What is the value of the State?

[Zenaan Harkness]

Perfectly apropos. Really enjoyed this link (or rather, the text
behind the link). Grazios!

(Indeed, it's as apropos as your top posting is uselessly contrary
to the thread as it was and to our general expectations for
this list which are thus heedlessly, needlessly, a rapping and
a tappingly dashed on the rockingly unrocklike rocks of our
imagination. Or something :-Dξꟾ

Regards,
ξ


On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 07:46:58AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
> Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science
> and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic.
> 
> 
> http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_
> Warming_by_Michael_Crichton.html
> 
> 
> Warrant Canary creator
> 
> On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> > > If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new
> > > scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine
> > > the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that
> > > official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary
> > > evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official
> > > truth, to just make the evidence up.
> >
> > This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models
> > - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem
> > they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey
> > stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data,
> > to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't
> > fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific"
> > explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming"
> > to "important data points not previously included in the model" and
> > other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey
> > stick.
> >
> > It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone
> > self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it.
> > But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is
> > identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is
> > a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public"
> > theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda.
> >