Discussion:
The worth of a degree?
(too old to reply)
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-09 09:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Source:

Tibor Fischer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/

"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.

There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing Oxford University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety seriously enough” isn’t an unusual figure.

Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.

Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety, depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a month before your finals.

And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission. Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.

When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest, he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them, because then they’d leave.”

I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first‑year undergrads, of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”

Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the literature class."

...

"And then of course the Equality Act, which requires Universities to make “reasonable adjustment” for those less able. What a gloriously flexible, litigious word “reasonable” is. Again, I doubt many academics will go on record with this, but I had experiences with students who had some “disorder” who were extraordinarily able in using their disability to their advantage.

It’s the job of a university to strive for excellence (although that’s tricky to define in the arts). This idea that a university is in some way in loco parentis or a carer obliged to wipe bottoms is misguided.


It’s wonderful if universities can provide that sort of extra-curricular support. But that’s not their purpose. It’s their job to set a high standard, and it’s the students’ to reach it, whatever their difficulties.

In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But there they are, at university.

The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have the tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not that demanding.
abelard
2017-08-09 10:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.
There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing Oxford University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety seriously enough” isn’t an unusual figure.
Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.
Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety, depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a month before your finals.
And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission. Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.
When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest, he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them, because then they’d leave.”
I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first?year undergrads, of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”
Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the literature class."
a sentence is something in the gift of a judge or sommat with a dot
at the end

an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive

what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
"And then of course the Equality Act, which requires Universities to make “reasonable adjustment” for those less able. What a gloriously flexible, litigious word “reasonable” is. Again, I doubt many academics will go on record with this, but I had experiences with students who had some “disorder” who were extraordinarily able in using their disability to their advantage.
It’s the job of a university to strive for excellence (although that’s tricky to define in the arts). This idea that a university is in some way in loco parentis or a carer obliged to wipe bottoms is misguided.
It’s wonderful if universities can provide that sort of extra-curricular support. But that’s not their purpose. It’s their job to set a high standard, and it’s the students’ to reach it, whatever their difficulties.
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have the tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not that demanding.
keep them off the job market for 3 more years or give
them a bit more time to grow up
--
www.abelard.org
RH156RH
2017-08-09 10:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.
There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing Oxford University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety seriously enough” isn’t an unusual figure.
Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.
Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety, depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a month before your finals.
And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission. Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.
When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest, he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them, because then they’d leave.”
I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first?year undergrads, of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”
Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the literature class."
a sentence is something in the gift of a judge or sommat with a dot
at the end
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947 vintage valve computer to understand... RH
abelard
2017-08-09 11:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 03:27:56 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947 vintage valve computer to understand... RH
translation from hatstandish...'i've got an english degree...
and 'hilariously' makes my bollox sound more impressive'..

it may get you by in the 'civil' 'service' featherbed, but it won't
work for you in, i'm a celebrity, get me out of here
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2017-08-09 11:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 03:27:56 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947 vintage valve computer to understand... RH
translation from hatstandish...'i've got an english degree...
and 'hilariously' makes my bollox sound more impressive'..
it may get you by in the 'civil' 'service' featherbed, but it won't
work for you in, i'm a celebrity, get me out of here
Surely the qualification for appearing on *that* is a lobotomy... :p
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-08-09 11:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 03:27:56 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947 vintage valve computer to understand... RH
translation from hatstandish...'i've got an english degree...
and 'hilariously' makes my bollox sound more impressive'..
it may get you by in the 'civil' 'service' featherbed, but it won't
work for you in, i'm a celebrity, get me out of here
Surely the qualification for appearing on *that* is a lobotomy... :p
admission...i don't know what it is, but it sounds good :-)
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-09 11:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by abelard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 03:27:56 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947
vintage valve computer to understand... RH
translation from hatstandish...'i've got an english degree...
and 'hilariously' makes my bollox sound more impressive'..
it may get you by in the 'civil' 'service' featherbed, but it won't
work for you in, i'm a celebrity, get me out of here
Surely the qualification for appearing on *that* is a lobotomy... :p
Double full frontal for watching it :-)
RH156RH
2017-08-10 20:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 03:27:56 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947 vintage valve computer to understand... RH
translation from hatstandish...'i've got an english degree...
and 'hilariously' makes my bollox sound more impressive'..
it may get you by in the 'civil' 'service' featherbed, but it won't
work for you in, i'm a celebrity, get me out of here
Pure GIGO... RH
Vidcapper
2017-08-09 11:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947 vintage valve computer to understand... RH
For most people an O Level or GCSE in English is quite sufficient to get
on in life more than adequately.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-08-09 11:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
This is something hilariously beyond the capacities of a 1947 vintage valve computer to understand... RH
For most people an O Level or GCSE in English is quite sufficient to get
on in life more than adequately.
not if you want to be a minor sir humphrey or a lawyer....

