On 07/11/2021 17:23, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsADDBAD786159E37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do you have any formal qualifications for subjects involving data
>> analysis?
>
> The validity of the graphs is another issue.

But is the key one here. The point is that he's comparing that graph
derived from one set of data with another graph that may or may not be
derived from another different set of data, and therefore until that
crucial point is clarified his comparisons are invalid. If you can't
see that comparing apples with oranges is not telling us anything, then
there's not much hope for you.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 05/11/2021 18:37, Java Jive wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 17:38, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>     Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18:00  4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
>>>
>>> Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
>>> student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more
>>> about viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?
>>
>> He called them out for lying. End
>
> Put your end away, no-one wants to see it here.  Yes, he did accuse them
> of lying, and perhaps could be sued unless he can prove what he says is
> true, but the ONS figures I linked in my reply didn't seem to be
> supporting him.  Also he may not have made allowances for some of the
> figures being from England as opposed to the entire UK, etc.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him.  And
> why are they using an economist to analyse health data instead of
> someone with an authentic medical background?
>

Yes clearly a stupid ignorant young man.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 17:23 7 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
>
> The validity of the graphs is another issue.
>

You incorrectly claimed that a (misleading) graph going up or down
tells you what's happening to Covid.

Perhaps you want to take your cues on the pandemic from an 10-year old
by asking him if an unrepresentative graph is going up or down.

What is the source of the data in Harwood's graph?

In article <iuqkr2Fjqa0U1@mid.individual.net>,
Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/11/2021 18:37, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 05/11/2021 17:38, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <XnsADD9AAFA768E037B93@144.76.35.252>,
> >> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 18:00 4 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
> >>>
> >>> Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe a former politics
> >>> student trying to make a name for himself on the tv knows more
> >>> about viruses and epidemiology than lifelong experts?
> >>
> >> He called them out for lying. End
> >
> > Put your end away, no-one wants to see it here. Yes, he did accuse them
> > of lying, and perhaps could be sued unless he can prove what he says is
> > true, but the ONS figures I linked in my reply didn't seem to be
> > supporting him. Also he may not have made allowances for some of the
> > figures being from England as opposed to the entire UK, etc.
> >
> > Personally, I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him. And
> > why are they using an economist to analyse health data instead of
> > someone with an authentic medical background?
> >

> Yes clearly a stupid ignorant young man.

Yes, indeed except cases are going down, The Telegraph reports 18.16%
fewer cases this week.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/coronavirus-uk-cases-deaths-world-map-live/

So not so stupid, or does the Telegraph need an "expert" to read
graphs for them too?

Bob.

On 07/11/2021 19:13, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <iuqkr2Fjqa0U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/11/2021 18:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Put your end away, no-one wants to see it here. Yes, he did accuse them
>>> of lying, and perhaps could be sued unless he can prove what he says is
>>> true, but the ONS figures I linked in my reply didn't seem to be
>>> supporting him. Also he may not have made allowances for some of the
>>> figures being from England as opposed to the entire UK, etc.
>>>
>>> Personally, I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him. And
>>> why are they using an economist to analyse health data instead of
>>> someone with an authentic medical background?
>>
>> Yes clearly a stupid ignorant young man.
>
> Yes, indeed except cases are going down, The Telegraph reports 18.16%
> fewer cases this week.
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/coronavirus-uk-cases-deaths-world-map-live/
>
> So not so stupid, or does the Telegraph need an "expert" to read
> graphs for them too?

Or is the Telegraph using national instead of UK-wide data too? The
point is that some recent figures for the last week or two do show a
fall, but others do not, so when comparing them, it's important to know
what is being compared with what, and, just some of the other media he
criticises, he fails to make this clear.

--

Fake news kills!

