On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 15:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Already answered elsewhere in thread, the balance of scientists in the
>> field.
>
> So a one-sided balance, then.

TRANSLATION: I don't like the result, but can't find anything that
disproves it.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22:53 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
>
>>>> The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last
>>>> atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
>
>>> Rubbish.
>
>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
>> fact?
>
> The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
> predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
> timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
> capabilities. Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out
> of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
> outlived their usefulness.

I don't have a dog in this fight but NASA says: "Study Confirms Climate
Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right".

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-
getting-future-warming-projections-right/

On 22/11/2021 20:54, Robin wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 19:03, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 22/11/2021 16:06, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> Beyond that I'll leave you to educate the likes of the Washington
>>> Post who only last week hadn't realised that "lab leak" was not fit
>>> to be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/coronavirus-origins-wuhan-market-animals-science-journal/
>>
>> That's a rather one-sided summary of the article, which, while in the
>> interests of impartiality rightly mentions conflicting views,
>> nevertheless majors on the conversion of a scientist who previously
>> had been inclined to give prominence to the lab-leak origin but now
>> thinks it unlikely.  Even the headline tells you that:
>
> I offered no "summary"

"[...] the Washington Post who only last week hadn't realised that "lab
leak" was not fit to be taken seriously." was a summary of the WP's
position as understood by you.

> so I regret your accusing me of being one-sided.
> I stated the plain fact that the WP (like many others) did not treat
> "lab leak" as a "conspiracy theory".

They were trying to be impartial, as they should do, but equally they
didn't put forward any evidence to support the idea of a lab-leak, so
still we have little or no evidence for it = conspiracy theory until
said evidence is produced.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 15:32, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 15:24, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2021 13:59, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>> What is it about the phrase still quoted above that you have such
>>>> difficulty in understanding the meaning of? I said the balance of
>>>> scientific evidence is firmly against a lab-leak, that doesn't imply
>>>> that there was no evidence at all.
>
>>> Whose 'balance'?
>>
>> The balance of appropriately qualified scientists who have examined the
>> issue.
>
> So there's some scientists for a natural cause, and some for a lab leak.

The balance of opinion of appropriately qualified scientists who have
examined the issue is firmly in favour of a natural origin and firmly
against a lab-leak, and you have still produced no worthwhile *EVIDENCE*
to the contrary, let's see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 15:36, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> No, I'm saying that you're deliberately ignoring what has already been
>> presented to you. Stop this childish and dishonest whingeing and let's
>> see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.
>
> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
> a balance.

You have given no worthwhile *EVIDENCE* here to support a lab-leak
origin, let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of what you claim, put up or
shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 15:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> TRANSLATION: I've been given lots of evidence but am dishonestly
>> ignoring it.
>
> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
> a balance.

You have given no worthwhile *EVIDENCE* here to support a lab-leak
origin, let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of what you claim, put up or
shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 22/11/2021 15:23, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> The programmers notes were damning.
>
>> Except that, not only the above, but, I forget now, is 6, or 7, no 8,
>> independent inquiries since have found otherwise (yes, it's Wikipedia,
>> tough shit if you don't like it):
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
>
> MRDA

They would say that because it happens to be true.

>>>> And note the good correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.
>
>>> The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/intergalcial periods. In every
>>> one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years.
>>
>> Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science. Look
>> up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
>
> Milankovich cycles have been debunked by the believer community, FWIW,
> probably due to their inconvenient truth.

Nonsense, the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the
timings of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and
geologists alike as accepted science.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> [Quoting broken: Pamela wrote:]
>>>>
>>>> The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last atom
>>>> doesn't mean can't run useful models.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>
>> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were fact?
>
> The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
> predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant timescale,
> and are highly unreliable due to their very limited capabilities.

FALSE! You've already been given a link that shows otherwise.

> Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out of the narrative,
> in the same fashion as polar bears? They've outlived their usefulness.

