blinders a fucking stupid thing to do, it's also flat out wrong - and easily proved so. feel free to enjoy your delusions in private - but, as i said, don't expect to get away with expressing your idiotic beliefs in public without being challenged on them. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #307: emissions from GSM-phones
On 12/01/2013 8:24 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
which I personally and strongly believe to be false.
the trouble with faith-based reality is not only that wearing blinders a fucking stupid thing to do, it's also flat out wrong - and easily proved so.
It's not just faith based; there is debate, even between those with significant scientific background. I expect that both sides misrepresent the facts to suit their arguments (including or excluding data to suit). Just the same, both sides still argue -- and I am not talking about lay people whom have no idea as to the truth or otherwise of the presented facts (no matter how much political and/or media hype is involved), but arguments by those in the scientific community itself. Many here take the view of the apparent majority of scientists to be fact, that's okay. Clearly, I don't. As I've said before some of those scientists have their own agendas. Some of my views comes from the real plausibility of the video documentary about the "global warming swindle" [1]. In the said documentary, scientists had trouble getting their names removed from the IPCC report [2]. The list of names included in the IPCC report included many non-scientists just to make up the numbers. It was asserted in the documentary that those scientists wanting to be removed had to make legal threats to ensure their names were not associated with the affirmation and false assertions of the document. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ#t=2m20s -- listen to at least 6 minutes in, better to see the entire program though. Cheers A.
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 12/01/2013 8:24 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
which I personally and strongly believe to be false.
the trouble with faith-based reality is not only that wearing blinders a fucking stupid thing to do, it's also flat out wrong - and easily proved so.
It's not just faith based; there is debate, even between those with significant scientific background.
Can you cite some examples of people who have done real research and support your side? I don't mean geologists who comment on atmospheric science either.
I expect that both sides misrepresent the facts to suit their arguments (including or excluding data to suit).
In disagreements between scientists falsifying data is one thing that is generally not done. The quickest way of ending a scientific career is to falsify data. Conclusions that are drawn from data often differ, but the data is published and it's not uncommon for other analysis to be performed - sometimes such analysis is done decades after the original research was published.
Just the same, both sides still argue -- and I am not talking about lay people whom have no idea as to the truth or otherwise of the presented facts (no matter how much political and/or media hype is involved), but arguments by those in the scientific community itself.
Again if you want to convince anyone you could cite references to the scientists on your side of the debate who are arguing about such things.
Many here take the view of the apparent majority of scientists to be fact, that's okay. Clearly, I don't. As I've said before some of those scientists have their own agendas. Some of my views comes from the real plausibility of the video documentary about the "global warming swindle" [1]. In the said documentary, scientists had trouble getting their names removed from the IPCC report [2].
The premise of that "documentary" is that wealthy environmentalist groups are spending huge amounts of money to corrupt the scientific process and poor multi-national corporations that want to keep on producing huge amounts of CO2 are unable to compete on the propaganda front. Anyone who considers the matter will realise that environmental groups just don't have the sort of money needed to corrupt anyone. People who are corrupt and want a payout will go to the corporations that have billions to spend. If you are concerned about bribary and corruption then you should consider who has the ability to pay as the list of potential suspects.
The list of names included in the IPCC report included many non-scientists just to make up the numbers. It was asserted in the documentary that those scientists wanting to be removed had to make legal threats to ensure their names were not associated with the affirmation and false assertions of the document.
That's an interesting claim, do they have names for those scientists so we can try to verify it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Swindle The Wikipedia page notes that the "documentary" in question has misrepresented two scientists. So they seem very hypocritical.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ#t=2m20s -- listen to at least 6 minutes in, better to see the entire program though.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 13/01/13 00:12, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Many here take the view of the apparent majority of scientists to be fact, that's okay.
"apparent majority" come on! Surely you're not suggesting there may not be a _majority scientific consensus_? Even the most extreme deniers reluctantly admit that. The counter argument deniers usually run is that science isn't about consensus.
On 13/01/2013 1:32 PM, Geoff D'Arcy wrote:
On 13/01/13 00:12, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Many here take the view of the apparent majority of scientists to be fact, that's okay.
"apparent majority" come on! Surely you're not suggesting there may not be a _majority scientific consensus_?
Even the most extreme deniers reluctantly admit that. The counter argument deniers usually run is that science isn't about consensus.
That might depend on public / private opinion of the matters. But yes, I do believe that the apparent majority is in fact the real majority; however I do not wish to pursue seeking any evidence for either position. In fact I think that is is 100% without doubt that some "supporters" do so publicly, simply for the sake of protecting their position, income, standing and also to ensure that they aren't considered heretics.... ;) Cheers A.
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:53:09PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And whilst today is hot, you might expect that, we are as close [in distance] to the Sun as we'll be for the whole year.
you do realise that aphelion/perihelion has negligible affect on Earth's temperature, right? That the slightly elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun is NOT the cause of seasons?
Simpler proof: if it was so, both hemispheres would have winter at the same time.
At 07:13 PM 1/12/2013, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:53:09PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And whilst today is hot, you might expect that, we are as close [in distance] to the Sun as we'll be for the whole year.
you do realise that aphelion/perihelion has negligible affect on Earth's temperature, right? That the slightly elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun is NOT the cause of seasons?
