What is the value of the State?

[John Newman]

> On May 15, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:42:01AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On May 13, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 01:59:32PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 13, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Steven Schear <schear.steve at gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> A shitty novelist points out that science has been wrong in the
>>>>> past,
>>>> 
>>>> You highlight Crichton's point perfectly - that shitty science from
>>>> the past that he spoke of is not, was not, and never shall be
>>>> science, it was merely "science", political social movements dressed
>>>> up as "concensus science".
>>>> 
>>>> And here you are, once again, smack bang in the trap this has set for
>>>> your weak mind - calling past "science" as science, instead of the
>>>> politics it is.
>>>> 
>>>> And anyway, what the hell has Michael Crichton's novel writing
>>>> ability got to do with the clear, succinct and slightly humorous
>>>> facts he raises in his essay/talk??
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hey, you replied to one of my emails!
>>> I guess it's easier to jump on this bandwagon than try to defend any of
>>> your other countless (and disgusting) hypocritical views.
>>> 
>>> Maybe we can send some death squads out to the science departments at any
>>> institution doing climate research? Especially if they're (((jewish))) -
>>> sounds right up your alley, you bad boy ;)
>>> 
>>> In any case, Chrichton selectively chose a few things which, as i said, no
>>> one ever claimed was a known science. Like the drake equation.  Then he
>>> further selected a bunch of stuff that has been discredited, thanks to
>>> further scientific work, over time. In effect, he showed that science, over
>>> time, works.
>>> 
>> 
>> What he showed is that it works VERY poorly when those in scientific
>> "authority", and who often have reputation and/or financial attachments to
>> the prevailing Consensus, use their influence (politics) to suppress
>> conflicting views (and often the careers of those holding them). Yes, over
>> time it "works" but the lengths of these "erroneous consensus" epochs can
>> stretch to lifetimes and during these periods the public can be denied the
>> advantages of the later "proven" science (for example, saving lives due to
>> effective medical treatments) or forced to pay (for example, through
>> unwarranted taxation, misguided public policies and regulations).
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> And naturally he stayed away from all the wonderful things that have been
>>> wrought by scientific innovation, and that are in fact a CONSENSUS, once
>>> they have been accepted by the scientific community. That these consensuses
>>> can change is obvious, or he wouldn't have had so much crap science to pick
>>> from (and doctors would still be following Galen and bleeding you to get
>>> your humors in order when you went to hospital)
>>> 
>> 
>> The crux of Crichton's arguments are that all too often Consensus is
>> presented publicly as Settled Science instead of what is really is:
>> politics. This is especially troubling when dealing with areas of science
>> (e.g., climatology) in which the application of the Scientific Method (not
>> just collected data or models) is impossible/impractical given current
>> technologies. I have yet to see those pushing the anthropomorphic climate
>> change models openly admit this.
> 
> Well, you're unlikely to see John back down from his current stupid
> position - goes with the weak American-media-fed-childhood mind he
> seems to have.
> 

I wonder what horrible process so brutally disfigured your psyche into the disgusting piece of gullible hypocrisy that it is? I mean, i don't ponder on it, maybe you were just born that way...


Cheers!
John

> 
>>> The fact that science advances is not a legitimate attack on any
>>> particular piece of current science. If that's all you got... you got
>>> nothing.
>>> 
>>> And i called him a shitty novelist because he is just that - a shitty
>>> novelist. Actually i rather enjoyed a travel memoir he wrote, but basically
>>> he's a hack. It's an opinion, you aren't obliged to share it (i doubt you
>>> have the capacity to share it - somehow i don't envision you as a big
>>> reader. maybe mein kampf before bed? ;)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> that predicting the future is hard, and that some equations
>>>>> are basically guesses (e.g. the drake equation). Of course,
>>>>> everyone has known this, including Drake and the SETI people, from
>>>> 
>>>> Did you even read the whole thing?
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is that previously 'revered' rags like "Scientific
>>>> American" have become the Popes of "concensus science", destroying
>>>> actual scientific take downs of their cherished political dogma.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> day one (although there have been remarkable advances in the
>>>>> ability to detect exoplanets recently, thanks mainly to the kepler
>>>>> space telescope). What deep insight.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's funny how the biggest skeptics on climate science tend to
>>>>> either be funded by the petroleum (and related) industry (these are
>>>>> the few that publish studies) OR have no real scientific background
>>>>> and are generally right-wing/conservatives or massively
>>>>> conspiracy-inclined.
>>>> 
>>>> Since you have no basis in science, of course we ought to have
>>>> predicted your typical decent into ad-hominen.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> Warrant Canary creator
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did not create warrant canary,
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>