In article <59aa9e5bb4bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> The answer to those questions is that I KNOW the media are liars and
> have no interest in the truth only pushing an agenda.

Applied in such a total blanket way that becomes a fanatical religious
absoulte faith. i.e. the antithesis of science. One of the roots of your
denaiist behaviour, cherry-picking, etc.

Yes, quite a bit of what appears in "the media" is wrong, or misleading, or
shallow. Sometimes deliberate lies. Sometimes due to obsessive beliefs like
your own. But some 'media' also report reality. The trick with topics where
science is involved is to know how to use the scientific method and the
basics of the science. But you repeately dismiss than in favour of your
obsessive faiths.

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

In article <59aaa8866ebob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed psychological
> > characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc and no amount of
> > factual discussion will shake that.

> I'm not going to dignify that blinkered narrow thinking with a reply.

I'm glad I wasn't drinking some tea when I read that. Would have made
laughing difficult. :-)

> All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on truth
> and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else, people with an
> opinion a left opinion, nothing more.

Ah, it's the "lefties" obsession again... You missed moaning about "woke"
though. Now's yer chance to wind up that clockwork rabbit as well (again).
:-)

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

In article <srs1jt$1fe$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
> > clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been
> > blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
> > edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
> > with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.

> LIAR! It's blindingly obvious to everyone here that you don't look at a
> spectrum of scientists and wouldn't even understand them if you did.

FWIW I don't think Bob is a liar. Just someone who is obsessive and
deluded. And, alas, wilfully clueless about science.

Hence his conceptionof "spectrum of scientists" includes laughable
examples like NO, and the author of the absurde "two point paper" - while
at the same time *refusing to even read* a book by some 'scientists' which
bases its content and references as source *hundreds* of other via their
peer reviewed work and evidence.

> >
> > All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on
> > truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else, people
> > with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.

> Who said Pamela was 'left', or fact-checkers, or indeed me or Jim. Here
> we see again the broken and pathetic psychology of labelling someone
> pejoratively to provide a convenient excuse to ignore them because you
> have no rational answer to their arguments.

Again, FWIW I don't mind if someone thinks my *politicial* views are
'left'. What does seem absurd is to try and use that to discredit any
*science* I may point out - particularly if the person rejecting it
*refuses to even read it*! Such behaviour is just an evasive dodge and
being wilfully ignorant. The idea that someone's scientific ability is
invalidated by having someone else brand them 'left' seems daft to me. That
said, I have no idea of any political view of the many scientists in works
I've referenced. It is the evidence that matters, not the colour of the
socks the author wears.

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 14/01/2022 15:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <srs1jt$1fe$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
>>> clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been
>>> blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
>>> edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
>>> with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.
>
>> LIAR! It's blindingly obvious to everyone here that you don't look at a
>> spectrum of scientists and wouldn't even understand them if you did.
>
> FWIW I don't think Bob is a liar. Just someone who is obsessive and
> deluded. And, alas, wilfully clueless about science.
>
> Hence his conceptionof "spectrum of scientists" includes laughable
> examples like NO, and the author of the absurde "two point paper" - while
> at the same time *refusing to even read* a book by some 'scientists' which
> bases its content and references as source *hundreds* of other via their
> peer reviewed work and evidence.

It's that latter point that proves him a liar. Add to that all the
other deliberate attempts to obscure (bad) provenance, the repetition of
claims already well debunked etc, and the many obvious and proven lies
that he has reposted time and time again. I think it's time you stopped
trying to defend a character that is way past defending.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 12:36 14 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
> You don't think there is pressure on people to take the vaccine?
>
> I don't know where to begin to answer that it is so far removed
> from reality. The pressure to get jabbed is unrelenting and
> constant, what nonsense.

There has been frequent encouragement and even exhortation to get
the vaccine but no obligation.