Simpler proof: if it was so, both hemispheres would have winter at the same time.
True. Actually, the northern winter (which occurs at perihelion) is much more severe than the southern winter (which occurs at aphelion). At first this seems counter intuitive - afterall, shouldn't the more extreme summer occur in the hemisphere facing the sun at perihelion and the most severe winter in the hemisphere (which would be the same one) facing away from the at aphelion? The answer is to do with the distribution of land masses. The northern hemisphere has much more land mass, while the southern hemisphere has a lot less land and a lot more ocean. Water has a much higher heat capacity than land, and the large areas of water in the southern hemisphere moderate the seasons much more than the Earth's orbit makes them extreme. The heat capacity of the waters surround Australia is also one of the reasons behind the sudden onset of the Melbourne cool change. A northerly (or NW) wind blows off the outback, which has already heated up from months of solar heating. When the wind changes to SW, it's blowing over waters not much more than 20C just offshore, so the temperature immediately drops 20C or more. The same water also moderates the cold of the air mass, since it originates from Antarctica. Here in Bendigo, the cool change takes a little longer (maybe up to an hour or 2) to fully take effect, because the land in between here and the sea warms the air slightly, until the heat has been carried off by the wind. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Tony Langdon wrote:
Here in Bendigo, the cool change takes a little longer (maybe up to an hour or 2) to fully take effect, because the land in between here and the sea warms the air slightly, until the heat has been carried off by the wind.
And full circle back to pikiwedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind Come prepared for the weather :) -- Tim Connors
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:53:09PM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And whilst today is hot, you might expect that, we are as close [in distance] to the Sun as we'll be for the whole year.
you do realise that aphelion/perihelion has negligible affect on Earth's temperature, right? That the slightly elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun is NOT the cause of seasons?
Simpler proof: if it was so, both hemispheres would have winter at the same time.
Whether the world is round or flat is a matter of opinion. Part of faking the moon landings (which could never have happened because you can't walk on cheese) involved faking pictures from outer space. International airline flights deliberately fly at high altitude so that oxygen deprived passengers can't notice that the world is flat. Peak oil is a myth, as the world isn't round you can get an infinite amount of oil by just drilling deeper. Claims that seasons are based on the Earth orbiting the Sun are false, the Earth is the center of the universe, everything else in the universe revolves around it. Flourine in water and toothpaste is part of a government conspiracy to keep the population stupid so they can't think for themselves and come up with unique opinions that bear no relation to what the scientists teach them. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 12/01/2013 8:31 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
it. Flourine in water and toothpaste is part of a government conspiracy to
It is fluoride btw ...
Sorry I was talking about a different conspiracy theory. ;) Besides if it's all a matter of opinion then I can't be wrong and you shouldn't be correcting me. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths. You can believe the myth, I will not, regardless of how many Wikipedia links you send or other links, which IN MY OPINION ... usually offer false analysis [other opinions] of the real facts.
By definition false articles only exist if facts exist. Andrew doesn't seem to believe in the existence of facts which makes it dishonest of him to claim that anything is counter factual. I think that the opinion of people who believe in the "Bicholim Conflict" should be given at least the same weight as Andrew's opinions about climate change (or any other conspiracy theory). On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
I haven't found any significant errors in Wikipedia articles on subjects that I know relatively well, but on the other hand this is based on a very small sample. I would expect it to be less accurate on topics in which the facts are disputed, for example matters of social or political controversy - but then the question arises of how accuracy is to be judged in those circumstances and how "balanced" the discussion needs to be, especially if the majority of informed opinion is on one side of a dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptoid When there are real controversies Wikipedia handles them much better than any other source of information. Every time I've checked a well known Wikipedia page that is related to controversy (EG the above) it seems neutral, unbiased, and informative. Wikipedia continues to be the best encyclopedia available by the number of topics (in English at least), the neutrality, the depth of coverage, and the external references. Has there ever been another encyclopedia that included references for all it's facts? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
Has there ever been another encyclopedia that included references for all it's facts?
A general list of references at the end of an article is the norm in most other encyclopedias that I've read. Articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/) cite the literature extensively and, based on those I've read, maintain a high level of accuracy. The answer to the above question is therefore no, but some encyclopedias approximate the desired degree of rigor much better than do others.
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths. You can believe the myth, I will not, regardless of how many Wikipedia links you send or other links, which IN MY OPINION ... usually offer false analysis [other opinions] of the real facts.
What constitutes a "real fact" compared to a "false analysis"? For example in the subject cited. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 0432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Quoting Lev Lafayette (lev@levlafayette.com):
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths. You can believe the myth, I will not, regardless of how many Wikipedia links you send or other links, which IN MY OPINION ... usually offer false analysis [other opinions] of the real facts.
What constitutes a "real fact" compared to a "false analysis"? For example in the subject cited.
Unc'a Lev? Is this the place where I get to quote Donald Rumsfeld about the distinctions between known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns? Just askin'. ;->
On 4/01/2013 7:41 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Unc'a Lev? Is this the place where I get to quote Donald Rumsfeld about the distinctions between known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns? Just askin'. ;->
Why not? Have some fun Rick. cheers A.
