On 04/12/2021 16:58, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sog1s3$bpl$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Yawn! More abuse because you can't bear to lose an argument. Let's see
>> some verifiable *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread! Cough up
>> or shut up.
>
> So far as I can tell, "Spike" just wants to get attention and "have the
> last word". i.e. waste of time to respond.

Yes, it was only when I stopped responding to his childishness that he
bothered to go and find any evidence at all, and then, as we have seen,
it was crap anyway. Looking like time to apply the same garotte.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 13:32, Spike wrote:

>> You're batshit crazy.

> I'm simply correct, and you just can't stand it, can you?

>> Learn some maths, microbiology, statistics, and Cold War history, and
>> you might not make so many fundamental errors.

What is misleading in this short quote from
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:

=====

About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.

=====

Why would no real scientist write that?

--
Spike

On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
>
> On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
>
> What is misleading in this short quote from
> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
> who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
>
> =====
>
> About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
> exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
>
> =====
>
> Why would no real scientist write that?

Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
>> On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:

>> What is misleading in this short quote from
>> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
>> who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:

>> =====

>> About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
>> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
>> exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.

>> =====

>> Why would no real scientist write that?

> Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:

> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
the 'climate change' believers methods.

But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.

--
Spike

On 06/12/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:
>
> On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> What is misleading in this short quote from
>>> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
>>> who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>> About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
>>> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
>>> exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
>>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
>>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
>>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>> Why would no real scientist write that?
>>
>> Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:
>>
>> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
>
> Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
> pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
> implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
> member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
> would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
> logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
> the 'climate change' believers methods.

It's a simple statement of fact, and by definition that cannot be
misleading.

> But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
> statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
> the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.

The only person I know of being misdirected is yourself, and from your
posting history that's clearly your problem, not the scientific community's.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:05:26 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

> On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
>>
>> On 30/11/2021 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/11/2021 09:51, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29/11/2021 20:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29/11/2021 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <h t t p : / / w w w . c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e
>>>>>> s / V 2 4 / n o v / a 2 . p h p >
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion, let's deal
>>>>> with the site itself, which is an obviously untrustworthy denialist
>>>>> site, run by obvious untrustworthy denialists ...
>>>>
>>>> So, you've no answer to their paper other than to attack the people.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't you answer their analysis? S101 didn't give you the tools,
>>>> obviously.
>>>
>>> I did, but you snipped it.
>>
>> You made the climate hysteric's mistake of leading your response with a
>> huge destruction of the web site and the authors.
>
> You made the climate denialist fanatic's mistake of making multiple
> links to an obviously bogus fake 'science' site, and I destroyed it as a
> lesson to you that such sources cannot be relied upon.
>
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> "Firstly, as it seems to be the centre of your religion,
>> let's deal with the site itself, which is an obviously
untrustworthy
>> denialist site, run by obvious untrustworthy denialists ..." <rest
>> snipped
>>
>> This is, of course, completely unscientific.
>
> It's completely valid, even scientific, to show that people who are
> peddling lies are liars, and therefore cannot be relied upon.
>
>> Note that one of your criticisms was along the lines that "everything
>> they forecast has turned out to be wrong"
>
> For one of them, yes, virtually *EVERYTHING* he has forecast has indeed
> turned out to be wrong!
>
> , so apart from that claim
>> being much like the climate hysterics forecasts of no Arctic summer ice
>> by 2013,
>
> Not a comparison of like with like: your links were supposedly to
> scientists, whereas Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, and the
> scientist whose research he claimed to be quoting repudiated Al Gore's
> quotes of his work at the time.
>
>> or the Maldives under water by 2013, 2015, 2018, etc,
>
> Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim?
>
>> the statistical analysis wasn't a forecast - it was a clever
>> destruction of a foundation of the climate hysterics case, complete
>> with its inference of 'adjustments' to the data, and one to which you
>> have made no effective response at all, always presuming you understood
>> it in the first place.
>
> On the contrary, you obviously failed to understand the repudiation, I
> suspect because you just didn't bother to read it properly if at all, or
> else failed to understand it, which wouldn't be surprising, given that
> you were dumb enough to link to the crap in the first place. Here's
> some R-language documentation on time-series analysis, show me an
> example of A N D Y M A Y's calculation being done in the same
> manner as he did:
>
> https://a-little-book-of-r-for-time-series.readthedocs.io/en/latest/src/
timeseries.html
>
> His use of the R-language struck me as being like a chimpanzee trying to
> use a calculator; a calculator makes no mistakes, but you have to enter
> meaningful data into one to get meaningful answers out of it. Similarly
> the R-language's calculations are not in error, but the calculations he
> asked it to do were meaningless.
>
>> Note that the lengthy article you quoted did not mention one of the key
>> findings of the analysis I linked to.
>
> There were no 'key findings' because the calculation was meaningless.
>
>> You don't seem to aware of the importance of looking for what is not
>> being said, an example of which is your having missed a key factor in a
>> piece of work of your own which you quoted a little while ago.
>
> You still have given no *EVIDENCE* of that, and given your other proven
> evasions, ad hominems, abuse, and other like bullshitting, I'll just
> continue to ignore it until you do.
>
>>> More to the point, why did you post so many links to an obviously fake
>>> 'science' site?
>>
>> Ignoring your pre-formed opinion, the idea was to see if you would trip
>> over yourself in your hysterical rush to condemn. You didn't
>> disappoint.
>>
>> You have not been charged for these lessons.
>
> Good thing, otherwise I'd be demanding my money back for their total
> lack of useful learning. Don't bother replying until you've found an R
> calculation being done in the same manner as A N D Y M A Y's,
> because any further replies lacking substantive argument based on
> *EVIDENCE* will be ignored.