>> Why do you select and cling to outlying scientific opinion?
>
> I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
> clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has
> been blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about
> chopping the edge of graphs because it made things look worse,
> giving briefings with data they knew when the gave it was wrong
> etc. etc. etc.

It wouldn't be called paranoia if you were able to see your own
misjudgement of the situation.

One of the traits of antivaxxers et al is a feeling they aren't in
sufficient control and they're suffering oppression from official
bodies. Sometimes this insecurity comes from a lack of education,
experience, intelligence or simply feeling disenfranchised in
society -- whatever it is, it's too engrained in a person's
character to change. They have a strong need to belong somewhere
and to be heard, which they obtain by belonging to a rebel group.
The idea of being special and having insight into some restricted
knowledge provides antivaxers et al a sense of power they feel
they lack. It's a psychological mess.

True facts may never penetrate this pathology

It wouldn't matter if these social losers kept themselves to
themselves but too many take physical action and intervene to
prevent normal others from dealing with the pandemic. Some like
you promote an addled misunderstanding of the science. Sigh.

On 14:33 14 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly
>> on truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone
>> else, people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.
>
> Who said Pamela was 'left', or fact-checkers, or indeed me or
> Jim. Here we see again the broken and pathetic psychology of
> labelling someone pejoratively to provide a convenient excuse to
> ignore them because you have no rational answer to their
> arguments.

It's not often I get called left wing. Bob seems to be politicising
the debate unnecessarily.

I am sure left-leaning radical would support antivaxxer/antimasker
ideas of "resisting power" and "regaining control of our lives".

In article <59aab84264noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <srs1jt$1fe$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
> > > In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> > > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
> > > clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been
> > > blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
> > > edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
> > > with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.

> > LIAR! It's blindingly obvious to everyone here that you don't look at
> > a spectrum of scientists and wouldn't even understand them if you did.

> FWIW I don't think Bob is a liar. Just someone who is obsessive and
> deluded. And, alas, wilfully clueless about science.

> Hence his conceptionof "spectrum of scientists" includes laughable
> examples like NO, and the author of the absurde "two point paper" - while
> at the same time *refusing to even read* a book by some 'scientists'
> which bases its content and references as source *hundreds* of other via
> their peer reviewed work and evidence.

> > >
> > > All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on
> > > truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else,
> > > people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.

> > Who said Pamela was 'left', or fact-checkers, or indeed me or Jim.
> > Here we see again the broken and pathetic psychology of labelling
> > someone pejoratively to provide a convenient excuse to ignore them
> > because you have no rational answer to their arguments.

> Again, FWIW I don't mind if someone thinks my *politicial* views are
> 'left'. What does seem absurd is to try and use that to discredit any
> *science* I may point out - particularly if the person rejecting it
> *refuses to even read it*! Such behaviour is just an evasive dodge and
> being wilfully ignorant. The idea that someone's scientific ability is
> invalidated by having someone else brand them 'left' seems daft to me.
> That said, I have no idea of any political view of the many scientists in
> works I've referenced. It is the evidence that matters, not the colour of
> the socks the author wears.

> Jim

Rather similar to South African students who didn't want to be taught
"White Science". Would they be happy to do with out, say, electricity
which came from white science?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 13:16 14 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
> In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed
>> psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers,
>> etc and no amount of factual discussion will shake that.
>
> Bob's SOP MO. He starts from what he is determined to believe as
> an article of faith. Then cherry-picks, misrepresents,
> misunderstands, dismisses, etc, anything and everything to forge
> the shapes he requires. His approach is the antithesis of
> science.
>
> Then, alas, keeps posting the resulting drivel here. Despite it
> being plain we regard his behavious as tedious and idiotic.
>
> Been doing it for years. Never learns because he already "KNOWS"
> the TRUTH.
>
> JJ has the patience to detail the ongoing idiocy.

I have seen Java post some thorough and carefully referenced
replies (which must take bit of work) but the debate with Bob is
similar to a discussion with a member of a cult.