Hello Andrew, On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 17:33 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 4/01/2013 4:57 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
Classic confirmation bias.
Obligatory Wikipedia link follows. ;-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Actually Andrew and I have a history of debates that end when I cite references to support my claims and he refuses to provide any. You can consulte the list archives for examples.
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths. You can believe the myth, I will not, regardless of how many Wikipedia links you send or other links, which IN MY OPINION ... usually offer false analysis [other opinions] of the real facts.
Unfortunately, the physics and chemistry are real, and factual. The title of Al Gore's book was rather apt, "An Inconvenient Truth". It relates to the electromagnetic frequencies that will "excite" various molecules. The CO2 will absorb radiation in a band which is predominated by the outgoing heat radiated from earth into space. The same is true of methane. What then happens is that some of the heat is reradiated back to earth. The effects might look insignificant, but on a global scale, they are very important. Global warming and climate change are based on very real measurements and physics of a slight change in the balance of the incoming and outgoing radiation. If you up the level of the insulation with the same energy coming in, then the "body" will come to a higher equilibrium temperature to be able to radiate the heat out through the increased insulation. And, yes, CO2 and methane and some other chemicals do have that effect. Next, the anthropegenic matter. What any one of us does is almost unmeasurably insignificant, but when the same is done by million, nay billions of people, the impact adds up. If you deny climate change and global warming, it suggests that you are either incompetent, illiterate, innumerate, gullible, or greedy, or some subset of all of that. There are some dissenters who have a measure of numeracy, but still will not put all the pieces together. Yes, it is an inconvenient truth, but it is true and factual. Dismissing it as opinion sells you and the rest of us short. Taking precautionary measures actually makes good sense on many other grounds, it gets us into a more sustainable situation on many grounds. This planet is finite, and it behooves us to share the resources equitably, else the dispossessed will probably acquire a share violently. That promises even more distress.
Wikipedia can be as biased in political position as any other media type. Otherwise, Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information -- but you can never just rely on Wikipedia and/or it's "supporting" links that help the bias of opinion (in most cases, it is opinion, rather than fact -- or rather the interpretation of those facts, which ultimately comes back to opinion).
Your "interpretations" appear to have systemic biases beyond what is readily apparent on Wikipedia. I do look there for some things, but correlated with prior knowledge and other sources. There may be a few errors in the physics and engineering where I have the background, but nothing systemic. My father was an old style Communications Engineer, and well into the various electromagnetic radiation and measuring such. If your disbelief had a factual basis, then the mobile phones and a lot of other modern technology just would not work, you would not have the services to sell.
Enough said.
I have been wrong at times, and probably will be again in the future. What matters is learning, and being prepared to update the knowledge. An example is Newtonian Mechanics, still quite valid for "human" speeds, but we need to use Einstein's efforts as a correction when the speeds concerned are significant fractions of lightspeed. That is why they manage to keep the particles circulating at CERN. Regards, Mark Trickett
On 4/01/2013 9:14 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
Unfortunately, the physics and chemistry are real, and factual. The title of Al Gore's book was rather apt, "An Inconvenient Truth".
Okay, well here's a Wikipedia entry for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth...Or_Convenient_Fiction%... And no, I'm not going to debate it any further. But whilst mainstream society is heavily influenced by media and the hype of support for this issue, that doesn't make it definitive -- there still is debate on the facts and what data [and lack thereof too] is used to make conclusions from these so called facts. Scientists argue both sides regularly, but those more pro to the cause get more media attention, which continues to perpetuate the lies IMHO, thus misrepresenting the real truth.... Cheers A.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
And no, I'm not going to debate it any further.
Reminds me of my son with Autism he just shuts the conversation down when he does not like the subject matter -- Mark "Pockets" Clohesy Mob Phone: (+61) 406 417 877 Email: hiddensoul@twistedsouls.com G-Talk: mark.clohesy@gmail.com - GNU/Linux.. Linux Counter #457297 "I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code" "Linux is user friendly...its just selective about who its friends are" What is the quickest way to push* ifconfig down *then* ifconfig up* to 5000 or so workstations? "Power Cycle the building"
On 4/01/2013 9:30 PM, Hiddensoul (Mark Clohesy) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au <mailto:andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>> wrote: And no, I'm not going to debate it any further.
Reminds me of my son with Autism he just shuts the conversation down when he does not like the subject matter
No, I just accept that I am by far in the minority here and generally on this subject and I don't have the energy or time to debate everything over and over again. The debates have been here already, nothing has convinced me so far, nothing likely ever will. It is okay to have different opinions, allow me to keep mine if it pleases me; I will allow you to keep your opinions... I am not alone in my views, I am simply in the minority whom question this subject matter for all sorts of reasons. Thank you. Cheers A.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
No, I just accept that I am by far in the minority here and generally on this subject and I don't have the energy or time to debate everything over and over again. The debates have been here already, nothing has convinced me so far, nothing likely ever will.