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Ireland
Reference
McDermott, F., Mattey, D.P. and Hawkesworth, C. 2001. Centennial-scale
Holocene climate variability revealed by a high-resolution speleothem ð18O
record from SW Ireland. Science 294: 1328-1331.
What was done
The authors derived a ð18O record - with a time resolution they say is
"approximately an order of magnitude better than in the North Atlantic
cores that record evidence for quasi-periodic (1475 ± 500 year) ice
rafting during the Holocene" - from a stalagmite discovered in Crag Cave
in southwestern Ireland, after which they compared this record with the
ð18O records from the GRIP and GISP2 ice cores from Greenland.

What was learned
In the words of the authors, the study provided evidence for "centennial-
scale ð18O variations that correlate with subtle ð18O changes in the
Greenland ice cores, indicating regionally coherent variability in the
early Holocene." They also note that the Crag Cave data "exhibit
variations that are broadly consistent with a Medieval Warm Period at
~1000 ± 200 years ago and a two-stage Little Ice Age, as reconstructed by
inverse modeling of temperature profiles in the Greenland Ice Sheet."
Also evident in the Crag Cave data were the ð18O signatures of the earlier
Roman Warm Period and Dark Ages Cold Period that comprised the prior such
cycle of climate in that region.

What it means
The authors state that the coherent ð18O variations in the records from
both sides of the North Atlantic "indicate that many of the subtle
multicentury ð18O variations in the Greenland ice cores reflect regional
North Atlantic margin climate signals rather than local effects." And, of
course, their data confirm the reality of the Medieval Warm Period /
Little Ice Age cycle (which climate alarmists refuse to acknowledge), as
well as the even-more-strongly-expressed preceding Roman Warm Period /
Dark Ages Cold Period cycle, once again demonstrating there is nothing
unusual - or unprecedented, as climate alarmists are fond of saying -
about the global warming of the past century or so.