you have to learn to write crap...'perfectly'
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-09 10:28:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.
There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing Oxford University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety seriously enough” isn’t an unusual figure.
Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.
Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety, depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a month before your finals.
And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission. Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.
When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest, he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them, because then they’d leave.”
I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first?year undergrads, of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”
Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the literature class."
a sentence is something in the gift of a judge or sommat with a dot
at the end
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
"And then of course the Equality Act, which requires Universities to make “reasonable adjustment” for those less able. What a gloriously flexible, litigious word “reasonable” is. Again, I doubt many academics will go on record with this, but I had experiences with students who had some “disorder” who were extraordinarily able in using their disability to their advantage.
It’s the job of a university to strive for excellence (although that’s tricky to define in the arts). This idea that a university is in some way in loco parentis or a carer obliged to wipe bottoms is misguided.
It’s wonderful if universities can provide that sort of extra-curricular support. But that’s not their purpose. It’s their job to set a high standard, and it’s the students’ to reach it, whatever their difficulties.
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have the tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not that demanding.
keep them off the job market for 3 more years or give
them a bit more time to grow up
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
abelard
2017-08-09 11:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.
There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing Oxford University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety seriously enough” isn’t an unusual figure.
Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.
Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety, depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a month before your finals.
And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission. Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.
When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest, he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them, because then they’d leave.”
I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first?year undergrads, of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”
Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the literature class."
a sentence is something in the gift of a judge or sommat with a dot
at the end
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
"And then of course the Equality Act, which requires Universities to make “reasonable adjustment” for those less able. What a gloriously flexible, litigious word “reasonable” is. Again, I doubt many academics will go on record with this, but I had experiences with students who had some “disorder” who were extraordinarily able in using their disability to their advantage.
It’s the job of a university to strive for excellence (although that’s tricky to define in the arts). This idea that a university is in some way in loco parentis or a carer obliged to wipe bottoms is misguided.
It’s wonderful if universities can provide that sort of extra-curricular support. But that’s not their purpose. It’s their job to set a high standard, and it’s the students’ to reach it, whatever their difficulties.
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have the tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not that demanding.
keep them off the job market for 3 more years or give
them a bit more time to grow up
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
i've told all mine if they want support through uni they will
get science based degrees...