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

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/11/2021 19:13, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <iuqkr2Fjqa0U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/11/2021 18:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Put your end away, no-one wants to see it here. Yes, he did accuse them
>>>> of lying, and perhaps could be sued unless he can prove what he says is
>>>> true, but the ONS figures I linked in my reply didn't seem to be
>>>> supporting him. Also he may not have made allowances for some of the
>>>> figures being from England as opposed to the entire UK, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him. And
>>>> why are they using an economist to analyse health data instead of
>>>> someone with an authentic medical background?
>>>
>>> Yes clearly a stupid ignorant young man.
>>
>> Yes, indeed except cases are going down, The Telegraph reports 18.16%
>> fewer cases this week.
>>
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/coronavirus-uk-cases-deaths-world-map-live/
>>
>> So not so stupid, or does the Telegraph need an "expert" to read
>> graphs for them too?
>
> Or is the Telegraph using national instead of UK-wide data too? The
> point is that some recent figures for the last week or two do show a
> fall, but others do not, so when comparing them, it's important to know
> what is being compared with what, and, just some of the other media he
> criticises, he fails to make this clear.
>

Official uk government graphs here

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2021 19:13, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <iuqkr2Fjqa0U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/11/2021 18:37, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Put your end away, no-one wants to see it here. Yes, he did accuse them
>>>>> of lying, and perhaps could be sued unless he can prove what he says is
>>>>> true, but the ONS figures I linked in my reply didn't seem to be
>>>>> supporting him. Also he may not have made allowances for some of the
>>>>> figures being from England as opposed to the entire UK, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him. And
>>>>> why are they using an economist to analyse health data instead of
>>>>> someone with an authentic medical background?
>>>>
>>>> Yes clearly a stupid ignorant young man.
>>>
>>> Yes, indeed except cases are going down, The Telegraph reports 18.16%
>>> fewer cases this week.
>>>
>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/coronavirus-uk-cases-deaths-world-map-live/
>>>
>>> So not so stupid, or does the Telegraph need an "expert" to read
>>> graphs for them too?
>>
>> Or is the Telegraph using national instead of UK-wide data too? The
>> point is that some recent figures for the last week or two do show a
>> fall, but others do not, so when comparing them, it's important to know
>> what is being compared with what, and, just some of the other media he
>> criticises, he fails to make this clear.
>>
>
> Official uk government graphs here
>
> https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
>
>

As far as I can tell, places that had it badly earlier on in the year
aren’t so badly hit this time around. Eg Newcastle, Nottingham. The
previously worst hit area in Leicester is now showing one of the lowest
rates in the UK.

In article <59879516acbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> In all that twisting, turning and wriggling I notice you don't answer
> the question.

> Can't think why.

I can.

It is possible to tell that what someone says is false/nonsense/untrue
*without* being able to tell if they believe it or not. People fall
for all kinds of nonsense if it is what they *want* to be 'true' and
they don't bother to check the science.

Thus it may not be possible to tell if they are "lying" because that
signifies they *know* they're talking nonsense. Alas, some people 'truly
believe' nonsense or simply misunderstand (apparent) 'evidence to suit what
they wish to conclude.

That's why you need to *understand the science*, not just cherry-pick a
picture that seems to confirm what you want to believe. It's the science
that matters, not having a video or pretty picture to wave about.

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 <XnsADDBAD786159E37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is sadly becoming clear you don't understand the technical points.
> Much of this must be going over your head. I should have realised this
> when you said an epemiological analysis could be perfomed by anyone who
> can see the slope of a chart (irrespective of what the chart is
> showing).

Sadly, Bob just cherry picks without any real understanding.

He keeps doing it with CC but flatly refused to read a book that does
a good job of detailing and referencing the science. Regards it as a
'bible' without even reading it - because it's findings clash with
what he is determined to believe.

Shame, as it really is an excellent book on climate, etc, in general
with hundreds of well peer-reviewed and checked references. Gives
an excellent and detailed over-view. But paints a totally different
situation to his rigid belief system.

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 <5987bde5d5bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> It's the simplest of graphs.

> Pathetic.

> The graphs are going down. If you disagree you're an idiot.

> The validity of the graphs is another issue.