Models and polar bears are still very much in the narrative, because
denialists like you keep telling lies about them.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 18:42:03 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 15:29 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 22/11/2021 14:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>> On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a
>>>>>> "secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have
>>>>>> free access which has been your position.  There is currently
>>>>>> no way of telling whether the evidence was false then or is
>>>>>> false now,
>>>>>
>>>>> Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia.
>>>>> Let me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May
>>>>> 2020:
>>>>>
>>>>> BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
>>>
>>> Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to the
>>> lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is just
>>> trying to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.
>>
>> I don't have to 'provide the evidence', as it forms that part of
>> your 'balance' that you wish to ignore. Which isn't scientific, of
>> course.
>
>Oh dear. Is that what passes for debate?

It looks like a copy/paste battle, based on the principle that the
winner is whoever has the last word. "TLDR" as the youngsters say.

Rod.

In article <j02lbgF9pjpU7@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:

> >>> The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the last
> >>> atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.

> >> Rubbish.

> > Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
> > fact?

> The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
> predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
> timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
> capabilities.

Correct, plus many are run by people with an agenda who are trying to
support that agenda. Be very suspicious of ALL computer modelling
especially those run by known activists. I would have thought the
last 18 months would have taught everyone that simple fact.

> Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped
> out of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
> outlived their usefulness.

Yes, the narrative is always changing, have you noticed that The
Great Barrier Reef has also dropped out, once the darling of MSM but
no longer, can't think why. :-)
But it did the job in the public perception.

Wonder why the climate in Antarctica doesn't get on the news much? :-)

The Main Stream Media have group think and an agenda driven ideology.
They're not interested in presenting the truth that ship has long
sailed, they're interested in pressing their agenda.

Bob.

On 22/11/2021 23:17, Pamela wrote:
> On 22:53 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:

>> The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
>> predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
>> timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
>> capabilities. Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out
>> of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
>> outlived their usefulness.

> I don't have a dog in this fight but NASA says: "Study Confirms Climate
> Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right".

> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-
> getting-future-warming-projections-right/

MRDA

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 23:36, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:

>> The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
>> predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant timescale,
>> and are highly unreliable due to their very limited capabilities.

> FALSE! You've already been given a link that shows otherwise.

WRONG!

>> Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped out of the narrative,
>> in the same fashion as polar bears? They've outlived their usefulness.

> Models and polar bears are still very much in the narrative, because
> denialists like you keep telling lies about them.

It's the models that tell lies...

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 23:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:

>> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
>> a balance.

> Stop trying to lie your way out of this and give *EVIDENCE* to support
> your claims; put up or shut up.

You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's a
balance.

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 23:11, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 15:54, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Already answered elsewhere in thread, the balance of scientists in the
>>> field.

>> So a one-sided balance, then.

> TRANSLATION: I don't like the result, but can't find anything that
> disproves it.

TRANSLATION: I do like the result, and don't want to find anything that
disproves it.

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 23:23, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:

>> So there's some scientists for a natural cause, and some for a lab leak.

> The balance of opinion of appropriately qualified scientists who have
> examined the issue is firmly in favour of a natural origin and firmly
> against a lab-leak, and you have still produced no worthwhile *EVIDENCE*
> to the contrary, let's see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

So what you're saying here is that the 'appropriately-qualified'
scientists who do think there was a lab leak actually support the
natural cause. You're nuts.

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 23:26, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 15:37, Java Jive wrote:

>>> TRANSLATION: I've been given lots of evidence but am dishonestly
>>> ignoring it.

>> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
>> a balance.

> You have given no worthwhile *EVIDENCE* here to support a lab-leak
> origin, let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of what you claim, put up or
> shut up.

You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
a balance. A balance has two sides.

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2021 15:23, Spike wrote:

>>>> The programmers notes were damning.

>>> Except that, not only the above, but, I forget now, is 6, or 7, no 8,
>>> independent inquiries since have found otherwise (yes, it's Wikipedia,
>>> tough shit if you don't like it):

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

>> MRDA

> They would say that because it happens to be true.

It took five huge Inquiries to get the Labour government off the hook
for taking us into an illegal war in the Middle East. Even so, we all
knew what really happened. Bailing out the CRU was comparative child's play.

>>>> The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/intergalcial periods. In every
>>>> one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years.

>>> Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science. Look
>>> up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles

>> Milankovich cycles have been debunked by the believer community, FWIW,
>> probably due to their inconvenient truth.

> Nonsense, the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the
> timings of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and
> geologists alike as accepted science.