if they want do leisure activities like 'english' they can read
in their spare time...and they don't need some dope to
tell them what to believe and mark them for agreeing
with said dope..
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-09 11:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.
There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing Oxford University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety seriously enough” isn’t an unusual figure.
Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.
Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety, depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a month before your finals.
And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission. Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.
When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest, he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them, because then they’d leave.”
I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first?year undergrads, of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”
Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the literature class."
a sentence is something in the gift of a judge or sommat with a dot
at the end
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
"And then of course the Equality Act, which requires Universities to make “reasonable adjustment” for those less able. What a gloriously flexible, litigious word “reasonable” is. Again, I doubt many academics will go on record with this, but I had experiences with students who had some “disorder” who were extraordinarily able in using their disability to their advantage.
It’s the job of a university to strive for excellence (although that’s tricky to define in the arts). This idea that a university is in some way in loco parentis or a carer obliged to wipe bottoms is misguided.
It’s wonderful if universities can provide that sort of extra-curricular support. But that’s not their purpose. It’s their job to set a high standard, and it’s the students’ to reach it, whatever their difficulties.
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have the tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not that demanding.
keep them off the job market for 3 more years or give
them a bit more time to grow up
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
i've told all mine if they want support through uni they will
get science based degrees...
if they want do leisure activities like 'english' they can read
in their spare time...and they don't need some dope to
tell them what to believe and mark them for agreeing
with said dope..
I think the old idea that having a degree shows employers that you are
educable is no longer valid. Nowadays, unless it is in something for
which there is an economic demand, it just indicates a reluctance to
start work.
Incubus
2017-08-09 12:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and
every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf
management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.
There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by
the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing Oxford
University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety seriously
enough” isn’t an unusual figure.
Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is
precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come
across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.
Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet
pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety,
depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating
circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a
month before your finals.
And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost
certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission.
Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.
When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial
to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest,
he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them,
because then they’d leave.”
I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church
University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first?year undergrads,
of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”
Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two
of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar
stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these
weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the
literature class."
a sentence is something in the gift of a judge or sommat with a dot
at the end
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
"And then of course the Equality Act, which requires Universities
to make “reasonable adjustment” for those less able. What a
gloriously flexible, litigious word “reasonable” is. Again, I doubt
many academics will go on record with this, but I had experiences
with students who had some “disorder” who were extraordinarily able
in using their disability to their advantage.
It’s the job of a university to strive for excellence (although
that’s tricky to define in the arts). This idea that a university
is in some way in loco parentis or a carer obliged to wipe bottoms
is misguided.
It’s wonderful if universities can provide that sort of
extra-curricular support. But that’s not their purpose. It’s their
job to set a high standard, and it’s the students’ to reach it,
whatever their difficulties.
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay
a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little
employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally
illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But
there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have the
tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not that
demanding.
keep them off the job market for 3 more years or give
them a bit more time to grow up
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
i've told all mine if they want support through uni they will
get science based degrees...
if they want do leisure activities like 'english' they can read
in their spare time...and they don't need some dope to
tell them what to believe and mark them for agreeing
with said dope..
I think the old idea that having a degree shows employers that you are
educable is no longer valid. Nowadays, unless it is in something for
which there is an economic demand, it just indicates a reluctance to
start work.
A science degree from a good university certainly carries weight with
employers in a related field. More generally, I think that it would
also have more prestige than History of Art read at the University of Hull.
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-09 12:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and
every endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf
management). It’s had a very bad effect on education.
There’s an “everyone must pass” attitude, which is compounded by
the “sick note” epidemic. The student who is currently suing
Oxford University because it allegedly “didn’t take her anxiety
seriously enough” isn’t an unusual figure.
Lecturers don’t like to speak out about this because life is
precarious in the academic world, but in private I don’t come
across anyone who disagrees with what I’m about to say. Here goes.
Almost every fourth essay you have to mark has a cover sheet
pleading extenuating circumstances: Asperger’s, autism, anxiety,
depression, ADHD, OCD, dyslexia, dyspraxia. In my day, extenuating
circumstances meant that your family had died in a car crash a
month before your finals.
And if you don’t pass, no need to worry because you’ll almost
certainly have the chance of a resit or a resubmission.
Essentially, if you can be bothered to turn up, you’ll get a degree.
When I suggested to my department head that it might be beneficial
to axe one or two students to gee up the performance of the rest,
he commented, without any hint of irony: “We can’t fail them,
because then they’d leave.”
I taught English literature for four years at Christ Church
University in Canterbury. I taught some 120 first?year undergrads,
of whom I asked the question: “What is a sentence?”
Only six came up with the formula: subject, verb, object (and two
of them were foreign students). They hadn’t heard of this grammar
stuff. Some were even shaky on what an adjective is. And these
weren’t physicists or business studies students, this was the
literature class."
a sentence is something in the gift of a judge or sommat with a dot
at the end
an adjective is there to make bolllox sound more impressive
what use is a 'degree' in 'literature'?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
"And then of course the Equality Act, which requires Universities
to make “reasonable adjustment” for those less able. What a
gloriously flexible, litigious word “reasonable” is. Again, I
doubt many academics will go on record with this, but I had
experiences with students who had some “disorder” who were
extraordinarily able in using their disability to their advantage.
It’s the job of a university to strive for excellence (although
that’s tricky to define in the arts). This idea that a university
is in some way in loco parentis or a carer obliged to wipe bottoms
is misguided.
It’s wonderful if universities can provide that sort of
extra-curricular support. But that’s not their purpose. It’s their
job to set a high standard, and it’s the students’ to reach it,
whatever their difficulties.
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay
a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little
employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally
illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But
there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have
the tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not
that demanding.
keep them off the job market for 3 more years or give
them a bit more time to grow up
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
i've told all mine if they want support through uni they will
get science based degrees...
if they want do leisure activities like 'english' they can read
in their spare time...and they don't need some dope to
tell them what to believe and mark them for agreeing
with said dope..
I think the old idea that having a degree shows employers that you are
educable is no longer valid. Nowadays, unless it is in something for
which there is an economic demand, it just indicates a reluctance to
start work.
A science degree from a good university certainly carries weight with
employers in a related field. More generally, I think that it would
also have more prestige than History of Art read at the University of Hull.
Yes. And as much as I like art and history, I don't see how anyone can
argue that someone should be educated in them at the public expense. If
it's your hobby (which is how I'd classify it), pay for it out of your
own pocket.
abelard
2017-08-09 17:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think the old idea that having a degree shows employers that you are
educable is no longer valid. Nowadays, unless it is in something for
which there is an economic demand, it just indicates a reluctance to
start work.
A science degree from a good university certainly carries weight with
employers in a related field. More generally, I think that it would
also have more prestige than History of Art read at the University of Hull.
Yes. And as much as I like art and history, I don't see how anyone can
argue that someone should be educated in them at the public expense. If
it's your hobby (which is how I'd classify it), pay for it out of your
own pocket.
essential agreement

the idea of 'degrees' in such 'subjects' has always seems daft to me..

among other matters so much of it is subjective tosh esp nowadays

maybe it had its uses for civil servants once but exercises in
empathising with stalin and adolf is putting it beyond
farce...
i even see people paraded as ex british diplomats etc trying to sell
the cult line rather than any comprehension of real politic...
doubtless more of the poison from 15 years of fnl...

'negotiating' with the likes of pootin and caligula in n. korea is no
job for superannuated snowflakes...
--
www.abelard.org
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 19:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And as much as I like art and history, I don't see how anyone can
argue that someone should be educated in them at the public expense. If
it's your hobby (which is how I'd classify it), pay for it out of your
own pocket.
Isn't everyone (apart from the Scots) paying for their university
education out of their own pocket? Or do the people who do art history
rarely end up making enough money to have to pay their loan back?
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-09 19:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And as much as I like art and history, I don't see how anyone can
argue that someone should be educated in them at the public expense.
If it's your hobby (which is how I'd classify it), pay for it out of
your own pocket.
Isn't everyone (apart from the Scots) paying for their university
education out of their own pocket? Or do the people who do art history
rarely end up making enough money to have to pay their loan back?
Yes, but some are suggesting that they shouldn't pay. Or rather, I
thought that's what they were suggesting. ATM, nobody seems at all
clear on what was being suggested.
abelard
2017-08-09 20:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And as much as I like art and history, I don't see how anyone can
argue that someone should be educated in them at the public expense. If
it's your hobby (which is how I'd classify it), pay for it out of your
own pocket.
Isn't everyone (apart from the Scots) paying for their university
education out of their own pocket? Or do the people who do art history
rarely end up making enough money to have to pay their loan back?
there's a great deal not being paid back...so far
--
www.abelard.org
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-09 21:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
And as much as I like art and history, I don't see how anyone can
argue that someone should be educated in them at the public expense. If
it's your hobby (which is how I'd classify it), pay for it out of your
own pocket.
Isn't everyone (apart from the Scots) paying for their university
education out of their own pocket? Or do the people who do art history
rarely end up making enough money to have to pay their loan back?
No not really!

