On 09/11/2021 10:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> writes
>> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:

>>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.

>> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed, support
>> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
>> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
>> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
>> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.

>> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.

> Which is exactly what I keep trying to say in many of my pro-Remain
> posts - only I don't have 'The Latin'!

With respect, Ian, you pile supposition upon supposition...;-)

--
Spike

On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST*  evidence that the outbreak
>> began in the lab.
>
> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.

Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
to the outbreak.

> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
> begin in the lab either.

But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
and if new data appears that proves it false.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 12:40:21 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
> On 06/11/2021 19:52, Pamela wrote:
> > On 19:20 6 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
SNIP

>
> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use it
> on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on the
> Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can test
> out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki) varieties.
>

The USA did not test the uranium bomb - they knew it would work - and it did.
If they weren't sure they risked a failed, but potentially viable A bomb literally falling into enemy hands.

The USA DID test the plutonium bomb on 16th July 1945 in New Mexico.

Dropping the bombs avoided an amphibious invasion of Japan, which would have been a bloodbath for the allies, likely including my youngest uncle, who was being trained for it. The casualties and material losses for the Japanese would have been an order of magnitude greater if their home islands had been invaded - millions rather than ~200,000 killed in the attacks.

As an aside there was a large proportion of Jewish members of the Manhattan team and reputedly many of them were disappointed that it was not ready in time to drop on Berlin.

> --
> Max Demian

On 09/11/2021 08:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <smc6km$790$1@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>> live with what is around now.
>
> Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.

The hypocritical blame game, remind me again, who was it who trolled
uk.tech.digital-tv solidly for 18 months on the trot with sometimes
dangerous climate and covid disinformation?

> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

Let me remind you again what Peter Daszac, who has visited the lab at
Wuhan, said about the work there:

"So what we do is we look at bats, we get the genetic sequences, we
don't collect the viruses we collect the genetic code of the viruses,
it's not infectious material, because from the genetic sequence of the
virus you can tell pretty clearly whether it's likely to be able to
infect people. So what we're looking for are viruses that can infect
people, that are close to SARS, that could potentially cause a pandemic.
It's exactly what's happened with covid-19, that's what we've been
working on for 15 years, [to] try and stop this happening."

[...]

"One of the reasons scientists create these chimaeric viruses [...] they
do this so that we don't have to collect live samples and ship them
round the world, it's to protect public health. So what you can do now,
is you can get a virus that's NOT risky for people, and you can put one
of the spike proteins into that virus, and test it in the lab to see if
vaccines will work against the high risk virus. This work has already
been used to test drugs against covid-19 [...] designing vaccines to
save our lives"

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/11/2021 22:15, abelard wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>>
>>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>>
>> Bullshit,
>
> rest binned unread

Proving a closed mind unwilling to accept evidence contrary to beliefs.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09/11/2021 09:25, Spike wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.
>
> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.

It can *NOT* be thus shown.

> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.

And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08:18 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <smc6km$790$1@dont-email.me>,
> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>> live with what is around now.
>
> Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.
>
> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
>
> Bob.

If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?

Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?

Does apportioning blame satisfy someone's agenda or score points?

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:35:49 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 08/11/2021 22:15, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>>>
>>>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>>>
>>> Bullshit,
>>
>> rest binned unread
>
>Proving a closed mind unwilling to accept evidence contrary to beliefs.

you must console yourself as best you may

like so many, you suffer from confirmation bias

look it up and learn

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:24:32 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> We
>should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>and if new data appears that proves it false.

no, far far from it

'we' 'should'....
make *no* assumptions and prepare for as many
possibilities as profitable

'we' 'should' also look at the costliness of various
assumptions

On 09/11/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
>>> began in the lab.
>>
>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>
> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
> to the outbreak.

It is also worth noting that nearly everybody in the Wuhan facility who
cast doubts on the biological security seems to have been removed from
public view. Or they were reported as deaths from the virus.