That is okay never tried to debate the topic of global warming with you or for that matter any other subject, was just making a "personal" observation
It is okay to have different opinions, allow me to keep mine if it pleases me; I will allow you to keep your opinions...
Yep totally agree, my believe is that the basis of human existence is freedom of choice and again I have not tried to tell you that global warming is real or not or any other topic for that matter
I am not alone in my views, I am simply in the minority whom question this subject matter for all sorts of reasons. Thank you.
On a planet with 7 billion plus inhabitants and the interwebs to connect it is easy to not be alone in any view or opinion that you see fit to follow, again this is not a statement that you or I are correct in any subject matter just that on some we may choose not to see eye to eye on. Mark "Pockets" Clohesy Mob Phone: (+61) 406 417 877 Email: hiddensoul@twistedsouls.com G-Talk: mark.clohesy@gmail.com - GNU/Linux.. Linux Counter #457297 "I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code" "Linux is user friendly...its just selective about who its friends are" What is the quickest way to push* ifconfig down *then* ifconfig up* to 5000 or so workstations? "Power Cycle the building"
On 4/01/2013 9:45 PM, Hiddensoul (Mark Clohesy) wrote: ... Please reply to the list, I am subscribed. Do you do a reply-all with "To: me" and "cc: the list" ... that breaks things for me. You are obviously on the list too, or have access to it, so when I reply to the list, you can see it ;) And no, I am not autistic... fwiw. Cheers & thank your mother for the rabbits. A.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 4/01/2013 9:45 PM, Hiddensoul (Mark Clohesy) wrote: ...
Please reply to the list, I am subscribed. Do you do a reply-all with "To: me" and "cc: the list" ... that breaks things for me. You are obviously on the list too, or have access to it, so when I reply to the list, you can see it ;)
Again you are correct I made a mistake with the way I was posting in reply, thank you for the correction and I do mean that sincerely I did not realize I was replying in a "bad" way to the list and will take note to fix that, I hope this reply is the right way to do it ?
And no, I am not autistic... fwiw.
I didnt mean for that to come across as meaning you had autism it was just an observation and I totally understand your reluctance to get in to debates on subjects you feel you a minority in. I am the same and I did not ridicule you for that statement I accepted it at face value. As to my my earlier post. I was very sincere I do not try to get in to debates with people on topics like global warming and if you look at the list archives I Have Never tried to push my political/religious/scientific opinions or believes on anyone your self included as I have some pretty radical believes and I don't think that others should be subject to the crackpot believe system that I have.
Cheers & thank your mother for the rabbits. A.
Not a problem, I am phoning her later this weekend I will pass on the message Cheers Mark
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Mark "Pockets" Clohesy Mob Phone: (+61) 406 417 877 Email: hiddensoul@twistedsouls.com G-Talk: mark.clohesy@gmail.com - GNU/Linux.. Linux Counter #457297 "I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code" "Linux is user friendly...its just selective about who its friends are" What is the quickest way to push* ifconfig down *then* ifconfig up* to 5000 or so workstations? "Power Cycle the building"
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
Reminds me of my son with Autism he just shuts the conversation down when he does not like the subject matter
Not that there's any shortage of NTs rejecting reality. It's the level of persistence that is the difference.
No, I just accept that I am by far in the minority here and generally on this subject and I don't have the energy or time to debate everything over and over again.
So feel free to not start the debates repeatedly. Andrew this entire thread started because you wanted to restart a debate you had with me ages ago.
The debates have been here already, nothing has convinced me so far, nothing likely ever will.
Of course not, you have already rejected everything other than your own opinions. When someone rejects the possibility of the existence of facts then there's little hope for them until they run into a fact that stubbornly resists being ignored. Wacky theories related to medicine can give that result.
It is okay to have different opinions, allow me to keep mine if it pleases me; I will allow you to keep your opinions...
No, you'll come back in a few months to do a drive-by on the people who disagree with you. On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
And no, I am not autistic... fwiw.
http://doc.coker.com.au/aspie/asd-self-diagnosis-tests/ The above URL has links to some online ASD tests. Note that they don't work if you put in the most optimistic answers to try and convince yourself. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 4/01/2013 10:42 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
So feel free to not start the debates repeatedly. Andrew this entire thread started because you wanted to restart a debate you had with me ages ago.
This time around it was about Wikipedia, which you regularly use for gospel truths. No source is perfect, including Wikipedia -- that's all. Although Wikipedia sure is better than mainstream media.
No, you'll come back in a few months to do a drive-by on the people who disagree with you.
This list is often too serious, lighten up and let's just agree to disagree. Thank you Russell for replying to the list, thank you to Mark as well; now we just need Lev to do "reply to list" ;) Cheers A.
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Thank you Russell for replying to the list, thank you to Mark as well; now we just need Lev to do "reply to list" ;)
procmail and | formail -D 16384 $LOGDIR/.msgid.cache is your friend. Replying to all is a longstanding tradition based on mailing lists where you don't have to be subscribed, and since there has never been any consensus on whether it is good or bad on any given list, good luck getting anyone to agree to just reply to the list! -- Tim Connors
No, I just accept that I am by far in the minority here and generally on this subject and I don't have the energy or time to debate everything over and over again. The debates have been here already, nothing has convinced me so far, nothing likely ever will.