Only those graduates who exceed a certain income threshold will be expected to pay back their loans which in the meantime attract compound interest. After 30 years (I believe) all outstanding individual debt will be written off anyway. The no doubt, some graduates will emigrate thus avoiding repayment altogether.

Some would say that these repayments are the forerunner of and eventual graduate tax

Most of the money is unlikely to be recovered.
Basil Jet
2017-08-09 20:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-10 00:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
I first came here many years ago (a different nym each time I reinstall)
because I thought I might learn something about politics (don't laugh
:-)). I've not learned much, except that everyone cares mostly about
self-interest (which I quite understand - none of us would de here
without it), but some people dress it up as something else. I would
call that something else 'politics', and I don't really like it much.

It's also interesting to discover just what sorts of nutters are out
there. Forewarned is forearmed :-)
Joe
2017-08-10 07:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:59:09 +0100
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge
somewhat politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em
young". It appears to have had a negligible influence on their
level of knowledge of anything in particular. I think we should
promote 'distance learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be
fewer distractions for those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
Politics is about controlling other people, and more importantly, the
desire to do so, which seems to be the most widespread human mental
illness, and by orders of magnitude, the most harmful.

Of course it's a bad thing.

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic
criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want
people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former
are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the
greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and
lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the
other sort.”

R A Heinlein
--
Joe
saracene
2017-08-10 09:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
We don;t want our little nieces turned in to Marxists and feminists, though, which it presumbaly what is meant. Some of us come there to combat that sort of politics.
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-10 09:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
We don;t want our little nieces turned in to Marxists and feminists, though, which it presumbaly what is meant. Some of us come there to combat that sort of politics.
Yes, and that's what they turned into. I've been to a few graduation
ceremonies in the last decade, and could hardly believe the sort of,
frankly aggressive, political nonsense that covered the notice boards.
Of course, it only works with impressionable young minds, so I suppose
it's very effective, but rather depressing.
Ned Latham
2017-08-10 12:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
No. We're here to become politically aware, not brainwashed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
We don;t want our little nieces turned in to Marxists and feminists,
though, which it presumbaly what is meant. Some of us come there to
combat that sort of politics.
Yes, and that's what they turned into. I've been to a few graduation
ceremonies in the last decade, and could hardly believe the sort of,
frankly aggressive, political nonsense that covered the notice boards.
Of course, it only works with impressionable young minds, so I suppose
it's very effective, but rather depressing.
I think the appropriate term there is "sonoster", Dan. Think about
the ability to control minds in such a finely tuned fasshion.

A lot of those kids are intelligent; their politicisation has
required a not inconsiderable amount of learning, and they have
learnt it well. If their learning has been guided by people
of the right political leanings, they will be good employees
for political organisations, including political parties and
all broadcast media. The compartmentalrism of their minds is
what enables this rather amazing ability of intelligent people
to believe in the stupid.

The wasting of their minds on their ideologies is only one
aspect of the problem that mind control has wrought: a
dramatic and dangerous change in their effect on society;
viz, the more of them there are, the more powerful is the
Politikal Korrektness Kult.

It's a very subtle thing, this type of mind controll:
rather amazing when you think about it: you can can
turn intelligent people into mindless robots without
damaging their intelligence.

Fuckin' WIW!
abelard
2017-08-10 13:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:47:17 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
No. We're here to become politically aware, not brainwashed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
We don;t want our little nieces turned in to Marxists and feminists,
though, which it presumbaly what is meant. Some of us come there to
combat that sort of politics.
Yes, and that's what they turned into. I've been to a few graduation
ceremonies in the last decade, and could hardly believe the sort of,
frankly aggressive, political nonsense that covered the notice boards.
Of course, it only works with impressionable young minds, so I suppose
it's very effective, but rather depressing.
I think the appropriate term there is "sonoster", Dan. Think about
the ability to control minds in such a finely tuned fasshion.
A lot of those kids are intelligent; their politicisation has
required a not inconsiderable amount of learning, and they have
learnt it well. If their learning has been guided by people
of the right political leanings, they will be good employees
for political organisations, including political parties and
all broadcast media. The compartmentalrism of their minds is
what enables this rather amazing ability of intelligent people
to believe in the stupid.
The wasting of their minds on their ideologies is only one
aspect of the problem that mind control has wrought: a
dramatic and dangerous change in their effect on society;
viz, the more of them there are, the more powerful is the
Politikal Korrektness Kult.
rather amazing when you think about it: you can can
turn intelligent people into mindless robots without
damaging their intelligence.
Fuckin' WIW!
Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them.
[Attributed to orwell]

