On 2/10/2015 10:41 PM, T wrote:
On 02/10/2015 05:55 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote:
On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote:
Who would have thunk it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html





Hi Frank,

This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately
not the first:

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

"Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation
or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a
predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias,
often related to social or political objectives"

Anyone that disagreed with Lysenko simply disappeared. With
this scandal, you just get public ridicule and lose your job.

Politics needs to butt out of science.

-T

Exactly.

Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists
will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their
own careers.

Frank

Hi Frank,

You and I are going to catch hell from the ideologues.
It is like discussing religion. Religion and politics
need to butt out of science.

Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).

-T (A.K.A. Todd)

Ad hominem attacks are a normal knee jerk response.
I noticed it, expected it, and ignored it.

Frank

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote:


Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).


Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated
denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility.

In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote:

Hi Dave,

He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which
I've seen him post.

Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now.

As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles
he was trying to crawl out of.

T is Todd?

Well, the writing is the same, as is the thought bubble.

Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is
who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and
not a particularly smart one either.

Not smart, but occasionally amusing to watch.


--
Drew Lawson | We were taking a vote when
| the ground came up and hit us.
| -- Cylon warrior

On 02/11/2015 07:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote:


Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).


Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated
denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility.


"well-known agenda"? "repeated denial of basic scientific facts"?
"overall lack of credibility"? And, you wonder why our side thinks
your side is a religoun.

By the way, that was Fran's cite, not mine. I didn't even bother to
read it as there are tons of evidence of fudging and fabricating
on your side. Lysenkoism is well in play.

On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
T is Todd?
Well, the writing is the same, as is the thought bubble.


Hi Drew,

I have a lot of friends over on the home repair
group. Everyone figured it out instantly, which
was what I was after. I am rather surprised that
it caught this group off guard. Oh well.

-T (A.K.A. Todd)

On 12/02/2015 12:14 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:41 PM, T wrote:
On 02/10/2015 05:55 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote:
On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote:
Who would have thunk it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html






Hi Frank,

This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately
not the first:

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

"Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation
or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a
predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias,
often related to social or political objectives"

Anyone that disagreed with Lysenko simply disappeared. With
this scandal, you just get public ridicule and lose your job.

Politics needs to butt out of science.

-T

Exactly.

Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists
will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their
own careers.

Frank

Hi Frank,

You and I are going to catch hell from the ideologues.
It is like discussing religion. Religion and politics
need to butt out of science.

Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).

-T (A.K.A. Todd)

Ad hominem attacks are a normal knee jerk response.
I noticed it, expected it, and ignored it.

And whilst basking in that warm glow, you still failed, as usual, to
provide any credible cites.

On 12/02/2015 6:21 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote:

Hi Dave,

He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which
I've seen him post.

Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now.

As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles
he was trying to crawl out of.

T is Todd?

Well, the writing is the same, as is the thought bubble.

Indeed it is.

Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is
who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and
not a particularly smart one either.

Not smart, but occasionally amusing to watch.

:-)) Well I won't play with him from now on in. Please let me know if
you notice him changing his nym at some time in the future.

On 12/02/2015 2:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote:


Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).


Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated
denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility.

That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on
to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said
that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist".

You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line
going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others
who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his
sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side
land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links
Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also
is not the least bit credible.

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:19:04 AM UTC-8, Frank wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:13 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/02/2015 12:55 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote:
On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote:
Who would have thunk it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html





Hi Frank,

This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately
not the first:

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

"Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation
or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a
predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias,
often related to social or political objectives"

Anyone that disagreed with Lysenko simply disappeared. With
this scandal, you just get public ridicule and lose your job.

Politics needs to butt out of science.

-T

Exactly.

Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists
will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their
own careers.

More slurs and insinuations.

Do you have any (even halfway) reputable cites to support your slurs in
relation to the cupidity of scientists? And since we've been discussing
climate science, I'd be particularly interested to see some cites that
can stand up to even a cursory scrutiny on the culpability of climate
scientists.


I see no sense in arguing with an obvious religious/political zealot.

HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE

HB

On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:55:37 +1100, Fran Farmer
wrote:

On 12/02/2015 2:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote:


Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).


Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated
denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility.

That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on
to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said
that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist".

You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line
going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others
who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his
sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side
land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links
Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also
is not the least bit credible.

Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these
days to verify what they see online.


Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable
facts online would create in informed citizenry.

Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and
snake-oil purveyors.

On 12/02/2015 1:43 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:55:37 +1100, Fran Farmer
wrote:

On 12/02/2015 2:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote:


Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).


Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated
denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility.

That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on
to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said
that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist".

You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line
going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others
who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his
sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side
land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links
Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also
is not the least bit credible.

Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these
days to verify what they see online.


Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable
facts online would create in informed citizenry.

It depresses me if I think about it for too long. The Age of
Enlightenment might never have happened given what I see of all of
dumbing down that goes.

Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and
snake-oil purveyors.

Well there is some great stuff too but the problem is that too many
people don't seem capable of differentiating the crap from the
superlative (or at least the acceptable).

In article
Boron Elgar writes:

Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these
days to verify what they see online.

It is sometimes easy to assume that the author is fairly representing
the referenced work. Listing the reference is almost a bluff.

I got slightly taken by a less loony example of this recently. I
caught an article talking about how Forbes magazine had trashed
Boehner about some recent events. I had the intended reaction --
"Forbes leans so far to the right that it only tans on one side,
and *they* bashed Boehner?"

Then I read the actual Forbes piece. Instead of Forbes staff, it
was written by an occasional contributor who is sort of a token
liberal. ("Liberal Bashes Boehner" is pretty much a "Dog Bites
Man" story.) And the alleged crushing was (to me) pretty mild, and
only appeared in the last third of the piece.

But 90+% of the people who read the first article I saw probably
believed that something amazing had happened.

Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable
facts online would create in informed citizenry.

Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and
snake-oil purveyors.

The same prediction was made for cable TV, and television in general
before that. It may have even been made for radio. Unfortunately,
we keep letting human nature in.

--
Drew Lawson | If dreams were thunder,
| and lightning was desire,
| This old house would have burnt down
| a long time ago

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 6:13:03 AM UTC-8, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 12/02/2015 1:43 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:55:37 +1100, Fran Farmer
wrote:

On 12/02/2015 2:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote:


Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).


Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated
denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility.

That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on
to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said
that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist".

You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line
going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others
who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his
sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side
land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links
Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also
is not the least bit credible.

Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these
days to verify what they see online.


Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable
facts online would create in informed citizenry.

It depresses me if I think about it for too long. The Age of
Enlightenment might never have happened given what I see of all of
dumbing down that goes.

Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and
snake-oil purveyors.

Well there is some great stuff too but the problem is that too many
people don't seem capable of differentiating the crap from the
superlative (or at least the acceptable).

They could if they would bother acquiring the rudiments of critical thinking.

But our whole capitalist-driven social structure (and I am a card-carrying capitalist but with a human heart!) is directed at creating an educational system [chuckle] whose aim is to turn out consumers of [often bad] products people don't really need, and [almost always bad] ideas that profit only Our Corporate Masters and their whore-lackeys in Congress.

With the greatest respect for NG members who try to engage climate change deniers, save your electrons. Deniers NEED this belief system! to give it up would damage their selves.

Incidentally, do people realize there still exists a Flat Earth Society?

HB

In article
Hypatia Nachshon writes:

But our whole capitalist-driven social structure (and I am a
card-carrying capitalist but with a human heart!) is directed at
creating an educational system [chuckle] whose aim is to turn out
consumers of [often bad] products people don't really need, and
[almost always bad] ideas that profit only Our Corporate Masters
and their whore-lackeys in Congress.

I read Brave New World somewhere around 1983. I recall finding the
component about obligatory consumption to be silly hyperbole.

I now think that Huxley's presentation was understated.

--
Drew Lawson

". . . And I never give a reason"
-- God, as channeled by Seven Nations

On 02/12/2015 04:32 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
climate change deniers ... Deniers NEED this belief system

Hi Higgs,

You are a nice person. Why do you use religious extremists
terms to refer to those you don't agree with? Why do you
go to insults instead of keeping it in the arena of ideas?
You are better than that.

-T

By the way, the proper term is "skeptic". No belief system
involved. Religion and politics need to butt out of science.