That's why you need to understand the science of how the data
they plot was obtained. That would avoid you looking as foolish
as you did with your old 'two point paper' on CC by trying to
use worthless 'results' to support your beliefs. For those
who are clueless about the science, the graph in that paper
looked impressive. For those who had a clue it was easy to
determine it was worthless as a basis for the claims then made
by the author.

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 <5987a5c2e7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <59879516acbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > In all that twisting, turning and wriggling I notice you don't answer
> > the question.

> > Can't think why.

> I can.

> It is possible to tell that what someone says is
> false/nonsense/untrue *without* being able to tell if they believe
> it or not. People fall for all kinds of nonsense if it is what they
> *want* to be 'true' and they don't bother to check the science.

> Thus it may not be possible to tell if they are "lying" because
> that signifies they *know* they're talking nonsense. Alas, some
> people 'truly believe' nonsense or simply misunderstand (apparent)
> 'evidence to suit what they wish to conclude.

Do you actually understand what the question was?

It wasn't about anyone lying.

The question was "are the graphs correct" ?

> That's why you need to *understand the science*, not just
> cherry-pick a picture that seems to confirm what you want to
> believe. It's the science that matters, not having a video or
> pretty picture to wave about.

Bullshit. It's just more of I'm superior to you and therefore you
can't even begin to understand the graph unless you're clever like me.

That's what you're saying isn't it?

Here's the point. He said the graphs show falling infections for the
last two weeks. MSM gave 3 other views but were not time specific.

Looking at the graphs he gave, his comment matches what the graphs
show.

Do you deny that?

Do you think you need some special maths education to make that
judgement for that two weeks?

Do you think that this is fair comment...

Coronavirus epidemic escalating by the day.
or
With cases rising in school age children.

I'm very confident you would fail 'O' level maths if of the 3
descriptions you didn't pick Harwood's description as being the most
correct. Because he defined the period he was referring to and
correctly described the graph as falling in that period.

If you wish to be obtuse you could say ah well, MSM are talking long
term but even that leaves them guilty of very selective reporting or
lying by omission.

So, it comes down as I said before to : Are the graphs correct ?

Yes or no?

Bob.

In article <5987c2982anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5987bde5d5bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > It's the simplest of graphs.

> > Pathetic.

> > The graphs are going down. If you disagree you're an idiot.

> > The validity of the graphs is another issue.

> That's why you need to understand the science of how the data
> they plot was obtained. That would avoid you looking as foolish
> as you did with your old 'two point paper' on CC by trying to
> use worthless 'results' to support your beliefs. For those
> who are clueless about the science, the graph in that paper
> looked impressive. For those who had a clue it was easy to
> determine it was worthless as a basis for the claims then made
> by the author.

I didn't make any claim about how good the graphs are. I keep asking
the lefties on here that very question. I was attacked for saying
that Harwood's description of his graphs was reasonable and it most
definitely was/is.

Seems to me you're just trying to win an argument by yet more
personal attacks. You really are a piece of work aren't you.

Lefty play book 101. When your argument is piss poor -
Rubbish your opponent as nasty and personal as possible and then
dismiss his argument as cherry picking, don't actually address the
issue whatever you do.

I'll ask again.

Are the graphs correct?

Bob.

In article <5987c2d424noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> Sadly, Bob just cherry picks without any real understanding.

Translation.

Bob often makes correct observations which I cannot argue are not
true because they are true and we both know it. The only thing I can
do to defend is to dismiss his truth as cherry picking and attack him
personally.

Bob.

On 08/11/2021 11:21, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Seems to me you're just trying to win an argument by yet more
> personal attacks. You really are a piece of work aren't you.
>
> Lefty play book 101. When your argument is piss poor -
> Rubbish your opponent as nasty and personal as possible and then
> dismiss his argument as cherry picking, don't actually address the
> issue whatever you do.

You really are the most nauseating hyposhite.

> Are the graphs correct?