Hence my earlier question on what constitutes a "real fact" and a "false interpretation". What would convince you?
It is okay to have different opinions, allow me to keep mine if it pleases me; I will allow you to keep your opinions...
Sure that's fine. I have minority opinions on all sorts of things. But sometimes minority opinions are correct and sometimes they aren't. They way we discover whether they are or not is by challenging our opinions and having them challenged by others. All the best, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 0432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
Okay, well here's a Wikipedia entry for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth...Or_Convenient_Fiction%...
It's just as well that you merely provide the URL and don't bother to demonstrate the merit of what the page covers, because, if you read the text therein, you will find one huge problem: Far-right political partisan Steven F. Hayward (who holds a position at pro-corporate think-tank American Enterprise Institute as 'resident scholar'[1]) _agrees_ with Mr. Gore that global warming is underway. His 55-minute documentary merely argues with many specific details Mr. Gore's book and film asserted, and attempts to establish that Gore has exaggerated the problem to some difficult-to-estimate degree. I'm not going to say that Hayward is speaking just as a mouthpiece for corporate business, but his approach parallels exactly what the tobacco industry attempted for some decades: caviling with scientific studies on alleged small inaccuracies in hopes of clouding the issue. Actually, what am I saying? Hayward has never been anything _but_ a mouthpiece for corporate business. Not that there's anything wrong with being a freelance PR flack, but let's be honest about who the man is and what his job is.
Scientists argue both sides regularly
This, too, resembles a ploy[2] the tobacco industry used to attempt to muddy the waters. They would deliberately ignore overwhelming scientific consensus and attempt to argue that the jury was still out about the health effects of tobacco, decades after the 1964 Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health that was the watershed in coalescing informed scientific opinion. The jury's pretty much in, Andrew. You would have had a reasonable point in 1990, but things change as we learn more. [1] Hayward has no background in climate or planetary science whatsoever, but rather in business administration and journalism. He's spent about 30 years being an ideological activist and author hawking political 'libertarianism', which in the USA context means extreme free-market laissez-faire capitalism leaning towards corporate welfare. [2] By contrast, by no means am I insinuating any bad faith on your part, I should hasten to add. You seem quite sincere, just more than a bit in denial long after the matter is no longer credibly disputed.
On 04/01/13 21:21, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And no, I'm not going to debate it any further.
Good
But whilst mainstream society is heavily influenced by media and the hype of support for this issue, that doesn't make it definitive -- there still is debate on the facts and what data [and lack thereof too] is used to make conclusions from these so called facts. Scientists argue both sides regularly
I agree that mainstream society is heavily influenced by media, although I also believe that mainstream society is less flustered about climate change than they were a few years ago, probably partially caused by something akin to compassion fatigue. The problem is urgent, but the scale is so large that it's hard to see how individual choices can make much of a difference. On the other hand, I thoroughly disagree that there is much debate on the facts or that "Scientists argue both sides regularly". I'm pretty sure the science is against you on this one: http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/pie-chart-13950-peer-reviewed-scien... James Lawrence Powell <http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html> has done a meta-study <http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart>, ... out of 13,950 scientific papers published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012, he found 24, or 0.17%, or 1 in 581, that clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. That last part is important, as CO2 is central to the mainstream scientific view on global warming. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.ht... In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen. Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor. I agree that this shows that there are a few climate scientists, and more non-climate scientists, who are arguing something else, but I don't think that it's fair to characterize this as "scientists argue both sides regularly". I think that it would be more fair to say "by far and away most scientists agree, but there is a fairly small number who don't".
, but those more pro to the cause get more media attention, which continues to perpetuate the lies IMHO, thus misrepresenting the real truth
I don't think it has much to do with media attention at all. The media isn't very interested in science most of the time, and I think more than enough "balance" is given to those who disagree. Yet, ignoring the media, all of the meta studies are coming back with the same thing: by far and away, the vast majority of climate scientists are saying that the climate is changing, and that the changes are caused by humans. *Some* scientists who disagree are saying at the climate is changing, but it's not caused by humans. And a tiny few are saying that these aren't changes at all. One of the biggest industries sensitive to climate change has moved to start dealing with it. Which industry? The insurance industry. I doubt they care whether it's human-induced or not, what they have to care about is how it needs to affect premiums. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2012/10/11/climate-proofing-the-insu... Even Big Oil has adjusted their stance (although I'm not sure to what extent that's changing their behaviour: http://www.skepticalscience.com/bigoil.html I don't expect to change the mind of someone who's not willing to have an open mind on the subject. That's fine, it's your call, but I wasn't going to let you get away with stating that this is something scientists are still debating or that it's being driven only by the media, as if it were only a fringe group of scientists who were arguing for climate change with some special interest group manipulating the media behind the scenes. J
On 5/01/2013 1:17 PM, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
On 04/01/13 21:21, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And no, I'm not going to debate it any further.
Good
Really, I do not want to debate things, but just a little something else to think about ... on some of your points.