I wouldn't want to upset the Chinese State. Would you?
>
>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>> begin in the lab either.
>
> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>
The evidence is dated a fair while after the initial outbreak (lockdowns
can be useful in that respect). It gave the Chinese plenty of time to
clean the toilet before letting anyone else into it.

And I have still not seen a sensible explanation of why part of the
pangolin genome was in the early cases investigated[1], when the
publicly available information was based on bats.

[1] The research paper I found on-line at the time the virus first hit
the news is strangely no longer around and the search engines no longer
suggest it ever existed. Quite a thorough clean of the toilet!

Perhaps I am more cynical than you! We can agree to differ.

Jim

On 09/11/2021 14:17, abelard wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:35:49 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 22:15, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>>>>
>>>>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit,
>>>
>>> rest binned unread
>>
>> Proving a closed mind unwilling to accept evidence contrary to beliefs.
>
> you must console yourself as best you may

It's skin off your nose, not mine.

> like so many, you suffer from confirmation bias
>
> look it up and learn

Like so many you know SFA about science, and refuse to look it up and learn.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09/11/2021 14:26, abelard wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:24:32 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> We
>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>
> no, far far from it
>
> 'we' 'should'....
> make *no* assumptions and prepare for as many
> possibilities as profitable
>
> 'we' 'should' also look at the costliness of various
> assumptions

That is unscientific; this is simply a matter of whether the Wuhan lab
leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
have no relevance to such a discussion.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 16:36:51 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 09/11/2021 14:26, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 13:24:32 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We
>>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>>
>> no, far far from it
>>
>> 'we' 'should'....
>> make *no* assumptions and prepare for as many
>> possibilities as profitable
>>
>> 'we' 'should' also look at the costliness of various
>> assumptions
>
>That is unscientific; this is simply a matter of whether the Wuhan lab
>leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
>much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
>have no relevance to such a discussion.

rotfl

On 09/11/2021 14:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 09/11/2021 13:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST*  evidence that the outbreak
>>>> began in the lab.
>>>
>>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>>
>> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
>> to the outbreak.
>
> It is also worth noting that nearly everybody in the Wuhan facility who
> cast doubts on the biological security seems to have been removed from
> public view.  Or they were reported as deaths from the virus.

Evidence?

> I wouldn't want to upset the Chinese State. Would you?

No, but nor would I if I'd been selling farmed wild animals illegally in
the market.

>>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>>> begin in the lab either.
>>
>> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
>> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option.  We
>> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
>> and if new data appears that proves it false.
>
> The evidence is dated a fair while after the initial outbreak (lockdowns
> can be useful in that respect).  It gave the Chinese plenty of time to
> clean the toilet before letting anyone else into it.

Yes, but as I've already explained, there are several possible reasons
why the Chinese should have wished to clean the toilet, and a lab leak
is by no means most likely.

> And I have still not seen a sensible explanation of why part of the
> pangolin genome was in the early cases investigated[1], when the
> publicly available information was based on bats.
>
> [1]  The research paper I found on-line at the time the virus first hit
> the news is strangely no longer around and the search engines no longer
> suggest it ever existed.  Quite a thorough clean of the toilet!

No it hasn't, and it didn't say that anyway:
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463

Here's how I replied to you at the time, note particularly the last
sentence:

>> If you want to have a look at some samples, you can look through
>>
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-aggressive-l-type-strain-affecting-70-per-cent-of-cases/

>> (L and S types)
>
> Links to the same paper at academic.oup.com [above] concerning virus
> analysis, which, although you say it's too complicated for you, sounds
> like what you were describing up thread. Is that not the one? BTW,
> some of the detail is beyond my knowledge too, but the summary and an
> early diagram tells us quite a lot in plain English; viz, it's closely
> related to bat corona viruses that have also crossed into pangolins,
> though this particular one, SARS-Cov-2, came direct to us without
> going via pangolins as some had posited early in the outbreak.

Also anyway, there's no particular reason why it couldn't've come to us
via pangolins, they're the world's most illegally trafficked animal, it
just happened that in this particular pandemic, pangolins were not involved.