much of it is confusing theory with reality...they are mostly schooled
in theories and little in reality
--
www.abelard.org
RH156RH
2017-08-10 20:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:47:17 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
No. We're here to become politically aware, not brainwashed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
We don;t want our little nieces turned in to Marxists and feminists,
though, which it presumbaly what is meant. Some of us come there to
combat that sort of politics.
Yes, and that's what they turned into. I've been to a few graduation
ceremonies in the last decade, and could hardly believe the sort of,
frankly aggressive, political nonsense that covered the notice boards.
Of course, it only works with impressionable young minds, so I suppose
it's very effective, but rather depressing.
I think the appropriate term there is "sonoster", Dan. Think about
the ability to control minds in such a finely tuned fasshion.
A lot of those kids are intelligent; their politicisation has
required a not inconsiderable amount of learning, and they have
learnt it well. If their learning has been guided by people
of the right political leanings, they will be good employees
for political organisations, including political parties and
all broadcast media. The compartmentalrism of their minds is
what enables this rather amazing ability of intelligent people
to believe in the stupid.
The wasting of their minds on their ideologies is only one
aspect of the problem that mind control has wrought: a
dramatic and dangerous change in their effect on society;
viz, the more of them there are, the more powerful is the
Politikal Korrektness Kult.
rather amazing when you think about it: you can can
turn intelligent people into mindless robots without
damaging their intelligence.
Fuckin' WIW!
Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them.
[Attributed to orwell]
much of it is confusing theory with reality...they are mostly schooled
in theories and little in reality
There is nothing too absurd for a 1947 vintage valve computer to remember and regurgitate. GIGO is always with us if there is a computer around. RH
Dan S. MacAbre
2017-08-10 13:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge somewhat
politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to "get 'em young". It
appears to have had a negligible influence on their level of knowledge
of anything in particular. I think we should promote 'distance
learning' (like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions for
those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
No. We're here to become politically aware, not brainwashed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
We don;t want our little nieces turned in to Marxists and feminists,
though, which it presumbaly what is meant. Some of us come there to
combat that sort of politics.
Yes, and that's what they turned into. I've been to a few graduation
ceremonies in the last decade, and could hardly believe the sort of,
frankly aggressive, political nonsense that covered the notice boards.
Of course, it only works with impressionable young minds, so I suppose
it's very effective, but rather depressing.
I think the appropriate term there is "sonoster", Dan. Think about
the ability to control minds in such a finely tuned fasshion.
Sonoster? Or sinister? I'd agree with that.
Post by Ned Latham
A lot of those kids are intelligent; their politicisation has
required a not inconsiderable amount of learning, and they have
learnt it well. If their learning has been guided by people
of the right political leanings, they will be good employees
for political organisations, including political parties and
all broadcast media. The compartmentalrism of their minds is
what enables this rather amazing ability of intelligent people
to believe in the stupid.
The wasting of their minds on their ideologies is only one
aspect of the problem that mind control has wrought: a
dramatic and dangerous change in their effect on society;
viz, the more of them there are, the more powerful is the
Politikal Korrektness Kult.
I think it indicates a lack of critical facility, more than anything. A
lack of cynicism that only comes with experience, and a willingness to
believe that everything is someone else's responsibility. That is why
children are being turned into snowflakes. It's a deliberate strategy -
a kind of cultivation. Once you've gone down that road, there's no
escaping. You feel helpless, hard done by, and you're easy prey.
Post by Ned Latham
rather amazing when you think about it: you can can
turn intelligent people into mindless robots without
damaging their intelligence.
Fuckin' WIW!
abelard
2017-08-10 13:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it indicates a lack of critical facility, more than anything. A
lack of cynicism that only comes with experience, and a willingness to
believe that everything is someone else's responsibility. That is why
children are being turned into snowflakes. It's a deliberate strategy -
a kind of cultivation. Once you've gone down that road, there's no
escaping. You feel helpless, hard done by, and you're easy prey.
the trusting nature of the young..
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2017-08-10 15:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:27:43 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it indicates a lack of critical facility, more than
anything. A lack of cynicism that only comes with experience, and a
willingness to believe that everything is someone else's
responsibility. That is why children are being turned into
snowflakes. It's a deliberate strategy - a kind of cultivation.
Once you've gone down that road, there's no escaping. You feel
helpless, hard done by, and you're easy prey.
the trusting nature of the young..
That ought to be over by about fifteen, people of pretty much any
intelligence will have noticed by then that their own observations and
experiences are not always completely consistent with what they are
being told.

By the time they reach university, they will be aware that some people,
including some of their peers, seem to live in a fantasy world.

Of course, questioning authority is more difficult when *all* authority
seems to speak with the same voice, which accounts for the efforts of
the establishment not merely to propound its own narrative, but to
actively prevent any alternatives being published.

This is worrying:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/

Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
closed mind:

"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."

OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.

