OT: New Evidence Supports the Bio-Weapon theory

ote:

re pushing

g. Edward Teller.

who

there

Hoyle

os can

vericks

ires.

ce the cosmological data started falling in line with the big bang.

wton versus Liebnitz - it was all personalities and priorities. Newton got to calculus first, but we all use the Liebnitz notation because Liebnitz pu blished his methods and Newton only published his results.

uff, and

would be

s but

an

of

ys.

ich is

ght

ately

ally.

llowed to be "shown" to be wrong.

be able to come up with anything that might look like a reasoned objection to the reality of whatever it is they don't like so they decide it's conspi racy of some kind, and think they then don't have to bother.

the scientific marketers have to change it to climate change-- isn't that kind of an admission that it was wrong to begin with?)

tment. It doesn't make any difference to the nature of the - well - documen ted changes that are going on. The delusion that there's anything wrong wi th the science is cultivated energetically by people who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and are short-sighted enou gh to want to keep on doing it.

h about the science involved. John Larkin is the classic example, but we do have others.

e. What was her outcome? Fired, of course. How many principled scientist s have risked their academic reputation to defend her right to her research and conclusions? (ZERO?)....She was born in 1954, so she can speak up at this point in her career.

l organizations such as The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Poli cy Foundation."

action industry and spends it on climate change denial propaganda, which is to say that it is one of the merchants of doubt.

ing to be popular in an academic environment

e is

rom an anti-science propaganda organisation isn't going to make you popular with people whose efforts to do science are being subverted by these orga nisations.

h the enemy. The first chapter of the Merchants of Doubt is all about the w ay they made life difficult for a regular scientist who was working on a p roject they didn't like. They didn't bother trying to change his mind about what he was doing - they just made it difficult for him to get the work do ne.

So you are more interested in affiliations than in science. Well this come s as no surprise to me but I am surprised you so blatantly stated it.

Nobody bribed anyone to get me into high school or college. I know a lot of poor kids with poor parents who got degrees and became good scientists and engineers. I and my cousin Eddie, a chemist, were the first in our family to go to college. His dad drove a delivery truck.

Whine about privilege, but the USA is pretty good about letting talent blossom. Something bad apparently happened to you, or at least nothing good. Sad that you are so bitter and contemptuous.

Well, yeah, I kind of explained a part of it earlier, kids who had other people do their work for them received praise incommensurate with their own accomplishments. And in my world at the time that was routine.

Might have annoyed you at age 10 also and make you wonder if even a 10 year old can see the hustle who's team these PUBLIC SCHOOL EMLOYEES were actually on, or if they were just fools dumber than a 10 year old.

I thought you liked it when people "questioned authority." I started 'asking questions" of my 'superiors" about 3rd grade on that issue right there and you can be sure it very much irritated them to have a lampshade hung on it.

I wanted to be an engineer, so I knew what I needed to learn, and I did it. I only cared about grades enough to keep in high school and keep my scholarship in college. I didn't care a rat's hoof what they thought or who made the honor roll. I saw no advantage to confronting authority.

My first college semister GPA was 3.84, and they wanted to induct me into some honor society, and they even offered to pay for the ugly ring if I couldn't afford it. I told the dean that I'd never do that good again, and would in future work only hard enough to keep the scholarship. He didn't like that much.

I didn't say question authority, I said ignore authority.

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 2:35:08 AM UTC+10, snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com wrot e:

rote:

Name one, and provide a link to their published work.

The nearest to that I can recall was R.A. Fisher who was a legendary statis tician who took the attitude that the correlation between smoking and lung cancer wasn't proof of a causual relationship - correlation isn't causation - which rather ignored the fact that the tar that accumulated in smoker's lungs. was a known carcinogen. He smoked and he didn't know much about chem istry.

More public relations talking heads, peddling a line that suited the tobacc o companies. The book

points out that the tobacco industry invented the doubt merchanising busine ss in order to stave off action to discourage cigarette smoking, and the sa me people have gone on to lie to the public about a number of other scienti fic matters where industry had an interested in deceiving the public about the damage that that industry's activities were creating.

ou better not call into question the accepted dogma.

Politicians have always had an interest in hiding inconvenient truths. Scie nce isn't controlled by politicians, even if civil servants are, and politi cians trying to gag their civil servants aren't all that effective at stopp ing leaks.

he inherent flaw in science. That flaw is that politics trumps everything except for the rare individual with courage.

Only when the politicians involved have direct control of the purse strings .

Politicians in one country have zero influence on academics in other countr ies, and not all that much control over academic in their own country.

those with "nothing left to lose".

If the politicians in question aren't in a position to cut you off from any thing, pretty much everybody has nothing to lose by telling the truth.

And every politicians has opponents, who delight in pointing that their opp onents are lying to the public. They can't always defend those in a positio n to tell truth to power immediately after they've done it, but they can fr equently reward them in other ways.

Lying to the public is very risky tactic, and an utterly hopeless strategy.

e:

are pushing

e.g. Edward Teller.

en who

, there

d Hoyle

egos can

mavericks

xpires.

once the cosmological data started falling in line with the big bang.