I agree that this shows that there are a few climate scientists, and more non-climate scientists, who are arguing something else, but I don't think that it's fair to characterize this as "scientists argue both sides regularly". I think that it would be more fair to say "by far and away most scientists agree, but there is a fairly small number who don't".
Some do and some don't agree -- what's new? Those that don't might be right, even if they are minority. And why are they the minority, perhaps there is very good reasons why, (perhaps they don't need or care about getting resource grants under false pretenses), but it was also true that at some stage everyone on Earth thought it was flat and that is just one world theory that was turned on it's head.
*Some* scientists who disagree are saying at the climate is changing, but it's not caused by humans. And a tiny few are saying that these aren't changes at all.
The numbers (for each side) are irrelevant to me. The fact remains that the opinion isn't universal for whatever reason. There is debate, it doesn't help those scientists on the minority side, but they still strongly keep their beliefs.
One of the biggest industries sensitive to climate change has moved to start dealing with it. Which industry? The insurance industry. I doubt they care whether it's human-induced or not, what they have to care about is how it needs to affect premiums.
Insurance, ANY excuse to raise premiums and maximize profits -- even better if they have something, somewhat tangible to leverage against such as majority view on these matters.
I don't expect to change the mind of someone who's not willing to have an open mind on the subject. That's fine, it's your call, but I wasn't going to let you get away with stating that this is something scientists are still debating or that it's being driven only by the media, as if it were only a fringe group of scientists who were arguing for climate change with some special interest group manipulating the media behind the scenes.
Jacinta, I do have an open mind, generally. And I could perhaps be convinced one day, but that day is not in the near future based on current evidence and continued debate on the relevance of facts or lack of facts -- if the day ever comes that ALL scientists agree on this issue, then that will be significant. But when some hold out for whatever reasons and continue to debate the facts / situation, then the issue is not resolved, it is not a forgone conclusion. So there you go, no arguments, no debates -- just a few extra things for any thinking person to consider no matter what side of the fence they sit on. Cheers A.
Hello Andrew, On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 20:58 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 5/01/2013 1:17 PM, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
On 04/01/13 21:21, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And no, I'm not going to debate it any further.
Good
Really, I do not want to debate things, but just a little something else to think about ... on some of your points.
Debate.....
I agree that this shows that there are a few climate scientists, and more non-climate scientists, who are arguing something else, but I don't think that it's fair to characterize this as "scientists argue both sides regularly". I think that it would be more fair to say "by far and away most scientists agree, but there is a fairly small number who don't".
Some do and some don't agree -- what's new? Those that don't might be right, even if they are minority. And why are they the minority, perhaps there is very good reasons why, (perhaps they don't need or care about getting resource grants under false pretenses), but it was also true that at some stage everyone on Earth thought it was flat and that is just one world theory that was turned on it's head.
When some common belief has the evidence against it, then the few with _real_ evidence are right. Science is not a vote, nor is it opinion. There are some who do not hold to the orthodoxy, mavericks, without evidence, and muddy the waters.
*Some* scientists who disagree are saying at the climate is changing, but it's not caused by humans. And a tiny few are saying that these aren't changes at all.
The numbers (for each side) are irrelevant to me. The fact remains that the opinion isn't universal for whatever reason. There is debate, it doesn't help those scientists on the minority side, but they still strongly keep their beliefs.
There is no debate on climate change. There are a few _PAID_ _MOUTHPIECES_ who muddy the waters. Their arguments and math does not stand up to scrutiny. To use them to justify your position does you a discredit, unless you are a spiv.
One of the biggest industries sensitive to climate change has moved to start dealing with it. Which industry? The insurance industry. I doubt they care whether it's human-induced or not, what they have to care about is how it needs to affect premiums.
Insurance, ANY excuse to raise premiums and maximize profits -- even better if they have something, somewhat tangible to leverage against such as majority view on these matters.
Insurance is competitive, the Insurance industry tend to a measure of cooperation, but not the cartel that is Big Oil. They use acturial tables, and the best real evidence to support them.
I don't expect to change the mind of someone who's not willing to have an open mind on the subject. That's fine, it's your call, but I wasn't going to let you get away with stating that this is something scientists are still debating or that it's being driven only by the media, as if it were only a fringe group of scientists who were arguing for climate change with some special interest group manipulating the media behind the scenes.
Jacinta, I do have an open mind, generally. And I could perhaps be convinced one day, but that day is not in the near future based on current evidence and continued debate on the relevance of facts or lack of facts -- if the day ever comes that ALL scientists agree on this issue, then that will be significant. But when some hold out for whatever reasons and continue to debate the facts / situation, then the issue is not resolved, it is not a forgone conclusion.
Your mind is closed. The debate is over. The quibbles are much like the rearguard action of the tobacco companies. Someone sees money in that position, or more like not so much in their pocket if they acknowledge the reality. The economic discount rates mean that it is worth chewing through everything now, and leaving nothing for the future. Economics is a mismeasure of human activity.
So there you go, no arguments, no debates -- just a few extra things for any thinking person to consider no matter what side of the fence they sit on.
Those with real competence and an open mind see past all the claptrap and noise from the "Climate Deniers". Human law, such as speed limits incur a penalty if you are caught outside the bounds. With the laws of nature, the laws of physics, you are just "dead" wrong.