The whole tone of the article is depressing, but in keeping with the
modern narrative that dissenting views must be actively suppressed, and
never, under any circumstances, be refuted by superior argument.
--
Joe
abelard
2017-08-10 19:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:27:43 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it indicates a lack of critical facility, more than
anything. A lack of cynicism that only comes with experience, and a
willingness to believe that everything is someone else's
responsibility. That is why children are being turned into
snowflakes. It's a deliberate strategy - a kind of cultivation.
Once you've gone down that road, there's no escaping. You feel
helpless, hard done by, and you're easy prey.
the trusting nature of the young..
That ought to be over by about fifteen, people of pretty much any
intelligence will have noticed by then that their own observations and
experiences are not always completely consistent with what they are
being told.
it's a rare 15 year old who can manage that...and almost every
15 year old is desperate for issues to rebel upon
Post by Joe
By the time they reach university, they will be aware that some people,
including some of their peers, seem to live in a fantasy world.
Of course, questioning authority is more difficult when *all* authority
seems to speak with the same voice, which accounts for the efforts of
the establishment not merely to propound its own narrative, but to
actively prevent any alternatives being published.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.
what would you like 'talked about'?
Post by Joe
The whole tone of the article is depressing, but in keeping with the
modern narrative that dissenting views must be actively suppressed, and
never, under any circumstances, be refuted by superior argument.
--
www.abelard.org
Ned Latham
2017-08-10 22:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
----snip----
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Of course, questioning authority is more difficult when *all* authority
seems to speak with the same voice, which accounts for the efforts of
the establishment not merely to propound its own narrative, but to
actively prevent any alternatives being published.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/
brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.
what would you like 'talked about'?
Sinmce the clubbing of baby fur seals was stopped, fur seal numbers
have increased. Since the fur seal population has begun increasing,
so has the polar bear population. It appears that the earlier decrease
in polar bear numbers was due to a loss of prey, not a loss of habitat.

Have you ever seen that discussed?

Or the absence of packs of icebergs in the sea lanes?

Or the absence of trans-Arctic trade?

Or those lying tide marks on the Thames?

Or the recalcitrant insistance of the Solomon Islands on staying
above water?

----snip----
abelard
2017-08-10 23:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:18:10 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
----snip----
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Of course, questioning authority is more difficult when *all* authority
seems to speak with the same voice, which accounts for the efforts of
the establishment not merely to propound its own narrative, but to
actively prevent any alternatives being published.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/
brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.
what would you like 'talked about'?
Sinmce the clubbing of baby fur seals was stopped, fur seal numbers
have increased. Since the fur seal population has begun increasing,
so has the polar bear population. It appears that the earlier decrease
in polar bear numbers was due to a loss of prey, not a loss of habitat.
Have you ever seen that discussed?
Or the absence of packs of icebergs in the sea lanes?
Or the absence of trans-Arctic trade?
Or those lying tide marks on the Thames?
Or the recalcitrant insistance of the Solomon Islands on staying
above water?
well, talk about them then...
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2017-08-11 08:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 01:54:38 +0200
Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:18:10 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by abelard
what would you like 'talked about'?
Sinmce the clubbing of baby fur seals was stopped, fur seal numbers
have increased. Since the fur seal population has begun increasing,
so has the polar bear population. It appears that the earlier
decrease in polar bear numbers was due to a loss of prey, not a loss
of habitat.
Have you ever seen that discussed?
Or the absence of packs of icebergs in the sea lanes?
Or the absence of trans-Arctic trade?
Or those lying tide marks on the Thames?
Or the recalcitrant insistance of the Solomon Islands on staying
above water?
well, talk about them then...
My point being that they can be talked about somewhere like here, that
nobody in authority knows or cares about, but they can *not* be talked
about in public, particularly on a broadcast medium, and people like
Professor Cox make strenuous efforts to prevent them being talked about
in public.

That's the very opposite of science, the principles of which Cox
supposedly espouses. It's not the issues of AGW that I find depressing,
it's the fact that talking about them is not permitted by the
establishment, and that a 'scientist' approves of that.
--
Joe
abelard
2017-08-11 12:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 01:54:38 +0200
Post by abelard
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:18:10 -0500, Ned Latham
Post by Ned Latham
Post by abelard
what would you like 'talked about'?
Sinmce the clubbing of baby fur seals was stopped, fur seal numbers
have increased. Since the fur seal population has begun increasing,
so has the polar bear population. It appears that the earlier
decrease in polar bear numbers was due to a loss of prey, not a loss
of habitat.
Have you ever seen that discussed?
Or the absence of packs of icebergs in the sea lanes?
Or the absence of trans-Arctic trade?
Or those lying tide marks on the Thames?
Or the recalcitrant insistance of the Solomon Islands on staying
above water?
well, talk about them then...
My point being that they can be talked about somewhere like here, that
nobody in authority knows or cares about, but they can *not* be talked
about in public, particularly on a broadcast medium, and people like
Professor Cox make strenuous efforts to prevent them being talked about
in public.
That's the very opposite of science, the principles of which Cox
supposedly espouses. It's not the issues of AGW that I find depressing,
it's the fact that talking about them is not permitted by the
establishment, and that a 'scientist' approves of that.
he is just a populariser....bit like dorkins

he's ok is generalities but waves his hands about at the edges...
and roughly follows and reports on those more specialised...
he's mostly a generalist...

agw is bluddy complicated...it's no wonder most can't *even follow*
it...and so they raise matters that are often irrelevant that
they half understood from the fossil media reptiles...
who have also only half understood or less...
it's more like pub chatter than serious discussion...

meanwhile left and right are looking for votes from the idiocracy
by joining the arsenal or the chelsea fans

cox and dorkins are above that level but sometimes not much...
in the end they've become reporters more than scientists...
sometimes just a step above the reptiles...

dorkins on theology is a sad joke...
cox has an insecure grasp of relativity...