The issue is more: "Is what he said about other news organisations
correct?", because he doesn't clarify either what data they were based
upon, nor what data his own graphs were based upon, though in the latter
case we can see that it England only, whereas quite likely the others
were talking about UK wide.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/11/2021 11:26, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5987c2d424noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Sadly, Bob just cherry picks without any real understanding.
>
> Translation.
>
> Bob often makes correct observations which I cannot argue are not
> true because they are true and we both know it. The only thing I can
> do to defend is to dismiss his truth as cherry picking and attack him
> personally.

Translation: I'm an ignorant bull-shitter who is nearly always in the
wrong with an overpowering quasi-religious bigotry in favour of the
right-wing, and anything that goes against the right-wing must be
demonised correspondingly.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18:14 7 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <5987bde5d5bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> It's the simplest of graphs.
>
>> Pathetic.
>
>> The graphs are going down. If you disagree you're an idiot.
>
>> The validity of the graphs is another issue.
>
> That's why you need to understand the science of how the data
> they plot was obtained. That would avoid you looking as foolish
> as you did with your old 'two point paper' on CC by trying to
> use worthless 'results' to support your beliefs.

Is there a summary of that incident? I missed it.

> For those
> who are clueless about the science, the graph in that paper
> looked impressive. For those who had a clue it was easy to
> determine it was worthless as a basis for the claims then made
> by the author.
>
> Jim

On 11:26 8 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <5987c2d424noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sadly, Bob just cherry picks without any real understanding.
>
> Translation.
>
> Bob often makes correct observations which I cannot argue are not
> true because they are true and we both know it. The only thing I can
> do to defend is to dismiss his truth as cherry picking and attack
> him personally.
>
> Bob.

Bob how would you know if you are delusional? Your self-image as a
decent, honest and intelligent person would provide no information.

Isn't the way one learns of inner delusions by weighing the reaction
in others and seeing if your understadning of the world is shared by
the majority?

Some individuals believe they alone are correct and the world would be
a better place if everyone else saw things their way. However that
happens to be a diagnositic characteristic for a personality
disorder.

On 11:10 8 Nov 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <5987a5c2e7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <59879516acbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > In all that twisting, turning and wriggling I notice you don't
>> > answer the question.
>
>> > Can't think why.
>
>> I can.
>
>> It is possible to tell that what someone says is
>> false/nonsense/untrue *without* being able to tell if they believe
>> it or not. People fall for all kinds of nonsense if it is what they
>> *want* to be 'true' and they don't bother to check the science.
>
>> Thus it may not be possible to tell if they are "lying" because
>> that signifies they *know* they're talking nonsense. Alas, some
>> people 'truly believe' nonsense or simply misunderstand (apparent)
>> 'evidence to suit what they wish to conclude.
>
> Do you actually understand what the question was?
>
> It wasn't about anyone lying.
>
> The question was "are the graphs correct" ?
>
>
>> That's why you need to *understand the science*, not just
>> cherry-pick a picture that seems to confirm what you want to
>> believe. It's the science that matters, not having a video or
>> pretty picture to wave about.
>
> Bullshit. It's just more of I'm superior to you and therefore you
> can't even begin to understand the graph unless you're clever like
> me.
>
> That's what you're saying isn't it?
>
> Here's the point. He said the graphs show falling infections for the
> last two weeks. MSM gave 3 other views but were not time specific.
>
> Looking at the graphs he gave, his comment matches what the graphs
> show.
>
> Do you deny that?
>
> Do you think you need some special maths education to make that
> judgement for that two weeks?
>
> Do you think that this is fair comment...
>
> Coronavirus epidemic escalating by the day. or With cases rising in
> school age children.
>
> I'm very confident you would fail 'O' level maths if of the 3
> descriptions you didn't pick Harwood's description as being the most
> correct. Because he defined the period he was referring to and
> correctly described the graph as falling in that period.
>
> If you wish to be obtuse you could say ah well, MSM are talking long
> term but even that leaves them guilty of very selective reporting or
> lying by omission.
>
>
> So, it comes down as I said before to : Are the graphs correct ?
>
> Yes or no?
>
> Bob.