Cheers A.
Regards, Mark trickett
Quoting Mark Trickett (marktrickett@gmail.com):
Unfortunately, the physics and chemistry are real, and factual. The title of Al Gore's book was rather apt, "An Inconvenient Truth".
As an aside, Gore was making reference to a much earlier quotation from muckraker novelist Upton Sinclair: 'It's hard to understand something when your paycheck depends on your not understanding it.' This is sometimes cited as Upton Sinclair's Law -- most frequently by political conservatives. The man was, among other things, a keen observer.
Dismissing it as opinion sells you and the rest of us short.
I still think Andrew should put his money where his mouth is. Talk is cheap; investment requires commitment. (In general, one of the quickest ways I have of dispelling humbug is to say 'Shall we make a wager on it?')
Mark Trickett wrote:
Taking precautionary measures actually makes good sense on many other grounds, it gets us into a more sustainable situation on many grounds. This planet is finite, and it behooves us to share the resources equitably, else the dispossessed will probably acquire a share violently. That promises even more distress.
I always liked the perspective shift from the term "Spaceship Earth". (Which until today I thought was Buckminster-Fuller's idea, but apparently dates back to the 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_Earth)
On 5/01/2013 1:08 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Mark Trickett wrote:
Taking precautionary measures actually makes good sense on many other grounds, it gets us into a more sustainable situation on many grounds. This planet is finite, and it behooves us to share the resources equitably, else the dispossessed will probably acquire a share violently. That promises even more distress.
I'm all for sustainable use of resources, but why does an engineer get sent back to the drawing board if he/she produces something that won't break and will be eternally useful? Cheers A.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Andrew McGlashan < andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote: I'm all for sustainable use of resources, but why does an engineer get
sent back to the drawing board if he/she produces something that won't break and will be eternally useful?
I agree I use a cut throat razor to shave,I have four, a modern crap one and three vintage ones from the late 1800's early 1900's, you need more then one as the edge is so fine that the hair actually causes the edge to fold when used. You have to let a straight razor rest 24 hours between use or when you strop it you snap the edge off (all at a microscopic level mind you) One was made in 1896 the others 1901 and 1913 and they still have a hundred or more years left in them. These 6 blade face maulers last 2 maybe 3 shaves and in the bin it goes, and you cant wipe the lather and hair off a cartridge razor with a hand towel like I do with the straight razor so I use about 500ml of water to have a shave. Also my bread knife and carving knife are also vintage carbon steel knives made in the 1800's the bread knife is stamped with the date 1883, like the razor they have heaps of life and if you look after them with a wipe of oil after use and not leaving them sit after cutting tomatoes (they rust in about 15 minutes then) but I also use the CLI as much as the GUI so I must be anachronistic :) - Mark "Pockets" Clohesy Mob Phone: (+61) 406 417 877 Email: hiddensoul@twistedsouls.com G-Talk: mark.clohesy@gmail.com - GNU/Linux.. Linux Counter #457297 "I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code" "Linux is user friendly...its just selective about who its friends are" What is the quickest way to push* ifconfig down *then* ifconfig up* to 5000 or so workstations? "Power Cycle the building"
Hello Andrew, On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 20:42 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 5/01/2013 1:08 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Mark Trickett wrote:
Taking precautionary measures actually makes good sense on many other grounds, it gets us into a more sustainable situation on many grounds. This planet is finite, and it behooves us to share the resources equitably, else the dispossessed will probably acquire a share violently. That promises even more distress.
I'm all for sustainable use of resources, but why does an engineer get sent back to the drawing board if he/she produces something that won't break and will be eternally useful?
Wrong. There are "consumable" products, for better or worse, but there are also many "durable" products out there. Note hat there is nothing "eternal", everything has a finite life. It is a matter of trying to make the life appropriate, and to deal with the worn out item. We need to learn to close the loop. Good engineers are always working on the balance. This is also part of why I am unbiased about cars, I bucket both GM and Ford for their inadequacies. I can still keep a 30 year old VW MkI Golf GLD on the road, and it is still competent to stay on the road.
Cheers A.
Regards, Mark Trickett
On 5/01/2013 9:43 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
Wrong. There are "consumable" products, for better or worse, but there are also many "durable" products out there. Note hat there is nothing "eternal", everything has a finite life. It is a matter of trying to make the life appropriate, and to deal with the worn out item. We need to learn to close the loop. Good engineers are always working on the balance. This is also part of why I am unbiased about cars, I bucket both GM and Ford for their inadequacies. I can still keep a 30 year old VW MkI Golf GLD on the road, and it is still competent to stay on the road.
Okay well, sure eternal sure is a stretch, but I would rather replace things after they wear out with a reasonable life expectancy -- or repair them if it is a viable option. For most "consumable" things I would most rather do an upgrade because I am happy to upgrade in order to get more features or a better product (newer tech for example) and not because they break before a reasonable lifetime. I dread electronic equipment with "timer" chips that "know" when warranty has expired and then "randomly" fail.... I'm not sure a 30 year old VW MkI Golf GLD would be as safe as any of the new cars of today, but I do like that idea. I've only ever bought ONE brand new car, it's the VE Commodore (3 years old now), it doesn't even have a glove box light -- and that makes we wonder what else they are choosing to save a dollar or so on. The factory bluetooth won't even display the incoming caller ID either, but a cheap Aldi unit I had in my older car does that fine. Cheers A.