why not just take them as they are?

i'm not sure i've gotten any real answer to what people want to
'discuss'
to expect the likes of the bbc to go much beyond pub talk
is optimistic let alone to expect them to be balanced as long
a chelsea is also muddying the waters at every opportunity

responses would be of interest to me!
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2017-08-11 15:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
cox has an insecure grasp of relativity...
So does everyone, bar Eddington, and he's deceased. What do
you have in mind?
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2017-08-11 17:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
cox has an insecure grasp of relativity...
So does everyone, bar Eddington, and he's deceased. What do
you have in mind?
one thing i remember harshly is his substitution of space/time *is*
curved rather than the equations work out if we think of it that
way...

and a more subtle tendency to confuse observation/s with, sort of
reality semantics...nothing like the(much more rational) way
einstein talks/writes...

lumps of stuff curve space-time etc...

there are others...

he was claiming to be a quantum physicist...and then wondering
how relativity would fit into qps...
his assumption that they would was another stretch for my pov
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2017-08-12 10:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
cox has an insecure grasp of relativity...
So does everyone, bar Eddington, and he's deceased. What do
you have in mind?
one thing i remember harshly is his substitution of space/time *is*
curved rather than the equations work out if we think of it that
way...
OK. But he has a reasonable case. "Curved" is, for physics/
maths purposes, a technical term describing a property of second
derivatives. In Euclidean geometry, that pans out to mean the same
as "not straight" [or "not flat" in the case of surfaces]. It's not
interestingly different from the use of "wave" to describe phenomena
of sound, light and radio. We've got so used to those that we forget
that the waves known to primitive people and to children are visible
phenomena seen in water and that sound, light and radio don't actually
"wave". Rather, physicists/mathematicians find that there is a common
thread in the "wave equation" [acceleration proportional to curvature]
so that what you see in water has corresponding phenomena in these
other areas. [By contrast, for example, the "heat equation" has the
form "velocity proportional to curvature", so heat doesn't "wave",
despite the term "heatwave", it just flows.]
Post by abelard
and a more subtle tendency to confuse observation/s with, sort of
reality semantics...nothing like the(much more rational) way
einstein talks/writes...
Einstein is very good, as is Eddington. But they are of their
time, and you need to know their limitations if you read their stuff
today. I don't think it's much of a criticism of Prof Cox to say that
he's not Einstein.
Post by abelard
lumps of stuff curve space-time etc...
Would be happier the other way round? Curvature of s-t is
observed as what we call "stuff"?
Post by abelard
there are others...
he was claiming to be a quantum physicist...and then wondering
how relativity would fit into qps...
his assumption that they would was another stretch for my pov
Um. Well it's "obvious" [fsvo] that they don't. OTOH, both
theories are so well confirmed by experiment that neither can be
seriously wrong, even though they contradict each other. Further,
relativity is so appealing intellectually that science would give up
almost anything else to rescue it. Basically, if we assume that "here"
in the universe is part of the same system as "there", then relativity
follows; and conversely if relativity is "wrong", then we can't say
anything useful about "there", even though we look at distant stars
and galaxies and see detailed quantum phenomena [eg spectral lines]
identical to those found locally.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2017-08-12 11:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
cox has an insecure grasp of relativity...
So does everyone, bar Eddington, and he's deceased. What do
you have in mind?
one thing i remember harshly is his substitution of space/time *is*
curved rather than the equations work out if we think of it that
way...
OK. But he has a reasonable case. "Curved" is, for physics/
maths purposes, a technical term describing a property of second
derivatives. In Euclidean geometry, that pans out to mean the same
as "not straight" [or "not flat" in the case of surfaces]. It's not
interestingly different from the use of "wave" to describe phenomena
of sound, light and radio. We've got so used to those that we forget
that the waves known to primitive people and to children are visible
phenomena seen in water and that sound, light and radio don't actually
"wave". Rather, physicists/mathematicians find that there is a common
thread in the "wave equation" [acceleration proportional to curvature]
so that what you see in water has corresponding phenomena in these
other areas. [By contrast, for example, the "heat equation" has the
form "velocity proportional to curvature", so heat doesn't "wave",
despite the term "heatwave", it just flows.]
i think i follow all that...except i don't really 'get' the heat bit.

though at present i don't seriously care
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
and a more subtle tendency to confuse observation/s with, sort of
reality semantics...nothing like the(much more rational) way
einstein talks/writes...
Einstein is very good, as is Eddington. But they are of their
time, and you need to know their limitations if you read their stuff
today. I don't think it's much of a criticism of Prof Cox to say that
he's not Einstein.
imv einstein is fully focused on reality whereas eddington
looks to me more interested in numbers...
i'm more intellectually compatible with einstein therefore i've
not delved much into eddington
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
lumps of stuff curve space-time etc...
Would be happier the other way round? Curvature of s-t is
observed as what we call "stuff"?
i'd be happier if he said it could be expressed both ways...and others

i seriously don't like that word 'is'
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
there are others...
he was claiming to be a quantum physicist...and then wondering
how relativity would fit into qps...
his assumption that they would was another stretch for my pov
Um. Well it's "obvious" [fsvo] that they don't. OTOH, both
theories are so well confirmed by experiment that neither can be
seriously wrong,
as a dedicated pragmatist that suits me just fine
Post by Andy Walker
even though they contradict each other.
i might say to einstein...i don't believe god contradicts hisself!