I wonder what Bob is seeking to prove? If Bob could have any
outcome he wanted in the Covid debate then what would make him
most happy? Does he want everyone to be unvaccinated or maybe he
wants no social distancing? I suspect his biggest beef might not
be the outcome but instead something like the high-handed manner
the government communicated with the public.

> I got bored
> with doing that after the utterly ludicrous 'two point paper'
> and Bob's visible terror when invited to read a useful book on
> Climate Change that has hundreds of good references to
> substantiate and clarify the reality he denies. To suit himself
> he dismissed it as a "Bible" - having, of course, not read a
> word of it.
>
> Since then he's trotted out idiocies like the NO comments as if
> they were worth more than a sad laugh. Seems not to notice that
> its OT and no-one is really wanting him to sell his religion
> here.
>
> Maybe he insists on raising digital tv tech on political or
> religious newsgroups as well.... Oh well, EM waves are really
> 'magic' anyway aren't they?... 8-]
>
> Yawn,
> Jim

I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments" discussions.

On 14/01/2022 17:52, Pamela wrote:
> One of the traits of antivaxxers et al is a feeling they aren't in
> sufficient control and they're suffering oppression from official
> bodies. Sometimes this insecurity comes from a lack of education,
> experience, intelligence or simply feeling disenfranchised in
> society -- whatever it is, it's too engrained in a person's
> character to change.

There was a snippet on the local TV news this evening, among the news
item that a walk-in vaccination hub had been set up.

One of the "vox pop" interviewees who had just had his first jab
explained his previous resistance to the vaccine as being a protest that
poorer countries should be given the vaccines first because they
wouldn't be able to afford to buy them and it seemed wrong that the UK
has gone overboard with everyone offered two free doses to begin with
and now free booster jabs.

His reason for now wanting to catch up with his vaccination was that if
he wanted to be able to carry out the overseas visits his job included
then some of the countries he would be due to visit wouldn't let him in
without a vaccine passport to prove he was fully vaccinated.

It is an interesting viewpoint that doesn't fit any of the categories
you listed. I thought the unusual reason was worth a mention, as was
his reason for changing his mind.

Jim

In article <srt3f0$fik$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> There was a snippet on the local TV news this evening, among the news
> item that a walk-in vaccination hub had been set up.

> One of the "vox pop" interviewees who had just had his first jab
> explained his previous resistance to the vaccine as being a protest that
> poorer countries should be given the vaccines first because they
> wouldn't be able to afford to buy them and it seemed wrong that the UK
> has gone overboard with everyone offered two free doses to begin with
> and now free booster jabs.

> His reason for now wanting to catch up with his vaccination was that if
> he wanted to be able to carry out the overseas visits his job included
> then some of the countries he would be due to visit wouldn't let him in
> without a vaccine passport to prove he was fully vaccinated.

> It is an interesting viewpoint that doesn't fit any of the categories
> you listed. I thought the unusual reason was worth a mention, as was
> his reason for changing his mind.

Yes, there will be people who have perfectly reasonable/rational reasons
for deciding to avoid being vaccinated. I can give an example of a good
friend of mine. He had the first vaccination and got a really nasty, rare,
side-effect. He was then advised to isolate as far as possible and not
have another jab.

That wasn't actually an added burden for him as he and his sister are
essentially housebound for other reasons. Just makes the need for three
carers to visit them ever day a bit more challenging, though. Sadly, I now
live far too far from him to ever visit anyway. One of the few regrets I
have about emigrating to Scotland.

The difficulty is with people who regard vaccination via a 'lens' of fake
science or polticial delusions that get promoted. Often, as with Bob, then
quoting 'facts' that present as 'science' which, when examined as such, are
what learned academics call 'cobblers'. Yet are part of an absolute belief
by the person presenting them for *political* reasons that often have the
whiff of paranoia which gets stoked for political reasons. Such beliefs
then become unshakable because they have "seen the light". One parallel
being all the 'creationism' in the USA.

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

In article <XnsAE1FBA6CE763937B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments" discussions.

I've lost the URL for the YT video of the NO rant. Maybe JJ can post it if
you're interested in seeing a good rant and assess the level of 'science'
knowledge it displays. You may need an electron microscope for that,
though. :-)

However the magic two point paper seems to still be here.

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20190806.15.pdf

JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on the basis
that they don't bother to send papers to referees. They just publish what
is sent in provided the sender pays up. i.e. they can be used as vanity
publishing for crap no good journal would accept. The publisher just
operates to make money from the process.

For now I won't repeat how easily the paper's content can be shown to be
cobblers, and why any experienced astronomer, etc, would quickly twig this.
Have a look first and see what you make of it. The fun is in spotting the
flaws. :-)

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 15/01/2022 10:30, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE1FBA6CE763937B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments" discussions.
>
> I've lost the URL for the YT video of the NO rant. Maybe JJ can post it if
> you're interested in seeing a good rant and assess the level of 'science'
> knowledge it displays.

It's the post that started the thread, so easy enough to find, but I
watched only about half of it before losing all hope that there would
actually be anything factual or scientific to debunk. There's zilch
science in it, it's just a clueless bigoted rant,

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 10:30 15 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <XnsAE1FBA6CE763937B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments"
>> discussions.
>
> I've lost the URL for the YT video of the NO rant. Maybe JJ can
> post it if you're interested in seeing a good rant and assess
> the level of 'science' knowledge it displays. You may need an
> electron microscope for that, though. :-)
>
> However the magic two point paper seems to still be here.
>
> http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.
> 20190806.15.pdf
>
> JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on
> the basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees.
> They just publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up.
> i.e. they can be used as vanity publishing for crap no good
> journal would accept. The publisher just operates to make money
> from the process.
>
> For now I won't repeat how easily the paper's content can be
> shown to be cobblers, and why any experienced astronomer, etc,
> would quickly twig this. Have a look first and see what you make
> of it. The fun is in spotting the flaws. :-)
>
> Jim

The physics in that paper is above my pay grade but I took a look
at Wikipedia for Science Publishing Group and saw it criticised
for the way they accepted papers without any review.

As an aside, my Googling stumbled across the following spoof
paper. It's a bit obvious but funny nevertheless.

https://xavierleroy.org/stuff/tomato/tomato.html

On 12:54 15 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:

> On 15/01/2022 10:30, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> In article <XnsAE1FBA6CE763937B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I didn't read the "two point paper" and "NO comments"
>>> discussions.
>>
>> I've lost the URL for the YT video of the NO rant. Maybe JJ can
>> post it if you're interested in seeing a good rant and assess
>> the level of 'science' knowledge it displays.
>
> It's the post that started the thread, so easy enough to find,
> but I watched only about half of it before losing all hope that
> there would actually be anything factual or scientific to
> debunk. There's zilch science in it, it's just a clueless
> bigoted rant,

My mistake. I thought for a moment "NO" stood for something else I
wasn't aware of. I'm fully up to speed that rant by Neil Oliver.

On 15/01/2022 15:06, Pamela wrote:
>
> As an aside, my Googling stumbled across the following spoof
> paper. It's a bit obvious but funny nevertheless.
>
> https://xavierleroy.org/stuff/tomato/tomato.html

Perhaps for Bob's and Alexander's sakes we should clarify that no
sopranos were harmed in the above experiment!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16:48 15 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> On 15/01/2022 15:06, Pamela wrote:
>>
>>
>> As an aside, my Googling stumbled across the following spoof paper.
>> It's a bit obvious but funny nevertheless.
>>
>> https://xavierleroy.org/stuff/tomato/tomato.html
>
> Perhaps for Bob's and Alexander's sakes we should clarify that no
> sopranos were harmed in the above experiment!

Seen this classic and the updates?

http://booksc.org/s/?q=unsuccessful+self-treatment+of+writer%27s+block

In article <XnsAE2099C06F2AB37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.
> > 20190806.15.pdf
> >
> > JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on the
> > basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees. They just
> > publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up. i.e. they can be
> > used as vanity publishing for crap no good journal would accept. The
> > publisher just operates to make money from the process.
> >
> > For now I won't repeat how easily the paper's content can be shown to
> > be cobblers, and why any experienced astronomer, etc, would quickly
> > twig this. Have a look first and see what you make of it. The fun is
> > in spotting the flaws. :-)
> >
> > Jim

> The physics in that paper is above my pay grade but I took a look at
> Wikipedia for Science Publishing Group and saw it criticised for the
> way they accepted papers without any review.

TBH you don't need much real science to spot the weevil in the biscuit.

In essence the paper's 'evidence' is that three data points fit onto a
'straight line' relationship between a pair of variables. (Via being
'normalised' to the same pressure.)

However there are more than three bodies in the Solar system that have
atmospheres and could be plotted/included. So it seems, erm, 'odd', to just
pick *two* of them other than Earth. Why not include them all?

So I chose to look at another example of the relevant class of objects...
and it *doesn't* fit the relationship claimed in the paper.

Hence the paper cherry-picked data that supported its conclusion and
omitted other data that doesn't.

Since I'm not a mind-reader I don't know if the author did that
deliberately, or was simply a poor 'scientist', and stopped when he found a
nice 'cherry'. Either way, the paper then falls into the category that
academics call 'cobblers'.

Example of how real scientists will tend to check work, not simply assume
it "must be right" because they like it.

FWIW It's not the worst example I've ever seen. That was a research report
at the end of a project a UK Research Council funded to the tune of over
100,000 quid! The final report was ustter rubbish as the idea behind it was
obviously daft. At least in that case they sprayed a lot of data points
onto their 'results' graphs before drawing (fantasy) straight lines though
the cloud of points. But the project was run by a well known prof so got
the money. (sigh) I suspect they realised the results were weak/dribble,
but were required to put in a final report for others to check.

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 10:54 16 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <XnsAE2099C06F2AB37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.
>> > 20190806.15.pdf
>> >
>> > JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on the
>> > basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees. They just
>> > publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up. i.e. they can
>> > be used as vanity publishing for crap no good journal would
>> > accept. The publisher just operates to make money from the
>> > process.
>> >
>> > For now I won't repeat how easily the paper's content can be shown
>> > to be cobblers, and why any experienced astronomer, etc, would
>> > quickly twig this. Have a look first and see what you make of it.
>> > The fun is in spotting the flaws. :-)
>> >
>> > Jim
>
>> The physics in that paper is above my pay grade but I took a look at
>> Wikipedia for Science Publishing Group and saw it criticised for the
>> way they accepted papers without any review.
>
> TBH you don't need much real science to spot the weevil in the
> biscuit.
>
> In essence the paper's 'evidence' is that three data points fit onto
> a 'straight line' relationship between a pair of variables. (Via
> being 'normalised' to the same pressure.)
>
> However there are more than three bodies in the Solar system that
> have atmospheres and could be plotted/included. So it seems, erm,
> 'odd', to just pick *two* of them other than Earth. Why not include
> them all?
>
> So I chose to look at another example of the relevant class of
> objects... and it *doesn't* fit the relationship claimed in the
> paper.
>
> Hence the paper cherry-picked data that supported its conclusion and
> omitted other data that doesn't.
>
> Since I'm not a mind-reader I don't know if the author did that
> deliberately, or was simply a poor 'scientist', and stopped when he
> found a nice 'cherry'. Either way, the paper then falls into the
> category that academics call 'cobblers'.
>
> Example of how real scientists will tend to check work, not simply
> assume it "must be right" because they like it.
>
> FWIW It's not the worst example I've ever seen. That was a research
> report at the end of a project a UK Research Council funded to the
> tune of over 100,000 quid! The final report was ustter rubbish as the
> idea behind it was obviously daft. At least in that case they sprayed
> a lot of data points onto their 'results' graphs before drawing
> (fantasy) straight lines though the cloud of points. But the project
> was run by a well known prof so got the money. (sigh) I suspect they
> realised the results were weak/dribble, but were required to put in a
> final report for others to check.
>
> Jim

I think scientific papers are generally prone to exaggeration. After
all if a well edcuated person devoted years of their life ploughing a
lonely furrow and forgoing pleasures, then they would expect something
at the end of it -- even if that requires them to overstate the facts.

I recall a study which they looked at a large number of scientific
papers and compared the experimental results with what was being
claimed in the abstract of the paper and they discovered quite a
disparity.

As you probably know, this became so troublesome in medicine that the
Cochrane group was created to perform independant meta-analyses. Their
reject rate of low quality studies with poor methodology is astounding.
For a given topic, I have seen Cochrane identify something like 50
papers dealing with the topic but Cochrane is prepared to accept only
half a dozen as having validity.

In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
remedy as unproven by *scientific* *study* even though there are
benefits being derived. After all their purpose is to determine trusted
information which has been scientifically proven rather than determine
what is the current best practice in the light of imperfect knowledge.

Cochrane has done some Covid work but transmission, vaccine resistence
and epidemiology are generally too fast moving for them.

On 16/01/2022 14:44, Pamela wrote:
>
> On 10:54 16 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
>>
>> On 15/01/2022 15:06, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10:30 15 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:
>>>>
>>>> However the magic two point paper seems to still be here.
>>>>
>>>> http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20190806.15.pdf
>>>>
>>>> JJ showed the 'publishers' are a 'paper mill'. These exist on
>>>> the basis that they don't bother to send papers to referees.
>>>> They just publish what is sent in provided the sender pays up.
>>>> i.e. they can be used as vanity publishing for crap no good
>>>> journal would accept. The publisher just operates to make money
>>>> from the process.

As in ...

On 19/05/2020 17:40, Java Jive wrote:
>> Mmmm ... sciencepublishinggroup.com ... that rings a denialist bell!
>
> [...]>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group
>
> "Science Publishing Group
>
> [...]
>
> Science Publishing Group (SPG) is an open-access publisher of academic
> journals and books established in 2012.[1] It has an address in New York
> City[2] but is actually based in Pakistan.[3] The company has been
> criticized for predatory publishing practices.[4][5][6] As of 2019, it
> publishes 430 journals in various fields.[7]
>
> SPG uses an Gold open-access model of publishing which charges the
> authors. The company claims that articles are peer reviewed by
> scientific experts before publication.[8]
>
> Criticism of publishing practices
>
> The company has been criticized for predatory open-access
> publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university professor Fiona
> McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics
> and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms
> "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon
> series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the
> SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for
> publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory
> open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal
> of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist
> karma.[1][10]"
>
> So, just as I thought, publishers of pseudo-science, including
> denialism, and now we know why Bob didn't want to link to anything, he
> knew it wouldn't stand up in court.
>
> So to the so-called 'paper' itself, it's by Robert Ian Holmes, and
> apparently even other denialists find it so bonkers that not even they
> can agree with it:
>
> w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m /2018/02/06/ideal-gases/
>
> "So I’m sorry, but the underlying premise of this paper is wrong. Yes,
> planetary atmospheres generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, duh, why
> wouldn’t they … and no, that doesn’t mean that you can diagnose or rule
> out heating processes simply because the atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas
> Law. They will always obey the law regardless of how they are heated, so
> you can’t rule out anything."