In article <solfil$alk$1@dont-email.me>, Sysadmin <jon@home.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:05:26 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

> > On 01/12/2021 19:20, Spike wrote:
> >>

> >
> > Good thing, otherwise I'd be demanding my money back for their total
> > lack of useful learning. Don't bother replying until you've found an
> > R calculation being done in the same manner as A N D Y M A Y's,
> > because any further replies lacking substantive argument based on
> > *EVIDENCE* will be ignored.

> The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in Ireland Reference
> McDermott, F., Mattey, D.P. and Hawkesworth, C. 2001.

snip

> ..once again demonstrating there is nothing unusual - or unprecedented,
> as climate alarmists are fond of saying - about the global warming of
> the past century or so.

Erm, citing one paper from 20 years ago may be viewed as cherry-picking.
Given that many hundreds (thousands?) of papers have been produced on this
general topic over the last few decades it is inevitable that some will
have been in error, or misleading wrt the context, or simply as daft as
Bobs infamous "two points paper".

What matters is that the bulk of the evidence when combined has lead most
of those who work in the field and understand it to draw a general agreed
view. To challenge that you need more than to pick a cherry or two from
decades ago which may since have been shown flawed or misleading by other
work since.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

I note the absence of a link to your source, and the use of unscientific
loaded words such as 'alarmist' in the quote, and can easily work out
why, because apart from another to an index page on the same site, the
*ONLY* link that appears for ...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%2B%22Medieval+Warm+Period+and+Little+Ice+Age+in+Ireland%22

.... is ...

h t t p s : / / c o 2 s c i e n c e . o r g / a r t i c l e s / V 4 / N
5 0 / C 1 . p h p

.... so more bullshit from a site that has already been shown to be
created by denialist bullshitters, thus proving that you are a
bullshitter too, because otherwise you'd have been honest about where
this so-called 'evidence' must have come from, because the page above
contains your quotes exactly, and is the only hit, so must be the source
you used.

I note further that the article at the above munged link also doesn't
contain a link to the original scientific paper it claimed to be
quoting, thus making it less easy to check what the article claims,
which is even more suspicious, so of course we don't trust that, but go
find the original report it is claimed to be based on, which is here ...

https://www.academia.edu/5663511/Centennial_Scale_Holocene_Climate_Variability_Revealed_by_a_High_Resolution_Speleothem_delta18O_Record_from_SW_Ireland

.... where we read right at the top as the very first sentence in the
summary:

"Evaluating the significance of submillennial Holocene delta18Oxygen
variability in the Greenland ice cores is crucial for understanding how
natural climate oscillations may modulate future anthropogenic warming"

Hmmm! Doesn't exactly sound as though it's going to support a denialist
stance, does it? And if you read the entire article there's nothing
there to support any sort of denialism at all, because, while there does
appear to support some correlation between the signals from these two
sources, there are also periods when visually they appear to be almost
in anti-phase, and either way that still doesn't prove that any of the
favourite denialist phenomena such as the Roman Warm Period were global
events, rather than merely regional or local events.

On 06/12/2021 17:00, Sysadmin wrote:
>
> What it means
> The authors state that the coherent ð18O variations in the records from
> both sides of the North Atlantic "indicate that many of the subtle
> multicentury ð18O variations in the Greenland ice cores reflect regional
> North Atlantic margin climate signals rather than local effects." And, of
> course, their data confirm the reality of the Medieval Warm Period /
> Little Ice Age cycle (which climate alarmists refuse to acknowledge),

No, they don't refuse to acknowledge, there just isn't evidence that
they were global rather than regional or local phenomena.

> as
> well as the even-more-strongly-expressed preceding Roman Warm Period /
> Dark Ages Cold Period cycle, once again demonstrating there is nothing
> unusual - or unprecedented, as climate alarmists are fond of saying -
> about the global warming of the past century or so.

FALSE! What is unprecedented about recent climate history is the
*global* *rate* of change.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 06/12/2021 12:43, Java Jive wrote:

> On 06/12/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:

>> On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:

>>>> On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:

>>>> What is misleading in this short quote from

>>>> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>

>>>> who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:

>>>> =====

>>>> About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
>>>> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
>>>> exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
>>>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
>>>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
>>>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.