> Perhaps I am more cynical than you!  We can agree to differ.

Sure, but you're not being realistic.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09/11/2021 16:50, abelard wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 16:36:51 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>
>> That is unscientific; this is simply a matter of whether the Wuhan lab
>> leak conspiracy theory has any scientific credibility, and if so how
>> much compared to other possible origins; 'profitable' and 'costliness'
>> have no relevance to such a discussion.
>
> rotfl
>

So, just as I supposed, you have no rational argument to make.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09/11/2021 16:53, Java Jive wrote:

> No it hasn't, and it didn't say that anyway:
> https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/6/1012/5775463

Thanks for the reminder. That was the report that sparked my curiosity
and I went hunting for further information. It was just idle curiosity
then and I didn't think at the time I would want to revisit it, so I
didn't log where to find again the other information I had found, which
were mostly drafts for review rather than finished papers. They are the
ones that I haven't found again.

I remember noting that the USA example appeared to show that the S and L
variants could both infect the same person concurrently, and I wondered
if they should therefore be treated as two separate infections (like
SARS and Covid-19 are) rather than just two variants of a virus under
investigation.
>
> Here's how I replied to you at the time, note particularly the last
> sentence:
>
> >> If you want to have a look at some samples, you can look through
> >>
> https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/coronavirus-aggressive-l-type-strain-affecting-70-per-cent-of-cases/
>
The "Reader Q&A" is useful. It explains why viruses tend to be more
virulent in the winter. I knew that they were but didn't know the reason
before.

It was all quite a while ago and now that the mindset seems to have
moved from "Can we defeat it?" to "How do we live with it?", how it all
originated is not so important to me.

Churchill had an interesting view:
"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times in enemy action"
Two nasty coronaviruses have started from China. I will treat it as
coincidence for now.

Jim

On 2021-11-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 21:59, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> There is still no *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST*  evidence that the outbreak
>>> began in the lab.
>>
>> There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
>> go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
>> scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.
>
> Let me remind you that EchoAlliance had staff working in their lab prior
> to the outbreak.
>
>> Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
>> goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
>> world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
>> there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
>> begin in the lab either.
>
> But there is evidence from scientists who have been to China to
> investigate the issue that it's the lowest probability option. We
> should assume the highest probability option is the correct one until
> and if new data appears that proves it false.

According to the British Medical Journal, China has stymied research
into Covid-19's origins:

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1890

"The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan
Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months, not least
because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s
government."

The world "needs a proper investigation" into how Covid-19 started:

https://www.economist.com/international/2021/08/21/the-world-needs-a-proper-investigation-into-how-covid-19-started

"In March the joint study reported that it was “extremely unlikely”
that the virus had been released in a laboratory accident. Dr Ben
Embarek revealed that this conclusion did not come from a balanced
assessment of all the relevant evidence but from a steadfast refusal
by the Chinese members of the joint study to support anything
stronger. Indeed they only allowed even that minimal assessment on the
condition that the report did not call for further investigation into
the question".

Even the WHO has backtracked and is pushing for a more thorough report.
You continue to believe the flawed study heavily overseen and managed by
the CCP if it makes you feel better, though.

On 2021-11-09, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08:18 9 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
>> In article <smc6km$790$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
>>> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
>>> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
>>> live with what is around now.
>>
>> Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.
>>
>> It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
>> EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
>> that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
>>
>> Bob.
>
> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
> virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?

The virus wasn't "weaponised". It wasn't even a weapon.

> Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?

Hopefully, firmer controls on research and genetic engineering. I'd
also like to see some form of restitution.

> Does apportioning blame satisfy someone's agenda or score points?

It's not about blame. It's about responsibility. Was it okay when the
USSR ultimately leaked radiation that went as far as Denmark?

On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 09:25, Spike wrote:

>> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:

>>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
>>> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
>>> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.

>> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
>> the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
>> that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
>> the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
>> Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.

> It can *NOT* be thus shown.

>> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>> that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.

> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.

It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
ignoring such things.

--
Spike

In article <hb8jog52elfl39486abvers65gapgknhq7@4ax.com>, abelard
<abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
> >> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
> >
> >Bullshit,

> rest binned unread

Well, if you actually read though the detail of his earlier explanations
you'd be able to decide for yourself on an informed basis what terms are
most appropriate and have an informed 'opinion' on that.

Better, of course, to do your own analysis/investigation and present the
details here for JJ and any others who may be interested to examine.

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've removed the xposting.

In article <smdtls$ml5$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed.
> > support the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can
> > be shown that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to
> > violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the
> > Stefan Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.

> It can *NOT* be thus shown.

In one sense it can :-)...

*IF* someone misunderstands, misrepresents, oversimplifies, or is
clueless about the actual science they can 'show' anything they fancy based
on their erronious beliefs about the science/evidence. e.g. the earlier
example of Bob's "two point paper". Self-referentially, it can seem fine.
But expose it to mere reality and it blows away.

The science on the basic point wrt thermodynamics, etc, is established,
though. CO2 causing warming is consistent with the basic physics provided
you understand how it applies. Nor is this a 'consensus' but standard
physics applied to the correctly specified situation.

Alas, clueless wilful misunderstandings are common in this area and others.

FWIW The first thoughts that ran though my mind when I read the claim about
Stephan's Law were those I suspect would occur to many people who know
more than primary school physics.

1) Stephan's Law is for *Black Body* radiation.

2) ...erm... The Earth is NOT a 'Black Body'. It's absorbtion/emission
behaviour varies with wavelength, surface details, atmospheric layering,
etc, etc, over time.

Hence if you change the atmospheric conditions you can change the
absorbtion/emission behaviour, and hence temperatures on Earth.

So to a physicist the bald claim does look like another example of
a 'Sour Cherry' from someone else than Bob. i.e. a 'result' presented
as 'science' when it ain't, by someone who is simply showing their
lack of understanding of physics, or a wish to believe nonsense, or
shit-stir.

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 Tue, 09 Nov 2021 13:58:20 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
>virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?

If that really is what happened, then let's hope that whoever was
responsible has learned from it that anything infectious intended as a
weapon is as much use as nuclear bombs, in that if anybody uses it the
entire world suffers and nobody wins.

You'd think that anybody with half a brain would have realised this
already, which doesn't say much for the intelligence or equanimity of
the average world leader. Truly we live in troubled times. Actually I
suppose we always have, but now we live in troubled times in which the
idiots in charge have global destruction a their fingertips.

Rod.

xposting trimmed.

In article <iv1jlgFtpimU2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 09/11/2021 09:25, Spike wrote:

> >> On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:

> >>> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus, most scientists in
> >>> the field think a lab leak is the least likely, and classify it as
> >>> somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.

> >> That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed.
> >> support the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can
> >> be shown that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has
> >> to violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the
> >> Stefan Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.

> > It can *NOT* be thus shown.

> >> And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments
> >> in that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad
> >> verecundiam.

> > And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
> > theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.

> It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
> ignoring such things.

I guess it is a parallel in that both are examples of non-scientific
twaddle presented as being 'science' when they are (sour) cherries.

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 <598923ba51noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> I guess it is a parallel in that both are examples of non-scientific
> twaddle presented as being 'science' when they are (sour) cherries.

All views not held by agenda following lefties must be wrong. People
with other views must be attacked and bullied into silence. Be as
personal and nasty as possible.

I for one will not be bullied.

Bob.

On 10/11/2021 10:02, Incubus wrote:

>> If the lab in Wuhan has developed some military-sponsored weaponised
>> virus which leaked then how does that make any practical difference?
>
> The virus wasn't "weaponised". It wasn't even a weapon.
>
>> Where does this Wuhan debate lead to?
>
> Hopefully, firmer controls on research and genetic engineering. I'd
> also like to see some form of restitution.
>

That's the point. It is too risky for the Chinese to cooperate.