You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been
deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
hymn sheet.

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 23:25, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 22:53, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 15:36, Java Jive wrote:

>>> No, I'm saying that you're deliberately ignoring what has already been
>>> presented to you. Stop this childish and dishonest whingeing and let's
>>> see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

>> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
>> a balance.

> You have given no worthwhile *EVIDENCE* here to support a lab-leak
> origin, let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of what you claim, put up or
> shut up.

I don't have to give any *EVIDENCE* because you are the one making the
claims, mostly based on media reports, so that means that *you* supply
the *EVIDENCE*. You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that
you think there's a balance to be struck between the two views. So, when
researching the scientific background before making your claims, how
many original scientific papers - not media reports - of the total
available have *you* read that support a natural cause, and how many
such have *you* read that support a lab leak?

--
Spike

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:25:48 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
>> is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
>> like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
>
>I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
>experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
>actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.

ESA NASA and the aerospace industries that go with them standardised on
Microsoft especially Office. Do you really believe that they did that through
ignorance?
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:25:48 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
>>> is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
>>> like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.
>>
>> I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
>> experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
>> actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.
>
> ESA NASA and the aerospace industries that go with them standardised on
> Microsoft especially Office. Do you really believe that they did that through
> ignorance?

Exactly. ESA and its contractors use Linux, real time operating systems and
even bespoke OSs but only for what you might call engineering use. For
general administrative use, including the gigatons of documents they
produce it’s firmly Microsoft. I’d like to see someone tell them they are
doing things out of ignorance.

On 23/11/2021 11:04, Spike wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 23:10, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
>
>>> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's
>>> a balance.
>
>> Stop trying to lie your way out of this and give *EVIDENCE* to support
>> your claims; put up or shut up.
>
> You already have *EVIDENCE*, it's in your claim that you think there's a
> balance.

Loser, and a bad one at that, you will be ignored until you produce
*EVIDENCE* to support your claims.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/11/2021 11:05, Spike wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 22:52, Spike wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/2021 15:23, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> The programmers notes were damning.
>
>>>> Except that, not only the above, but, I forget now, is 6, or 7, no 8,
>>>> independent inquiries since have found otherwise (yes, it's Wikipedia,
>>>> tough shit if you don't like it):
>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
>
>>> MRDA
>
>> They would say that because it happens to be true.
>
> It took five huge Inquiries to get the Labour government off the hook
> for taking us into an illegal war in the Middle East. Even so, we all
> knew what really happened. Bailing out the CRU was comparative child's play.
>
>>>>> The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/intergalcial periods. In every
>>>>> one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years.
>
>>>> Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science. Look
>>>> up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
>
>>> Milankovich cycles have been debunked by the believer community, FWIW,
>>> probably due to their inconvenient truth.
>
>> Nonsense, the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the
>> timings of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and
>> geologists alike as accepted science.
>
> You don't seem to have grasped that, as the Milankovich cycles go
> against the current narrative of CO2 leading the warming, they have been
> deplatformed by the believer community. You're reading from the wrong
> hymn sheet.

I'm reading from the science sheet, not a hymn sheet. Milankovich
cycles explain the periodic episodes of ice ages very well, and,
contrary to what you claim in your ignorance of science, are entirely
compatible with AGW.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>
>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>
> What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?

What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
such difficulty in understanding?

>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
>
> FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!

Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation has
been ignored.

On 23/11/2021 09:23, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <j02lbgF9pjpU7@mid.individual.net>,
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
>> predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
>> timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
>> capabilities.
>
> Correct, plus many are run by people with an agenda who are trying to
> support that agenda. Be very suspicious of ALL computer modelling
> especially those run by known activists. I would have thought the
> last 18 months would have taught everyone that simple fact.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE DEBUNKED MULTIPLE TIMES REPEATED AGAIN!

WRT Climate Change:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

.... and also ...