Newton versus Liebnitz - it was all personalities and priorities. Newton go t to calculus first, but we all use the Liebnitz notation because Liebnitz published his methods and Newton only published his results.

stuff, and

h, would be

nds but

can

ge of

nd

rays.

which is

elf

aught

imately

tually.

allowed to be "shown" to be wrong.

o be able to come up with anything that might look like a reasoned objectio n to the reality of whatever it is they don't like so they decide it's cons piracy of some kind, and think they then don't have to bother.

id the scientific marketers have to change it to climate change-- isn't tha t kind of an admission that it was wrong to begin with?)

artment. It doesn't make any difference to the nature of the - well - docum ented changes that are going on. The delusion that there's anything wrong with the science is cultivated energetically by people who make money out o f digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and are short-sighted en ough to want to keep on doing it.

uch about the science involved. John Larkin is the classic example, but we do have others.

nce. What was her outcome? Fired, of course. How many principled scienti sts have risked their academic reputation to defend her right to her resear ch and conclusions? (ZERO?)....She was born in 1954, so she can speak up a t this point in her career.

cal organizations such as The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Po licy Foundation."

traction industry and spends it on climate change denial propaganda, which is to say that it is one of the merchants of doubt.

going to be popular in an academic environment

ere is

from an anti-science propaganda organisation isn't going to make you popul ar with people whose efforts to do science are being subverted by these or ganisations.

ith the enemy. The first chapter of the Merchants of Doubt is all about the way they made life difficult for a regular scientist who was working on a project they didn't like. They didn't bother trying to change his mind abo ut what he was doing - they just made it difficult for him to get the work done.

mes as no surprise to me but I am surprised you so blatantly stated it.

Getting "affiliated" with people whose business is lying to the public so t he public can keep on getting damaged by some industry that is making money out of it, is taking part in a criminal conspiracy.

You may not want to recognise this, but that's what's at issue here.

It's weird he uses 'those (anti-smoking-hazardous) scientists who worked for the tobacco companies' as an example of paid disinformation but seems to not make a connection between that and anti-AGW scientists who work for the petroleum industry.

Are the first guys scoundrels and the second renegades and heroes? same exact setup that only a fool wouldn't notice the similarities between.

My own guess is blotcher doesn't seem like that big a fool. The option left is that he's just full of s*it

te:

nomist

stop (or at least slow down) the destruction of stuff that had been produce d earlier.

than post-Keynesian economists - simple enough for John Larkin to understa nd it, though he can't articulate that appreciation all that clearly.

y other kind of economist actually does, he isn't in a position to make any kind of useful comparison. He's got the same problem with pretty much ever y other non-experimental science.

or its implications.

with

y it

wn

neer

n't

an A+.

Actually you thought that you knew what you needed to learn, and were rathe r too inclined to ignore stuff that you didn't realise that you needed to l earn.

It was stupid thing to say,and an even more stupid thing to do.

You go to university to learn stuff, and some of what you learn is stuff yo u didn't know you needed to learn (and couldn't know until you'd learned it ).

And you are a poster child for the damage that can do to the process of acq uiring the skills that you need, when you need skills that you didn't know that you needed when you could have acquired them.

You've never learned critical thinking, and you don't seem to have any idea why you should have done that.

e pushing

. Edward Teller.

who

here

Hoyle

os can

vericks

ires.

once the cosmological data started falling in line with the big bang.

Newton versus Liebnitz - it was all personalities and priorities. Newton go t to calculus first, but we all use the Liebnitz notation because Liebnitz published his methods and Newton only published his results.

ff, and

would be

s but

an

of

ys.

ch is

ght

ately

ally.

allowed to be "shown" to be wrong.

o be able to come up with anything that might look like a reasoned objectio n to the reality of whatever it is they don't like so they decide it's cons piracy of some kind, and think they then don't have to bother.

d the scientific marketers have to change it to climate change-- isn't that kind of an admission that it was wrong to begin with?)

artment. It doesn't make any difference to the nature of the - well - docum ented changes that are going on. The delusion that there's anything wrong with the science is cultivated energetically by people who make money out o f digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and are short-sighted en ough to want to keep on doing it.

uch about the science involved. John Larkin is the classic example, but we do have others.

ence. What was her outcome? Fired, of course. How many principled scient ists have risked their academic reputation to defend her right to her resea rch and conclusions? (ZERO?)....She was born in 1954, so she can speak up at this point in her career.

tical organizations such as The Heartland Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation."

extraction industry and spends it on climate change denial propaganda, whic h is to say that it is one of the merchants of doubt.

t going to be popular in an academic environment

here is

ey from an anti-science propaganda organisation isn't going to make you pop ular with people whose efforts to do science are being subverted by these organisations.

with the enemy. The first chapter of the Merchants of Doubt is all about t he way they made life difficult for a regular scientist who was working on a project they didn't like. They didn't bother trying to change his mind a bout what he was doing - they just made it difficult for him to get the wor k done.

comes as no surprise to me but I am surprised you so blatantly stated it.

so the public can keep on getting damaged by some industry that is making m oney out of it, is taking part in a criminal conspiracy.

points out that some of the companies set up to spread misinformation about the health consequences of smoking tobacco are still in business, and are now spreading misinformation about the connection between burning fossil ca rbon as fuel and global warming. Some people started their careers lying ab out the consequences of smoking and have gone on to lie about a whole range of issues before getting into lying about climate change.

The book does go into the politics - the right-wing scientists involved wer e intensely anti-Soviet, but failed to realise that giving lots pf power to a small group of capitalists created exactly same kind of problem as givin g lots of power to a small group of commissars.

White Americans would prefer to be shot by tyrants from their own family or people, they still might not like it but they would at least understand and accept the decision with some amount of magnanimity.