>>>> =====

>>>> Why would no real scientist write that?

>>> Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:

>>> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

>> Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
>> pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
>> implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
>> member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
>> would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
>> logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
>> the 'climate change' believers methods.

> It's a simple statement of fact, and by definition that cannot be
> misleading.

/Part/ of it is a simple statement of fact, and part of it is designed
to mislead, as I carefully explained to you, by blending information
using a logarithmic scale with information on a linear one, the general
public being unlikely to be familiar with logarithms.

>> But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
>> statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
>> the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.

> The only person I know of being misdirected is yourself, and from your
> posting history that's clearly your problem, not the scientific community's
If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
been tasked. While the mean value we obtained was in line with his, the
standard deviations he reported were very much smaller than ours, tiny
by comparison. We checked our methodology, procedures, and analysis but
could find nothing wrong. We wrote to the eminent scientist, pointing
out as gently as we could that while our means agreed with his, our
standard deviations were considerably greater, and could he account for
the difference. He wrote back saying in effect that what he had
published were the standard deviations of his standard deviations. This
was a major sleight of hand on his part to make his data look better
than it was. When we calculated our standard deviations of our standard
deviations, our results were indistinguishable from his. As far as I
know, no-one in the field, either before or since, has ever published
their standard deviations of their standard deviations in their results.
Clearly the peer-review process had failed. It was an early lesson to
'trust but verify' whatever was being claimed, no matter what the source.

The point of this is that if one doesn't have a keen eye for these
things, what looks like simple scientific statements by eminent
scientists in peer-reviewed papers published in leading journals could
be accepted as relevant facts when in reality the way in which the words
are used are designed to mislead or misdirect the unwary or
ill-informed. The situation is even worse where scientific articles
written for public consumption are concerned. A secondary point is that
eminent scientists are sometimes quite happy to mislead others for their
own benefit, especially where funding, travel, promotion, honours, or
prestige are concerned.

I take it you have not used this skill to any real extent, as you don't
appear to have recognised the techniques used in the paragraph I quoted.
I suggest you adopt a cautious approach to whatever is being said where
science is being used as an apparently-authoritative source of information.

--
Spike

On 07/12/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
>
> On 06/12/2021 12:43, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 06/12/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What is misleading in this short quote from
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>
>>>>>
>>>>> who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:
>>>>>
>>>>> =====
>>>>>
>>>>> About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
>>>>> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
>>>>> exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
>>>>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
>>>>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
>>>>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> =====
>>>>
>>>>> Why would no real scientist write that?
>>>>
>>>> Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH
>>>
>>> Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
>>> pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
>>> implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
>>> member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
>>> would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
>>> logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
>>> the 'climate change' believers methods.
>>
>> It's a simple statement of fact, and by definition that cannot be
>> misleading.
>
> /Part/ of it is a simple statement of fact, and part of it is designed
> to mislead, as I carefully explained to you, by blending information
> using a logarithmic scale with information on a linear one, the general
> public being unlikely to be familiar with logarithms.

You didn't carefully explain, you claimed, and I didn't and still don't
accept your claim, which anyway is hypocritical, because you've linked
to a denialist site that is by several degrees more dishonest than the
one you are claiming to see dishonesty in, which I don't.

>>> But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
>>> statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
>>> the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.
>>
>> The only person I know of being misdirected is yourself, and from your
>> posting history that's clearly your problem, not the scientific community's

[Snip irrelevant ego-inflation]

> I take it you have not used this skill to any real extent, as you don't
> appear to have recognised the techniques used in the paragraph I quoted.
> I suggest you adopt a cautious approach to whatever is being said where
> science is being used as an apparently-authoritative source of information.