Because you keep lying about it in thread after thread, I have to refute
times beyond counting the same groundless allegations you keep making
against Prof Ferguson, presumably in the hope that if you can sling
enough mud some of it will stick, but all it does is stick to you, for
example most notoriously by a typically ill-chosen (from your point of
view) own-goal, which I have debunked before as follows:

A BMJ article WHICH IN YOUR IGNORANCE YOU YOURSELF FORMERLY LINKED ...
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588
.... contradicts your previous lies repeated yet again today, which decry
modelling in general and in particular Imperial's modelling headed by
Prof Neil Ferguson. The article describes researchers reworking the
original Imperial College's modelling from Ferguson et alia, making some
minor modifications, and getting substantially similar results. Their
conclusions were:

"Results The CovidSim model would have produced a good forecast of the
subsequent data if initialised with a reproduction number of about 3.5
for covid-19. The model predicted that school closures and isolation of
younger people would increase the total number of deaths, albeit
postponed to a second and subsequent waves. The findings of this study
suggest that prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at
reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong
the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long term. This
happens because covid-19 related mortality is highly skewed towards
older age groups. In the absence of an effective vaccination programme,
none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the
predicted total number of deaths below 200 000.

Conclusions It was predicted in March 2020 that in response to covid-19
a broad lockdown, as opposed to a focus on shielding the most vulnerable
members of society, would reduce immediate demand for ICU beds at the
cost of more deaths long term. The optimal strategy for saving lives in
a covid-19 epidemic is different from that anticipated for an influenza
epidemic with a different mortality age profile."

Here's what Imperial themselves said about this:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/206213/bmj-study-confirms-imperial-covid-19-projections/

"BMJ study confirms Imperial COVID-19 projections
by Andrew Scheuber, Dr Sabine L. van Elsland, 08 October 2020

An Edinburgh University analysis of Imperial's Report 9 COVID-19
modelling has confirmed the group's key projections from March.

The paper in the BMJ replicated the Imperial analysis, which was
published in March 2020 ahead of the UK’s lockdown.

[...]

A spokesperson for Imperial’s COVID-19 Response Team said: “This
provides further independent confirmation that Imperial’s modelling in
March was robust, reproducible and sound in its conclusions. We welcome
this independent analysis of Report 9 as we continue to advance our
understanding of the early epidemic.”

So linking to that report was yet another own goal by you. Any rational
person would learn from these mistakes, and stop spewing shit about
things they know SFA about, but not you, you just endlessly repeat shit
you read online without actually understanding a fucking word that you
write.

>> Haven't you noticed that 'the models' have dropped
>> out of the narrative, in the same fashion as polar bears? They've
>> outlived their usefulness.

FALSE: See link above and:

https://arcticwwf.org/newsroom/stories/polar-bear-assessment-brings-good-and-troubling-news/

> Yes, the narrative is always changing, have you noticed that The
> Great Barrier Reef has also dropped out, once the darling of MSM but
> no longer, can't think why. :-)
> But it did the job in the public perception.

FALSE: https://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/threats-to-the-reef

"The Great Barrier Reef is a natural treasure and one of the world's
best managed marine areas, but like all tropical coral reefs around the
world it’s facing serious threats.

"Our Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019 and strategic assessment
found the Reef is an icon under pressure from:

climate change
poor water quality from land-based run-off
coastal development impacts
remaining impacts from fishing."

> Wonder why the climate in Antarctica doesn't get on the news much? :-)

Because news media don't always report science consistently, only when
they decide it's 'news worthy', the fact that they're not reporting
particularly is most probably because we're still losing ice cover, but
no faster than previously, so it's not 'news':

https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover

> The Main Stream Media have group think and an agenda driven ideology.
> They're not interested in presenting the truth that ship has long
> sailed, they're interested in pressing their agenda.

You're just a radicalised right-wing bigot whose previously exposed lies
to this ng are legion. You wouldn't know or understand the truth about
anything even if it hit you between the eyes.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/11/2021 12:17, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-22, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>>
>>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>>
>> What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
>> OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?
>
> What is it about "THE EVIDENCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FLAWED BECAUSE ONE
> AVENUE OF INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY RULED OUT" that you have
> such difficulty in understanding?

I don't have difficulty in understanding, but taking that into account,
the balance of scientific opinion is as it is, firmly against a lab leak
origin.

>>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
>>
>> FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!
>
> Scientific evidence is incomplete when an avenue of investigation has
> been ignored.

It's unscientific to ignore evidence that you do have, and that is what
you and others are doing in this thread.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk