In article <sndukf$pe6$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.

Neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics (standard model) have been
'proven'. That's not the way science works.

But both are regarded as fairly reliable and useful as descriptions of the
bulk of what we have observed.

The scientific approach is always 'provisional' but given reasonable
evidence can allow us to draw conclusions upon which to base our decision
*unless and until* clear evidence to the contrary is found to stand up to
tests, when we change our view.

I only have limited awareness of the particular 'scrap' about the source of
covid. But so far as I know the bulk of evidence and learned (about the
relevant virology, etc) judgement is that it came to man via vectors via
routes like 'wet meat' marketing, exposure to wild animals, etc. Not a leak
from a 'suspect' lab.

So that's my personal assumption, until the body of those who have years or
success in the relevant science may be able to show evidence to the
contrary.

If 'Spike' or some others can show they do understand these basic points
as well as present assesable evidence rather than claims we could all make
a better judgement over changing our conclusions.

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 <ivvd4lFl5fiU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the
> climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
> numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
> known either.

Deluded sweeping bluster/assertions showing a lack of understanding and a.
basic 4th form error: To say we don't know EVERYTHING isn't a synonym for
WE KNOW NOTHING.

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 <ivvdunFlb62U1@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.

> And the science says "We don't know enough about the issue".

As with Spike's earlier posting, this one shows a classic failing of
understanding of the scientific process.

We know enough to draw reliable conclusions about various factors and
outcomes with a fair amount of accuracy. The biggest 'unknown' at present
is what actions *humans* decide to take - or not - from now on.

So we "don't know enough" to deal *with absolute precision* with how much
the climate will change. But we know it *will* change to a serious extent
(in terms of impact on humanity,etc), varied by how we behave from now on.

Newton's Laws don't *exactly* predict the motions of Mars. But they do so
well enough to allow us to land probes there... provided mere engineers
know the difference between inches and cms. 8-]

And multibody gravitational interactions are also exposed to mathematical
'chaos'. But that doesn't mean we can't predict motions with remarkable
accuracy well into the future.

So far, 'Spike's assertions on utdt seem to show a lack of understanding of
a waide range of science and maths, underminding his own sweeping claims.
If he writes more sensibly elsewhere, he seems to choose not to do so here!
What we can't tell is if his errors are deliberate or are genuine failures.

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 <sne4aa$hr$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Any company, and organisation for that matter, I've encountered of size
> is Windows based except for niche use cases (creatives and astronomers
> like Macs). It's nowt to do with news or PR, it's what I observe.

I've agreed that's common. But it tells you more about the limited
experience and assumptions of many of them. Not a judgement based on
actually being able to compare the range of options in an informed manner.

The problem is that many are - from school onwards - habituated and trained
and develop inbuilt assumptions without real knowledge of alternatives.
They don't know what they don't know, and never have time to find out,
having left school 'trained' not educated.

Its similar in a way to people who pass A-Levels (or get degrees) in a
science subject 'by book' without ever actually understanding the
scientific method and how to employ it. They are fine at dealing with
problems that were 'in the books' but can struggle outside that scope.

This shows up when choosing and having PhD students in particular, because
at this point they have to think beyond what was 'in the textbooks'.

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 <sneh1i$qaj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 16:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > Even the Linux file manager works pretty much the same way as the
> > Windows one, so if I decided to change my main system tomorrow I'd
> > hardly have to learn anything new.
> >
> A quick proof of the pudding -

> I have a friend who has a home laptop she doesn't use a great deal, but
> it does allow her to keep in touch by e-mail and to buy online tickets
> for events or travel, and to write letters. It ran Vista.

> When Microsoft declared the end of support for Vista, she asked me what
> she should do, and I said I would upgrade it for her. She dropped the
> laptop off at my house so that I could do that.

> I dumped off all her personal files (usefully defaulted to "My
> Documents" "My Music" etc, so nothing complicated there) to a pen drive.
> Then I installed Linux Mint, which wiped the disc of Vista, and then I
> configured it to look exactly like the Vista desktop she was used to,
> and ...

[snip]

> I gave it back to her simply saying I have updated it, and even a couple
> of years later she still thinks she is running "upgraded Vista". I
> haven't disillusioned her.

Interesting. :-)

I've never tried doing that to anyone because I'd probably not get it right
because it is so long since I've used doze and I'd not 'fake it' well
enough.

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 22/11/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sndukf$pe6$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> No one theory has been proven yet, not even your favourite one.
>
> Neither General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics (standard model) have been
> 'proven'. That's not the way science works.
>
> But both are regarded as fairly reliable and useful as descriptions of the
> bulk of what we have observed.
>
> The scientific approach is always 'provisional' but given reasonable
> evidence can allow us to draw conclusions upon which to base our decision
> *unless and until* clear evidence to the contrary is found to stand up to
> tests, when we change our view.
>
> I only have limited awareness of the particular 'scrap' about the source of
> covid. But so far as I know the bulk of evidence and learned (about the
> relevant virology, etc) judgement is that it came to man via vectors via
> routes like 'wet meat' marketing, exposure to wild animals, etc. Not a leak
> from a 'suspect' lab.
>
> So that's my personal assumption, until the body of those who have years or
> success in the relevant science may be able to show evidence to the
> contrary.
>
> If 'Spike' or some others can show they do understand these basic points
> as well as present assesable evidence rather than claims we could all make
> a better judgement over changing our conclusions.
>

All perfectly fair for a scientific theory. But I wonder if that's the
right "scientific" analogy. Suppose you had a tumour. Its presentation
and the tests to date show there is a 95% probability it is benign and a
5% probability it is aggressively malign with less than 1% chance of 5+
years survival. If malign, treatment gives an 80% chance of 5+ years
survival. Would you want further, non-lethal investigation to seek to
establish which it is? Or would you settle for the 95%?

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:28:59 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <sneh1i$qaj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
><bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 16:28, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> > Even the Linux file manager works pretty much the same way as the
>> > Windows one, so if I decided to change my main system tomorrow I'd
>> > hardly have to learn anything new.
>> >
>> A quick proof of the pudding -
>
>> I have a friend who has a home laptop she doesn't use a great deal, but
>> it does allow her to keep in touch by e-mail and to buy online tickets
>> for events or travel, and to write letters. It ran Vista.
>
>> When Microsoft declared the end of support for Vista, she asked me what
>> she should do, and I said I would upgrade it for her. She dropped the
>> laptop off at my house so that I could do that.
>
>> I dumped off all her personal files (usefully defaulted to "My
>> Documents" "My Music" etc, so nothing complicated there) to a pen drive.
>> Then I installed Linux Mint, which wiped the disc of Vista, and then I
>> configured it to look exactly like the Vista desktop she was used to,
>> and ...
>
>[snip]
>
>> I gave it back to her simply saying I have updated it, and even a couple
>> of years later she still thinks she is running "upgraded Vista". I
>> haven't disillusioned her.
>
>Interesting. :-)
>
>I've never tried doing that to anyone because I'd probably not get it right
>because it is so long since I've used doze and I'd not 'fake it' well
>enough.
>
>Jim

I've found that if you give visiting grandchildren (6yo & upwards) the
use of a computer with Linux Mint installed with pretty much default
settings and no attempt to "fake" anything, they don't ask any
questions. They just go straight to the web browser and search for the
games they already play online at home. It looks a bit like Windows,
which is apparently near enough. They don't seem to care what it looks
like as long as it works.

Rod.

On 22/11/2021 13:44, Robin wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> The scientific approach is always 'provisional' but given reasonable
>> evidence can allow us to draw conclusions upon which to base our decision
>> *unless and until* clear evidence to the contrary is found to stand up to
>> tests, when we change our view.
>>
>> I only have limited awareness of the particular 'scrap' about the
>> source of
>> covid. But so far as I know the bulk of evidence and learned (about the
>> relevant virology, etc) judgement is that it came to man via vectors via
>> routes like 'wet meat' marketing, exposure to wild animals, etc. Not a
>> leak
>> from a 'suspect' lab.
>>
>> So that's my personal assumption, until the body of those who have
>> years or
>> success in the relevant science may be able to show evidence to the
>> contrary.
>>
>> If 'Spike' or some others can show they do understand these basic points
>> as well as present assesable evidence rather than claims we could all
>> make
>> a better judgement over changing our conclusions.
>
> All perfectly fair for a scientific theory.  But I wonder if that's the
> right "scientific" analogy.  Suppose you had a tumour.  Its presentation
> and the tests to date show there is a 95% probability it is benign and a
> 5% probability it is aggressively malign with less than 1% chance of 5+
> years survival.  If malign, treatment gives an 80% chance of 5+ years
> survival.  Would you want further, non-lethal investigation to seek to
> establish which it is?  Or would you settle for the 95%?

That's not really a good analogy, because there is the possibility of
further investigation to clinch it, while with the origins of covid such
a further investigations is extremely unlikely ever to be possible.

So we have to go with what the science tells us at the moment, which is
that the origin was least likely to be a lab-leak, and most likely to be
via the wet-market.

If Spike wants to convince us otherwise, then he has to produce some
relevant and meaningful evidence, which thus far he has miserably failed
to do.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2021 17:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> the science is not equivocal, the balance of it is
>> firmly against the lab-leak conspiracy theory.
>
> But anyway, can we now be clear that you are confirming that there is no
> scientific evidence whatsoever that supports a WIV lab leak?

What is it about the phrase still quoted above that you have such
difficulty in understanding the meaning of? I said the balance of
scientific evidence is firmly against a lab-leak, that doesn't imply
that there was no evidence at all.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a "secure
>>> laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free access which
>>> has been your position.  There is currently no way of telling whether
>>> the evidence was false then or is false now,
>
>> Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let me
>> remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:
>
>> BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>
> Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.

Whereas Spike who has yet to produce any relevant *EVIDENCE* to the
lab-leak origin is more reliable than the BBC? No, this is just trying
to shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.

>> "I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'
>
> That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
> blowing,
>
> Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific evidence
> that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?

I've already linked to two ambivalent reports by the BBC.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/11/2021 11:07, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I don't have a closed mind, then and now I was following the evidence
>
> The evidence is just a probability not a certainty.
>
> Reading: GOOD
> Writing: GOOD
> Comprehension:  NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
>
> You might enjoy banging continuously on the same drum, but I now have
> more important things to do with my time than to try to educate a closed
> mind.
>
> So I won't bother. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The above intended criticism of me applies much more accurately to you.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/11/2021 13:53, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 13:44, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 22/11/2021 10:07, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>> The scientific approach is always 'provisional' but given reasonable
>>> evidence can allow us to draw conclusions upon which to base our
>>> decision
>>> *unless and until* clear evidence to the contrary is found to stand
>>> up to
>>> tests, when we change our view.
>>>
>>> I only have limited awareness of the particular 'scrap' about the
>>> source of
>>> covid. But so far as I know the bulk of evidence and learned (about the
>>> relevant virology, etc) judgement is that it came to man via vectors via
>>> routes like 'wet meat' marketing, exposure to wild animals, etc. Not
>>> a leak
>>> from a 'suspect' lab.
>>>
>>> So that's my personal assumption, until the body of those who have
>>> years or
>>> success in the relevant science may be able to show evidence to the
>>> contrary.
>>>
>>> If 'Spike' or some others can show they do understand these basic points
>>> as well as present assesable evidence rather than claims we could all
>>> make
>>> a better judgement over changing our conclusions.
>>
>> All perfectly fair for a scientific theory.  But I wonder if that's
>> the right "scientific" analogy.  Suppose you had a tumour.  Its
>> presentation and the tests to date show there is a 95% probability it
>> is benign and a 5% probability it is aggressively malign with less
>> than 1% chance of 5+ years survival.  If malign, treatment gives an
>> 80% chance of 5+ years survival.  Would you want further, non-lethal
>> investigation to seek to establish which it is?  Or would you settle
>> for the 95%?
>
> That's not really a good analogy, because there is the possibility of
> further investigation to clinch it, while with the origins of covid such
> a further investigations is extremely unlikely ever to be possible.

> So we have to go with what the science tells us at the moment, which is
> that the origin was least likely to be a lab-leak, and most likely to be
> via the wet-market.

But "accept that the issue won't be clarified" does not equate to
"believe as an article of faith that it was the wet market and dismiss
the mere possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory". The latter
strikes me as more reminiscent of the Supreme Sacred Congregation than
of a "desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness
to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in
order".

> If Spike wants to convince us otherwise, then he has to produce some
> relevant and meaningful evidence, which thus far he has miserably failed
> to do.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model the
>>>>> climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
>>>>> numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are not
>>>>> known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
>>>>> contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
>>>>> never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
>>>>> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed,
>>>>> and which, given their far greater effect on the climate than trace
>>>>> gasses, is astonishing.
>
>>>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need to
>>>>> make.
>
>>>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of our
>>>> uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it doesn't call
>>>> into question the scientific evidence supporting AGW.
>
>>> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
>>
>> Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so badly:
>
>> https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>
> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
> What is it that they are afraid of?

They debunk people like you that propagate dishonest conspiracy theories.

> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't know,
> we've got climate change sussed?
>
> That's a brave position to take.

I'm saying that the science shows that we're warming the planet, as
still quoted below.

>> The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse gas
>> emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called 'Climategate' with
>> denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to investigate the CRU
>> 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions
>> as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were on the Berkeley
>> Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that
>> global warming is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU
>> are not frauds. It means it’s not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over
>> temperature so that we can focus on the part of the debate that really
>> matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it?
>> What should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation between
>> CO2 and temperature in their findings:
>>
>> http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>
> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
>
> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your
> research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
> "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".

I wouldn't have thought my quote above could possibly be misinterpreted,
but given your dishonest determination to do so, let me try again: after
the 'climategate' debacle concerning the global warming findings of the
CRU, denialist oil millionaires the Koch brothers funded Berkeley Earth
to investigate the findings of the CRU, presumably in the hope that they
would expose some sort of fraud, bad science, or whatever. However,
Berkeley Earth, instead of finding against the CRU, actually *confirmed*
the CRU's findings.

So the CRU were cleared by a scientific investigation funded by
denialist money, and as it is often said, "He who pays the piper calls
the tune!", that could be seen as being worth rather more than being
cleared by an investigation that was funded otherwise.

And note the good correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17:15 21 Nov 2021, Spike said:

> On 21/11/2021 13:49, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>>> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the
>>> drivers of climate are a bit more complicated than what is
>>> currently modelled, and look forward to further research which
>>> might explain why the start of each ice age has been preceded by a
>>> couple of centuries of abnormally high temperatures, even before
>>> mankind evolved.
>
>> For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's
>> time here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of
>> which you could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable
>> research online.
>
> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model
> the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
> numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are
> not known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
> contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
> never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
> assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the climate
> than trace gasses, is astonishing.
>
> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need
> to make.

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

On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:
>
> On 21/11/2021 17:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> No, we don’t support ideas that fly in the face of the what evidence is
>> known, that is unscientific.
>
> But do you support the science that throws doubt on the view of WIV
> being benign?

I can't know until you provide some, we're still waiting for your
*EVIDENCE*!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09:19 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:

> On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>>> It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a
>>> "secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free
>>> access which has been your position.  There is currently no way
>>> of telling whether the evidence was false then or is false now,
>
>> Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let
>> me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:
>
>> BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6
>
> Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.
>
>> "I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'
>
> That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
> blowing,
>
> Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific
> evidence that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?

Don't you distinguish between an authority's unfounded claim and the
well-founded work of an authority? Citing the latter is not an "appeal to
authority". Check your textbook.

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

What is it about "we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE
OF EVIDENCE*" that you have such difficulty in understanding?

> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.

FFS ignored? The scientific evidence is what is being most ignored here!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/11/2021 11:03, Spike wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>> what flies in the face of it.
>>
>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.
>
> In the case of the WIV, there is science supporting both sides, as Java
> Jive repeatedly admits.

But the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin, as
you will not admit.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/11/2021 14:13, Robin wrote:
>
> But "accept that the issue won't be clarified" does not equate to
> "believe as an article of faith that it was the wet market and dismiss
> the mere possibility of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory".  The latter
> strikes me as more reminiscent of the Supreme Sacred Congregation than
> of a "desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness
> to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in
> order".

The *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin. There is
in effect little or no reliable *EVIDENCE* for the WIV being the source
of the leak and, despite repeated requests to do so, Spike, Incubus,
Indy Jess John, and others have yet to come up with anything even
remotely convincing in support of this belief, what little produced
being either historically irrelevant or 'conspiracy theory' in nature.
Moreover, there is an audit trail that shows that the very first reports
that the origin was the WIV were put about by a Chinese defector funded
by Trump supporters, and almost the entirety of its history since can
easily be understood as being the result of the ...
Garbage In => Garbage Out
.... echo chamber amplifier of social media, often fomented by
politicians - particularly right-wing ones in the US who are still
sore at losing the presidential election and keen to blame anyone but
themselves - which a few scientists have then taken seriously enough
to write papers on, but the only ones that I know of supporting a
lab-leak have been disproven since by subsequent findings. So we're
left with the fact that there is in effect little or no still upstanding
evidence supporting a lab-leak origin of covid-19, and certainly nothing
convincing. Therefore to persist in believing it is to believe in
conspiracy theories, and it's noticeable that of the people we know best
who are doing so, they also believe in and/or have argued long and hard
in favour of others.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 22/11/2021 14:26, Pamela wrote:
> On 09:19 22 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 21/11/2021 22:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2021 21:49, Indy Jess John wrote:

>>>> It is interesting to see that I found reference to Wuhan being a
>>>> "secure laboratory" and not one where foreign scientists have free
>>>> access which has been your position.  There is currently no way
>>>> of telling whether the evidence was false then or is false now,

>>> Bollocks, that's another piece of conspiracy theory paranoia. Let
>>> me remind you again of what Peter Daszac was saying in May 2020:

>>> BBC Inside Science, 7/5/2020
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6

>> Ah, the BBC. That bastion of unbiased reporting. Not.

>>> "I've been working with Chinese scientists for fifteen years'

>> That's the fallacious argument of an appeal to authority. Or trumpet
>> blowing,

>> Could you find references from the BBC that include scientific
>> evidence that does /not/ agree with the benign view of the WIV?

> Don't you distinguish between an authority's unfounded claim and the
> well-founded work of an authority? Citing the latter is not an "appeal to
> authority". Check your textbook.

Well, I'm waiting for someone to cite a 'well-founded work of an
authority' in this matter.

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 14:24, Pamela wrote:
> On 17:15 21 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 21/11/2021 13:49, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2021 08:10, Indy Jess John wrote:

>>>> I am not a climate denialist either, just someone who thinks the
>>>> drivers of climate are a bit more complicated than what is
>>>> currently modelled, and look forward to further research which
>>>> might explain why the start of each ice age has been preceded by a
>>>> couple of centuries of abnormally high temperatures, even before
>>>> mankind evolved.

>>> For a non-climate-denialist, you've sure wasted a lot of everyone's
>>> time here in the past putting forward denialist arguments, most of
>>> which you could easily have debunked for yourself by suitable
>>> research online.

>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to model
>> the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the components being
>> numerous and not all being known, and the level of their inputs are
>> not known either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of the
>> contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have
>> never even 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
>> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
>> assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the climate
>> than trace gasses, is astonishing.

>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the need
>> to make.

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

Rubbish.

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 14:18, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 09:18, Spike wrote:
>> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:

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

>> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
>> What is it that they are afraid of?

> They debunk people like you that propagate dishonest conspiracy theories.

Name one.

>> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:

>> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your
>> research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
>> "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".

> I wouldn't have thought my quote above could possibly be misinterpreted,
> but given your dishonest determination to do so, let me try again: after
> the 'climategate' debacle concerning the global warming findings of the
> CRU, denialist oil millionaires the Koch brothers funded Berkeley Earth
> to investigate the findings of the CRU, presumably in the hope that they
> would expose some sort of fraud, bad science, or whatever. However,
> Berkeley Earth, instead of finding against the CRU, actually *confirmed*
> the CRU's findings.

The programmers notes were damning.

> So the CRU were cleared by a scientific investigation funded by
> denialist money, and as it is often said, "He who pays the piper calls
> the tune!", that could be seen as being worth rather more than being
> cleared by an investigation that was funded otherwise.

> And note the good correlation between CO2 and temperature rise.

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

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 13:59, Java Jive wrote:

> What is it about the phrase still quoted above that you have such
> difficulty in understanding the meaning of? I said the balance of
> scientific evidence is firmly against a lab-leak, that doesn't imply
> that there was no evidence at all.

Whose 'balance'?

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 14:25, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 09:19, Spike wrote:

>> On 21/11/2021 17:33, Java Jive wrote:

>>> No, we don’t support ideas that fly in the face of the what evidence is
>>> known, that is unscientific.

>> But do you support the science that throws doubt on the view of WIV
>> being benign?

> I can't know until you provide some, we're still waiting for your
> *EVIDENCE*!

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

--
Spike

On 22/11/2021 14:30, Java Jive wrote:
> On 22/11/2021 11:03, Spike wrote:
>> On 22/11/2021 10:24, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-21, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

>>>> No, and it's increasingly likely that no one origin will be proved, so
>>>> we have to go with what is supported by the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE*, not
>>>> what flies in the face of it.

>>> Science doesn't assert facts based on "balance of evidence",
>>> particularly when other outcomes have deliberately been ignored.

>> In the case of the WIV, there is science supporting both sides, as Java
>> Jive repeatedly admits.

> But the *BALANCE OF EVIDENCE* is firmly against a lab-leak origin, as
> you will not admit.

Whose balance?

--
Spike