However, while it's easy to dismiss sciencepublishinggroup.com, it's
important to understand that such commercial organisations and modus
operandi are part of problems in the wider science publishing environment:

Discovery - The Great Science Publishing Scandal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csy6c4

>>> The physics in that paper is above my pay grade but I took a look at
>>> Wikipedia for Science Publishing Group and saw it criticised for the
>>> way they accepted papers without any review.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> In essence the paper's 'evidence' is that three data points fit onto
>> a 'straight line' relationship between a pair of variables. (Via
>> being 'normalised' to the same pressure.)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So I chose to look at another example of the relevant class of
>> objects... and it *doesn't* fit the relationship claimed in the
>> paper.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> the paper then falls into the category that academics call 'cobblers'.
>>
>> FWIW It's not the worst example I've ever seen. That was a research
>> report at the end of a project a UK Research Council funded to the
>> tune of over 100,000 quid! The final report was ustter rubbish as the
>> idea behind it was obviously daft. At least in that case they sprayed
>> a lot of data points onto their 'results' graphs before drawing
>> (fantasy) straight lines though the cloud of points. But the project
>> was run by a well known prof so got the money. (sigh) I suspect they
>> realised the results were weak/dribble, but were required to put in a
>> final report for others to check.
>
> [...]
>
> I recall a study which they looked at a large number of scientific
> papers and compared the experimental results with what was being
> claimed in the abstract of the paper and they discovered quite a
> disparity.
>
> As you probably know, this became so troublesome in medicine that the
> Cochrane group was created to perform independant meta-analyses. Their
> reject rate of low quality studies with poor methodology is astounding.
> For a given topic, I have seen Cochrane identify something like 50
> papers dealing with the topic but Cochrane is prepared to accept only
> half a dozen as having validity.
>
> In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
> remedy as unproven by *scientific* *study* even though there are
> benefits being derived. After all their purpose is to determine trusted
> information which has been scientifically proven rather than determine
> what is the current best practice in the light of imperfect knowledge.

Yes. Every year there are more and more scientists doing more and more
research, so it would seem rational to suppose that there is more chaff
as well as more grain, and that it's becoming increasingly difficult to
winnow out those few bad scientists that are over-claiming at best or
fraudulent at worst. This is mostly a problem with the 'soft' sciences
such as psychology, sociology, animal behaviour, etc, but sometimes
spills over into the 'hard' sciences as well:

BBC Inside Science - Reproducibility crisis in science [...]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000d8st

However, as the report above makes clear, problems with scientific
claims are being retracted by the originating scientists themselves
and/or unmasked by other scientists, they are not being exposed by
politically motivated pseudo-scientists.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
> upwards - extreme transmission.

Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.

Andy

In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> > Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
> > Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
> > upwards - extreme transmission.

> Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.

Yes, thankfully that's true.

Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
lower health risk than the current vaccines.

I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
but most things are.

Bob.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 14:44:56 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
>remedy as unproven by *scientific* *study* even though there are
>benefits being derived. After all their purpose is to determine trusted
>information which has been scientifically proven rather than determine
>what is the current best practice in the light of imperfect knowledge.

This seems to confirm that "expert advice" is not always better than
common sense. The problem with experts is that they are often
specialists as well, so that their advice may be based only on a
blinkered view of their own particular area of specialism, ignoring
what is going on everywhere else in real life. Then the scientifically
ignorant and intellectually lazy pin their allegiance unquestioningly
to the advice, assuming the experts must be right because they're
experts. I think we've seen a lot of this lately.

Rod.

On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
>>> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
>>> upwards - extreme transmission.
>
>> Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
>
> Yes, thankfully that's true.
>
> Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
> moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
> lower health risk than the current vaccines.

Again an absurd claim made without provenance. There is no way that
omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by your behaviour) can be
safer than any of the approved vaccines. However, what it might do is
infect sufficient numbers of the unvaccinated, although it might also
kill some of them, to increase thereby the level of herd immunity.

> I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but it's
> interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson /sage models
> but most things are.

False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/01/2022 14:44, Pamela wrote:
> In truth, Cochrane sets the bar frustratingly high and will declare a
> remedy as unproven by*scientific* *study* even though there are
> benefits being derived.