Yet I've debunked successfully everything that you've posted here, so
that last paragraph seems to apply much more closely to you than it does
to me.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 07/12/2021 13:47, Java Jive wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:

>> On 06/12/2021 12:43, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 06/12/2021 10:20, Spike wrote:

>>>> On 05/12/2021 15:53, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>> On 05/12/2021 11:47, Spike wrote:

>>>>>> On 04/12/2021 15:35, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>>> What is misleading in this short quote from

>>>>>> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php>

>>>>>> who are hardly rabid 'climate change' unbelievers:

>>>>>> =====

>>>>>> About 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that people have put into the
>>>>>> atmosphere has diffused into the ocean through the direct chemical
>>>>>> exchange. Dissolving carbon dioxide in the ocean creates carbonic acid,
>>>>>> which increases the acidity of the water. Or rather, a slightly alkaline
>>>>>> ocean becomes a little less alkaline. Since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s
>>>>>> surface has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change in acidity.

>>>>>> =====

>>>>>> Why would no real scientist write that?

>>>>> Why wouldn't they? A real scientist knows that the pH scale is logarithmic:

>>>>> https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

>>>> Well, you've picked up on the minor point of the statement that "...the
>>>> pH has dropped by 0.1, a 30 percent change..." is misleading, as it
>>>> implies incorrectly that if a 0.1 drop in pH is a 30% reduction, a
>>>> member of the general public would assume that a drop of 0.3-and a bit
>>>> would mean a 100% reduction - as most members of the public can't do
>>>> logs. It's a classic case of misleading the public and so redolent of
>>>> the 'climate change' believers methods.

>>> It's a simple statement of fact, and by definition that cannot be
>>> misleading.

>> /Part/ of it is a simple statement of fact, and part of it is designed
>> to mislead, as I carefully explained to you, by blending information
>> using a logarithmic scale with information on a linear one, the general
>> public being unlikely to be familiar with logarithms.

> You didn't carefully explain, you claimed, and I didn't and still don't
> accept your claim, which anyway is hypocritical, because you've linked
> to a denialist site that is by several degrees more dishonest than the
> one you are claiming to see dishonesty in, which I don't.

>>>> But nonetheless. there is a misdirection of the /science/ in that
>>>> statement that is clearly similarly intended to mislead the public by
>>>> the inappropriate (non-scientific) use of words.

>>> The only person I know of being misdirected is yourself, and from your
>>> posting history that's clearly your problem, not the scientific community's

>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
>> misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
>> paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>> been tasked. While the mean value we obtained was in line with his, the
>> standard deviations he reported were very much smaller than ours, tiny
>> by comparison. We checked our methodology, procedures, and analysis but
>> could find nothing wrong. We wrote to the eminent scientist, pointing
>> out as gently as we could that while our means agreed with his, our
>> standard deviations were considerably greater, and could he account for
>> the difference. He wrote back saying in effect that what he had
>> published were the standard deviations of his standard deviations. This
>> was a major sleight of hand on his part to make his data look better
>> than it was. When we calculated our standard deviations of our standard
>> deviations, our results were indistinguishable from his. As far as I
>> know, no-one in the field, either before or since, has ever published
>> their standard deviations of their standard deviations in their results.
>> Clearly the peer-review process had failed. It was an early lesson to
>> 'trust but verify' whatever was being claimed, no matter what the source.

>> The point of this is that if one doesn't have a keen eye for these
>> things, what looks like simple scientific statements by eminent
>> scientists in peer-reviewed papers published in leading journals could
>> be accepted as relevant facts when in reality the way in which the words
>> are used are designed to mislead or misdirect the unwary or
>> ill-informed. The situation is even worse where scientific articles
>> written for public consumption are concerned. A secondary point is that
>> eminent scientists are sometimes quite happy to mislead others for their
>> own benefit, especially where funding, travel, promotion, honours, or
>> prestige are concerned.

>> I take it you have not used this skill to any real extent, as you don't
>> appear to have recognised the techniques used in the paragraph I quoted.
>> I suggest you adopt a cautious approach to whatever is being said where
>> science is being used as an apparently-authoritative source of information.