Harwood's does not actually prove his contention that all the "media"
is saying what he claims. He selects three weak statements which do
not actually illustrate what he claims the "media" are saying.

He ignores what all other media outlets are saying but implies they
are involved in the same mass manipulation.

Harwood then shows a graph (with no source data specified) to
allegedly prove the "media" are wrong and have in fact been conspiring
to present a deliberately false view.

Your reduction of this down to "anyone can read a graph and see the
truth" is a misleading oversimplification.

On Sunday, 7 November 2021 at 13:50:35 UTC, MB wrote:
> On 07/11/2021 10:04, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > They plotted the relative likelyhood and impact of various types of event on
> > a log-scale as that made it easier - so they thought - to compare the wide
> > range of results.
> The Liberals are notorious for using dodgy graphs like that.

Rightards are quick to make assertions like that as a mean of denying blatantly obvious facts.

On Sunday, 7 November 2021 at 14:37:08 UTC, Pamela wrote:
> On 18:57 6 Nov 2021, R. Mark Clayton said:
> > On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 04:41:39 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
> >> On 04/11/2021 18:00, Bob Latham wrote:
> >> > https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg
> >>
> >> Tom Harwood, a rather wet-behind-the-ears looking young tyke,
> >> rather too full of his own self-importance, and not a very good
> >> speaker:
> >
> > and has his head stuck in the sand !
> >
> >> Paraphrasing: Criticises news media for saying that cases are
> >> rising, when they've been falling for two weeks, including
> >> criticising the BBC for saying that infection rates in school
> >> children were rising, but actually the latter at least is true
> >> (scroll down):
> >>
> >> https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/health
> >> andsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/
> >> coronaviruscovid19/latestinsights
>
>
>
> > Well indeed if you look at
> > https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/ there has been
> > slight decrease in cases during the last fortnight from ~51k to
> > ~40k.
> >
> > Alas there HAS been a fairly steady increase in deaths with the
> > seven day moving average* - from 108 on seventh October to 171
> > yesterday - perhaps the CNN reporter confused the two.
> Worldometers counts confirmed cases which is susceptible to the extent
> of the testing effort, how many are still using the NHS reporting app,
> whether resilient groups care to report their infection, correcting
> recent results from the dodgy Wolverhampton lab, etc.
>
> On the other hand the ONS undertakes a random-selected survey of the
> public to measure true prevalence in the community, independently of
> case reporting. The ONS data does NOT show a dip as their comparison
> chart illustrates:
>
> www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1470/cisreactinfections/index.html
>
> Taken from: https://tinyurl.com/ONS-stats-link

Point taken - reduced reporting and wrong results may have skewed the infection rate data. Much harder to hide deaths, which sadly have risen ~1,000% since high summer.

In article <598635c94fbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> https://youtu.be/F_p4nvqZLQg

Here's another one for all the lefties to chew on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESE0CPR_qdE

Lefties seem to love anything they think will shut down Britain.

Bob.

In article <59881f94abbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Do you actually understand what the question was?

> It wasn't about anyone lying.

> The question was "are the graphs correct" ?

My answer was (repeatedly) that it depends on understanding the science
behind them, etc. "Correct" isn't a synonym for "shows that I want to
believe".

> > That's why you need to *understand the science*, not just cherry-pick
> > a picture that seems to confirm what you want to believe. It's the
> > science that matters, not having a video or pretty picture to wave
> > about.

> Bullshit. It's just more of I'm superior to you and therefore you can't
> even begin to understand the graph unless you're clever like me.

> That's what you're saying isn't it?

Nope. I'm saying what I wrote above, yet again.

Deciding if presented 'results' or 'conclusions' are correct hinges on
checking and understanding the science behind them. Not on if the results
look pretty or confirm what you want to believe.

Sadly, past experience shows you can't accept this. So I'm just saying
(again) for the benefit of others who may get it.

Jim

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

In article <5988211171bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5987c2d424noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > Sadly, Bob just cherry picks without any real understanding.