A few years ago there was a 3-part TV series looking at a clinical trial
of a revolutionary approach to treating Parkinsons, sponsored by a drug
company. The series looked at the preparations for the trial, the
conduct of the trial, and the outcome. The programmes are in the index
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0002tjw) but are not currently viewable

Parkinsons is an incurable and slowly worsening condition affecting
movement and coordination caused by a progressive reduction in the
number of brain cells producing dopamine. The usual treatment is a drug
to increase the dopamine production of the brain cells still
functioning. It is possible to slow the progress of the condition by
gradually increasing the dosage but there comes a point where another
increase would make the treatment toxic, and it has to stop there.

The revolutionary approach was to operate on the "guinea pigs" to put
fine tubes into the brain at key places, joined to a distribution point
behind one ear, so that the trial treatment could be injected into the
port behind the ear and be delivered directly to the brain tissues. To
establish the baseline for the trial, the volunteers had to stop their
normal treatment for a period and have their mobility measured.

The trial was the usual format of half getting the real treatment and
half getting the placebo. One person had a haemorrhage from one of the
injections and had to be taken off the trial and receive stroke
treatment. Of the rest, those taking the real drug (something that
slowly broke down leaving dopamine behind) showed improvement, and one
looked almost completely cured. Although it was technically a blind
trial with those delivering the treatment not knowing which volunteer
was getting the treatment and which was getting the placebo, it soon
became obvious from the improvement in some of them who was in which
group. So after sufficient measurements had been taken, it was agreed
that those who had undergone the operation to fit the distribution tubes
but had only received the placebo should be rewarded for taking part,
and the trial was extended by a month when everybody received the trial
drug. After that, another operation removed all the tubes.

When the trial was assessed afterwards (whether to Cochrane standards or
not was never mentioned, there was an average improvement calculated and
that was assessed against a target, and although everybody receiving the
trial drug showed an improvement the range from slight to great gave an
average just below the target and the drugs company refused to fund any
further work. The people conducting the trial recognised that not all
the volunteers were at the same level of disability at the outset, and
they thought that if the trial was repeated with doses individually
calculated to offset the different levels of functioning dopamine
generating brain cells available the trial could have got over the
target threshold, but the money was not made available.

This was one example of the benefits being derived not being sufficient
on average to be scientific proof, despite some of the volunteers almost
getting their full pre-Parkinsons life back.

Jim

In article <ss3mp5$afn$1@dont-email.me>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/01/2022 10:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> >
> > In article <ss20sk$m1a$2@dont-email.me>,
> > Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
> >>> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
> >>> upwards - extreme transmission.
> >
> >> Right now levels in the UK are falling rapidly.
> >
> > Yes, thankfully that's true.
> >
> > Some people who should know, are claiming that Omicron (anagram:
> > moronic) is the best vaccine yet, offering natural immunity and a
> > lower health risk than the current vaccines.

Just on the off chance I thought I'd see what Mr. Nasty is saying
this morning.

> Again an absurd claim made without provenance.
> There is no way that omicron (anagram: moronic, as demonstrated by
> your behaviour) can be safer than any of the approved vaccines.

I never claimed it was! I claimed others said it was.

Here's the first place (before christmas) I saw the claim that
Omicron is safer than the vaccines, there have been others ...

Here's the first place I saw the claim that Omicron is safer than the
vaccines, there have been others ...

Interesting video, following science not narrative/agenda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Su878hS_wghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Su878hS_wg

At around 22.5 minutes into the video.

> However, what it might do is infect sufficient numbers of the
> unvaccinated, although it might also kill some of them, to
> increase thereby the level of herd immunity.

> > I'm not claiming that, I don't have the numbers/knowledge but
> > it's interesting. Certainly more credible than Neil Ferguson
> > /sage models but most things are.

> False claims reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

There is no false claim in my post as I have proved above.

Once again though we have your unhinged, vile, nasty hatred showing
as you have yet another tantrum.

Bob.