>> I take it you have not used this skill to any real extent, as you don't
>> appear to have recognised the techniques used in the paragraph I quoted.
>> I suggest you adopt a cautious approach to whatever is being said where
>> science is being used as an apparently-authoritative source of information.

> Yet I've debunked successfully everything that you've posted here

No, you have not 'successfully debunked everything' that I've posted
here. You've done everything but. You've used emotional appeals, ad
homs, false arguments,
appeals to your assumed authority, walls of text that you think supports
your case,
assumptions that everything you don't agree with is wrong, and you've
deflected, dissembled, abused, boasted of your 'good sci-tech degree'
(mainly in electronics) but you've shown no real understanding of the
science that you fiercely if not blindingly support.

At the first whiff of a contrary case you merely mount Rocinante and
tilt at anything that challenges your beliefs rather than trying to
understand the scientific discourse.

I note with interest that you dismissed my early experience of learning
the hard way that eminent people sometimes had feet of clay. Clearly you
never ever even got that far, so you are lacking a key skill of a
critical faculty, and it shows.

> that last paragraph seems to apply much more closely to you than it does
> to me.

You seem unhinged at times in your defence of your beliefs. Read the
first few sections of this, you might discover something about yourself:

<https://www.scribd.com/document/329384373/The-Conscious-Critical-Faculty-Ptd>

and discover where you're going wrong. e.g.

"False or incorrect beliefs will cause the Conscious Critical Faculty to
reject ideas that could actually be beneficial to us, but that do not
fit in with the tried and tested criteria. The human psyche will not act
upon a rejected idea, even though it may be exactly what we need for
beneficial change. Of course, there will have to be a rationalization of
the reason for the rejection and this will usually be along the lines
of: No I don't think would work for me. I don't like the feel of it...
or something remarkably similar.

[...]

The Conscious Critical Faculty is based on nothing more credible than
the teachings you have received since the moment you were born. We all
have learned beliefs and acquired behaviour patterns, many of which will
have come about from a most inappropriate source, somebody else's belief
system! The Conscious Critical Faculty is a part of this belief system,
seeking to maintain its integrity by rejecting out of hand anything
which does not fit, whether it is good or bad."

--
Spike

In article <j18pdrFj76tU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
> misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
> paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
> been tasked.

Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
it?)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
>
> On 07/12/2021 13:47, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Yet I've debunked successfully everything that you've posted here
>
> No, you have not 'successfully debunked everything' that I've posted
> here.

[Snip whingeing bollocks]

You may not accept it, but I think anyone else here can see that mostly
you don't supply convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, and that
what pathetically little *EVIDENCE* you have come up with has been very
easily shown to be false.

Stick to facts, let's see some *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, cough
up or shut up.

> I note with interest that you dismissed my early experience of learning
> the hard way that eminent people sometimes had feet of clay. Clearly you
> never ever even got that far, so you are lacking a key skill of a
> critical faculty, and it shows.

HYPOCRITE! Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - up thread
*YOU* began using ad hominems by more than once claiming that I knew
nothing about science, whereupon I merely pointed out that in fact I
have good sci/tech degree, which you then dismissed as ...
argumentum ad verecundiam
.... but now that it's looking that you are about to lose yet another
argument you're trying to use exactly the same tactic yourself! Well,
as you have discovered, two can play at that game.

Stick to facts, let's see some *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, cough
up or shut up.

>> that last paragraph seems to apply much more closely to you than it does
>> to me.

[Snip hypocritical pompous crap that again applies to you much more
accurately than myself]

Stick to facts, let's see some *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims and
justify continuing this subthread, cough up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <j1bdudF4b6fU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> "False or incorrect beliefs will cause the Conscious Critical Faculty to
> reject ideas that could actually be beneficial to us, but that do not
> fit in with the tried and tested criteria. The human psyche will not act
> upon a rejected idea, even though it may be exactly what we need for
> beneficial change. Of course, there will have to be a rationalization of
> the reason for the rejection and this will usually be along the lines
> of: No I don't think would work for me. I don't like the feel of it...
> or something remarkably similar.