> Translation.

cf "translation" : "what Bob prefers to believe". :-)

> Bob often makes correct observations which I cannot argue are not true
> because they are true and we both know it. The only thing I can do to
> defend is to dismiss his truth as cherry picking and attack him
> personally.

*When* you understand the science behind the graphs, let us know, Bob.
You're the one promoting them, so it's a task for you to perform if you
wish others to take you seriously given your track record.

That said, from what others report, the source and analysis behind them
seems to be untracable because the claimer doesn't say. Which means
the graphs aren't meaningful information a things stand.

Its an axiom of Information Theory that "Data only becomes information
when you know exactly how it was produced." If the presenter doesn't
show that, the result is just PR so far as science is concerned.

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 <XnsADDC8991FBC7537B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18:14 7 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> >
> > That's why you need to understand the science of how the data they
> > plot was obtained. That would avoid you looking as foolish as you did
> > with your old 'two point paper' on CC by trying to use worthless
> > 'results' to support your beliefs.

> Is there a summary of that incident? I missed it.

Bob presented this

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

as 'evidence' that he claimed undermined the 'theory' that human production
of CO2 was causing significant Global Heating.

Short response:

It's a crock.

Longer scientific response:

Since I used to work on instruments for Far-Infrared Astronomy I quickly
realised that the paper 'cherry picked' the points to use as data. There
are other bodies in the Solar System with atmospheres. Choose ones that
aren't in the paper and you no longer get the same neat straight line that
also fits the Earth's state.

In effect, the author chose two points that happen to give a straight line
that suits his conclusion! Cherry picking, or dumb luck on his part.

Howeve, chose other randomly chosen points (solar system bodies with
atmospheres) and the line doesn't agree with the Earth's conditions. No
magic match.

JJ looked at it and spotted that the 'Journal' is a well known 'paper
mill'. These simply take money from authors keen to 'publish a paper' and
publish it. No need for any referees or checking or editing. Pay yer money,
get a paper published. Clock up a 'publication' for yer CV. Useful for dud
or dodgy 'science' that someone wants to make look respectable. Baloney
Baffles Brains.

If it had been submitted to a journal that uses decent referees, it would
have been rejected as drivel by return of post.

i.e. - it's a crock. But, alas, pushing it here was an indicator of Bob's
'grasp' of how science actually works.

FWIW I've repeatedly suggested to Bob that he read:

The Human Planet. How we created the Anthropocene
by Lewis and Maslin
Pelican paperback

It covers a wide field to put this into context, with a lot of references,
data, explanations, analysis, etc. Not just modern 'warming' but many other
processes that affect climate, etc. So that readers can really see the
context, the data, how it was obtained, etc, and judge for themselves.
Includes covering many other processes that can affect climate. Looks at a
wide range of timescales. Has over thirty pages of references for further
reading and to see where data came from, etc. So the reader can delve and
check as they wish.

i.e. excellent as a way for someone to really learn about the *science*.

Bob has repeatedly refused to read it, and dismisses *what he's not read*
as a 'Bible' I promote. i.e. trying to make it seem a work based on faith.

Sadly, this sums up Bob's approach to anything he doesn't want to accept.

If you or anyone else hasn't read it and genuinely wants to learn about the
real basis of Climate Change science, and the Human impacts, it's an
excellent way to find out. It means you do have to study what it contains.
However it is written to be followed by a relatively lay audience, not for
specialists. So it is accessible for those willing to learn.

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 <5988350836noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <59881f94abbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> Nope. I'm saying what I wrote above, yet again.

> Deciding if presented 'results' or 'conclusions' are correct hinges
> on checking and understanding the science behind them. Not on if
> the results look pretty or confirm what you want to believe.

> Sadly, past experience shows you can't accept this. So I'm just
> saying (again) for the benefit of others who may get it.

OK, accurate or not, do you agree that Harwood's description of the
graphs he showed are reasonable and that at least 2 out of the 3 from
MSM are absurd?

I don't see how you can't agree and in that case I've said nothing
wrong and you're having a go for the sake of it.

Bob.

Bob.