Hello Andrew, On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 21:57 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 5/01/2013 9:43 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
Wrong. There are "consumable" products, for better or worse, but there are also many "durable" products out there. Note hat there is nothing "eternal", everything has a finite life. It is a matter of trying to make the life appropriate, and to deal with the worn out item. We need to learn to close the loop. Good engineers are always working on the balance. This is also part of why I am unbiased about cars, I bucket both GM and Ford for their inadequacies. I can still keep a 30 year old VW MkI Golf GLD on the road, and it is still competent to stay on the road.
Okay well, sure eternal sure is a stretch, but I would rather replace things after they wear out with a reasonable life expectancy -- or repair them if it is a viable option.
There is an appropriate life. For food, think about a "Twinkie" sitting on a mantelpiece for ten or twenty years, unwrapped, and still looks the same as when it was taken from the packet. Not quite sure of the real food value there. Some things are better not made repairable, some are. I dislike the way that car parts are more "assemblies" these days, rather than the small part that breaks. I can understand some of it when I consider the manufacturing process.
For most "consumable" things I would most rather do an upgrade because I am happy to upgrade in order to get more features or a better product (newer tech for example) and not because they break before a reasonable lifetime. I dread electronic equipment with "timer" chips that "know" when warranty has expired and then "randomly" fail....
Obsolete merely means it works, but that approach is not good for ongoing sales. STC used to make refrigerators, but the business folded, they lasted too well, so too few replacement sales. If you can do a relatively durable product that is also acceptable in other ways, and get a reputation, there is a space in the market.
I'm not sure a 30 year old VW MkI Golf GLD would be as safe as any of the new cars of today, but I do like that idea. I've only ever bought ONE brand new car, it's the VE Commodore (3 years old now), it doesn't even have a glove box light -- and that makes we wonder what else they are choosing to save a dollar or so on. The factory bluetooth won't even display the incoming caller ID either, but a cheap Aldi unit I had in my older car does that fine.
The Golf would be safer than the Commodore, it actually handles. GM and Ford have improved, but still a long way to go. It does have "crumple zones", and is quite economical, never under 600Km for the 45 liters of diesel, and it will stretch to over 1000Km, with a little care. The Golf was the first of the cars where they used Finite Element Analysis to tune the body shell structure. As a result, the stresses are reasonably uniformly distributed, it does not have the stress concentration points. Also it has near zero torque steer, and does not pull when one side is slipping under braking. Some quite fancy design that has stood the test of time. Newer does not mean better.
Cheers A.
Regards, Mark Trickett
Hello Mark, On 5/01/2013 10:26 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
Obsolete merely means it works, but that approach is not good for ongoing sales. STC used to make refrigerators, but the business folded, they lasted too well, so too few replacement sales. If you can do a relatively durable product that is also acceptable in other ways, and get a reputation, there is a space in the market.
Yes, it has to be a fair balance.
The Golf would be safer than the Commodore, it actually handles. GM and Ford have improved, but still a long way to go. It does have "crumple zones", and is quite economical, never under 600Km for the 45 liters of diesel, and it will stretch to over 1000Km, with a little care. The Golf was the first of the cars where they used Finite Element Analysis to tune the body shell structure. As a result, the stresses are reasonably uniformly distributed, it does not have the stress concentration points. Also it has near zero torque steer, and does not pull when one side is slipping under braking. Some quite fancy design that has stood the test of time. Newer does not mean better.
Well overall I am pretty happy with the VE, it does have all the safety stars and handles fine the way I drive it. I run 100% propane usually and get up to 500km [sometimes a bit more] with a 72 litre tank (with a little PULP 98 octane petrol). So, even though it isn't diesel, it is cheaper to run overall and it is a full size car. I did look at the Golf GTi at the time, but decided they were too small for my needs. Cheers A.
Mark Trickett wrote:
There is an appropriate life. For food, think about a "Twinkie" sitting on a mantelpiece for ten or twenty years, unwrapped, and still looks the same as when it was taken from the packet.
That is an important feature; it means that if you invest now, you can make a fortune in thirty years auctioning off the world's last box of twinkies to some nostalgic millionaire.
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
I don't have time, nor the inclination to argue the truth of otherwise of the global warming / climate change myths.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. -- Stephen Colbert And since I'm sitting at home today with no A/C... Welcome to Global Warming, everyone. It appears to be globally warmer, and if that isn't Global Warming, then What The Fuck Is? -- Mike Andrews /me ducks; runs away
participants (17)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Brian May -
Craig Sanders -
David -
Geoff D'Arcy -
Hiddensoul (Mark Clohesy) -
Jacinta Richardson -
Jason White -
Lev Lafayette -
Mark Trickett -
Mike Mitchell -
Peter Ross -
Rick Moen -
Russell Coker -
Tim Connors -
Tony Langdon -
Trent W. Buck