> The Conscious Critical Faculty is based on nothing more credible than
> the teachings you have received since the moment you were born. We all
> have learned beliefs and acquired behaviour patterns, many of which will
> have come about from a most inappropriate source, somebody else's belief
> system! The Conscious Critical Faculty is a part of this belief system,
> seeking to maintain its integrity by rejecting out of hand anything
> which does not fit, whether it is good or bad."

This is why the Scientific Method is based on carrying out observations
designed to *test* what people currently think is correct. i.e.
experimental observations that may 'falsify' what is thought to be correct
if the outcome clashes with expectation.

Alas, that isn't at all the same thing as cherry picking and wilful
misrepresentations based on policial obsessions.

The snag is that the people doing the work or reading the details need to
be able to understand it, and its context. Which may require a wider
understanding of science and the evidence it has gathered. Not just to
cherry pick and quote what they 'like' - often without thinking how it
might apply to them. (A process weaponised by anti-social media as it leads
people into a complex of 'bubble-thought'.)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 08/12/2021 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:

>> On 07/12/2021 13:47, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Yet I've debunked successfully everything that you've posted here

>> No, you have not 'successfully debunked everything' that I've posted
>> here.

> You may not accept it, but I think anyone else here can see that mostly
> you don't supply convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, and that
> what pathetically little *EVIDENCE* you have come up with has been very
> easily shown to be false.

That's clearly untrue, as others have told you where you have been going
wrong.

Your problem is that you see what you believe in as 'evidence', and what
others advance as evidence as 'denier hyposhite'. You simply have not
demonstrated the ability to weigh one piece of evidence with another,
due to your blinkered view.

Some people live and learn, the others merely live.

--
Spike

On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
>> misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
>> paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>> been tasked.

> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
> it?)

The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.

You might get an answer to your query by going back to the beginning and
ask the OP why she chose to cross-post OT in the two groups. That place
might have been the best place to start, rather than raise the matter so
late in the day, after a total so far of 458 posts of which some 165
are by Java Jive.

--
Spike

On 08/12/2021 13:17, Spike wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2021 10:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
>>
>> You may not accept it, but I think anyone else here can see that mostly
>> you don't supply convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, and that
>> what pathetically little *EVIDENCE* you have come up with has been very
>> easily shown to be false.
>
> That's clearly untrue, as others have told you where you have been going
> wrong.

Such few as have been, have been repeating claims which are not backed
up by *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.

> Your problem is that you see what you believe in as 'evidence', and what
> others advance as evidence as 'denier hyposhite'. You simply have not
> demonstrated the ability to weigh one piece of evidence with another,
> due to your blinkered view.
>
> Some people live and learn, the others merely live.

Again applies to you much better than it applies to me. Let's see
*EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread, cough up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
>>> misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
>>> paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
>>>
>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>> been tasked.
>>
>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
>> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
>> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
>> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
>> it?)
>
> The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
> good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.

That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
about actually answering it?

> You might get an answer to your query by going back to the beginning and
> ask the OP why she chose to cross-post OT in the two groups. That place
> might have been the best place to start, rather than raise the matter so
> late in the day, after a total so far of 458 posts of which some 165
> are by Java Jive.

All of which were debunking unsubstantiated claims, nearly of them all
by you.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
> No, you have not 'successfully debunked everything' that I've posted
> here. You've done everything but. You've used emotional appeals, ad
> homs, false arguments,
> appeals to your assumed authority, walls of text that you think supports
> your case,
> assumptions that everything you don't agree with is wrong, and you've
> deflected, dissembled, abused, boasted of your 'good sci-tech degree'
> (mainly in electronics) but you've shown no real understanding of the
> science that you fiercely if not blindingly support.
>
> At the first whiff of a contrary case you merely mount Rocinante and
> tilt at anything that challenges your beliefs rather than trying to
> understand the scientific discourse.
>
> I note with interest that you dismissed my early experience of learning
> the hard way that eminent people sometimes had feet of clay. Clearly you
> never ever even got that far, so you are lacking a key skill of a
> critical faculty, and it shows.

I really admire your writing style.

Bill

On 08/12/2021 14:32, williamwright wrote:
>
> I really admire your writing style.

But praise from a quasi-religious denialist like you is hardly helping
him, more like the kiss of death.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/12/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:

>> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>>>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection, was
>>>> misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the quoted
>>>> paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

>>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>>> been tasked.

>>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
>>> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
>>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
>>> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
>>> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
>>> it?)

>> The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
>> good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
>> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.

> That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
> about actually answering it?
It was, of course, an excellent example of the Scientific Method, where
the team relied on it rather than having blind faith in a peer-reviewed
paper by an eminent scientist. That, of course, is what you should be
doing rather than sounding off about facts you don't like and calling
them 'denier hyposhite'.

>> You might get an answer to your query by going back to the beginning and
>> ask the OP why she chose to cross-post OT in the two groups. That place
>> might have been the best place to start, rather than raise the matter so
>> late in the day, after a total so far of 458 posts of which some 165
>> are by Java Jive.

--
Spike

On 08/12/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:

> On 08/12/2021 13:17, Spike wrote:

>> On 08/12/2021 10:32, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 08/12/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:

>>> You may not accept it, but I think anyone else here can see that mostly
>>> you don't supply convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up your claims, and that
>>> what pathetically little *EVIDENCE* you have come up with has been very
>>> easily shown to be false.

>> That's clearly untrue, as others have told you where you have been going
>> wrong.

> Such few as have been, have been repeating claims which are not backed
> up by *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.

So you're saying that after all your hyposhite that you haven't seen all
the evidence?

>> Your problem is that you see what you believe in as 'evidence', and what
>> others advance as evidence as 'denier hyposhite'. You simply have not
>> demonstrated the ability to weigh one piece of evidence with another,
>> due to your blinkered view.

>> Some people live and learn, the others merely live.

> Again applies to you much better than it applies to me. Let's see
> *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread, cough up or shut up.

Haven't *you* seen the evidence, then?

--
Spike

On 08/12/2021 14:51, Java Jive wrote:

> On 08/12/2021 14:32, williamwright wrote:

>> I really admire your writing style.

> But praise from a quasi-religious denialist like you is hardly helping > him, more like the kiss of death.

HYPOSHITE!

--
Spike

On 08/12/2021 14:58, Spike wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Such few as have been, have been repeating claims which are not backed
>> up by *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.
>
> So you're saying that after all your hyposhite that you haven't seen all
> the evidence?

The hyposhite is all yours, I'm saying that you have yet to produce
anything worthy of being described as *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*,
cough up or shut up.

>> Again applies to you much better than it applies to me. Let's see
>> *EVIDENCE* to justify continuing this thread, cough up or shut up.
>
> Haven't *you* seen the evidence, then?

None worthy of the name from you. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or
shut up. Failure to produce any will lead to you being ignored from now on.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/12/2021 14:57, Spike wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>>>> been tasked.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
>>>> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
>>>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
>>>> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
>>>> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
>>>> it?)
>>
>> That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
>> about actually answering it?
>
> It was, of course, an excellent example of the Scientific Method, where
> the team relied on it rather than having blind faith in a peer-reviewed
> paper by an eminent scientist. That, of course, is what you should be
> doing rather than sounding off about facts you don't like and calling
> them 'denier hyposhite'.

Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are not,
which is why the links that you have posted here have been so
comprehensively debunked. You have yet to produce anything worthy of
being described as *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut
up. Failure to produce any will lead to you being ignored from now on.

--

Fake news kills!

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