contradiction is a dirty output from the 'equality' theory
Post by Andy Walker
Further,
relativity is so appealing intellectually that science would give up
almost anything else to rescue it.
i'm in favour of the guidance of an aesthetic position...permitted
emotion for superior beings :-)
Post by Andy Walker
Basically, if we assume that "here"
in the universe is part of the same system as "there",
that appeals to my tiny mind at this stage of human development
Post by Andy Walker
then relativity
follows; and conversely if relativity is "wrong", then we can't say
anything useful about "there", even though we look at distant stars
and galaxies and see detailed quantum phenomena [eg spectral lines]
identical to those found locally.
it's along way out there...but it is reasonable to wonder about
beyond the out there that we may presently *observe*

we remain very limited creatures...i don't 'believe' we understand
much of it all at all at all

ps, thanx for your interesting reply
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2017-08-12 21:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
----snip----
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Of course, questioning authority is more difficult when *all* authority
seems to speak with the same voice, which accounts for the efforts of
the establishment not merely to propound its own narrative, but to
actively prevent any alternatives being published.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/
brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.
what would you like 'talked about'?
Sinmce the clubbing of baby fur seals was stopped, fur seal numbers
have increased. Since the fur seal population has begun increasing,
so has the polar bear population. It appears that the earlier decrease
in polar bear numbers was due to a loss of prey, not a loss of habitat.
Have you ever seen that discussed?
Or the absence of packs of icebergs in the sea lanes?
Or the absence of trans-Arctic trade?
Or those lying tide marks on the Thames?
Or the recalcitrant insistance of the Solomon Islands on staying
above water?
----snip----
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Vidcapper
2017-08-13 07:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to accept
the evidence does not support that view.

I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison, though.
It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very efficiently.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Farmer Giles
2017-08-13 08:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to accept
the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?

You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison, though.
It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.

However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Vidcapper
2017-08-13 09:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2, so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
saracene
2017-08-13 10:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2, so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
Please inform yourself better. In the first decades after the war books like the Scourge of the Swastika and Eichmann the Savage Truth were published and generally believed. They cannot be republished, the errors were numerous and embarrassing. To have poined them out back in the sixties would probabley have coutned as denial.

Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish connection?
abelard
2017-08-13 11:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2, so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
Please inform yourself better. In the first decades after the war books like the Scourge of the Swastika and Eichmann the Savage Truth were published and generally believed. They cannot be republished, the errors were numerous and embarrassing. To have poined them out back in the sixties would probabley have coutned as denial.
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish connection?
so why do you care?

isn't a million in one place enough for you??

your succour to national socialism is a mystery to me...
--
www.abelard.org
A. Filip
2017-08-13 11:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2, so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
Please inform yourself better. In the first decades after the war
books like the Scourge of the Swastika and Eichmann the Savage Truth
were published and generally believed. They cannot be republished,
the errors were numerous and embarrassing. To have poined them out
back in the sixties would probabley have coutned as denial.
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish connection?
so why do you care?
isn't a million in one place enough for you??
your succour to national socialism is a mystery to me...
One million *at Auschwitz alone* is more than enough to blame
germans/nazis. Drastic downgrade *in nineties* (AFAIR) "may" impact
likelihood of future changes/downgrades.
--
A. Filip
| Just go ahead and write your own multitasking multiuser os!
| Worked for me all the times. (Linus Torvalds)
saracene
2017-08-13 13:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2, so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
Please inform yourself better. In the first decades after the war books like the Scourge of the Swastika and Eichmann the Savage Truth were published and generally believed. They cannot be republished, the errors were numerous and embarrassing. To have poined them out back in the sixties would probabley have coutned as denial.
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish connection?
so why do you care?
isn't a million in one place enough for you??
I care about the motives for inflating the figures.
Post by abelard
your succour to national socialism is a mystery to me...
--
abelard
2017-08-13 13:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 06:21:11 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by abelard
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2, so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
Please inform yourself better. In the first decades after the war books like the Scourge of the Swastika and Eichmann the Savage Truth were published and generally believed. They cannot be republished, the errors were numerous and embarrassing. To have poined them out back in the sixties would probabley have coutned as denial.
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish connection?
so why do you care?
isn't a million in one place enough for you??
I care about the motives for inflating the figures.
who cares...national socialists are murdering idiots..
you get life for 1....you get life for a million...

the national socialists killed where-ever they went...

the whole creed is a mental disease upon the face of the earth
Post by saracene
Post by abelard
your succour to national socialism is a mystery to me...
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
2017-08-13 14:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 06:21:11 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by abelard
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:22:03 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2, so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
Please inform yourself better. In the first decades after the war books like the Scourge of the Swastika and Eichmann the Savage Truth were published and generally believed. They cannot be republished, the errors were numerous and embarrassing. To have poined them out back in the sixties would probabley have coutned as denial.
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish connection?
so why do you care?
isn't a million in one place enough for you??
I care about the motives for inflating the figures.
who cares...national socialists are murdering idiots..
you get life for 1....you get life for a million...
the national socialists killed where-ever they went...
the whole creed is a mental disease upon the face of the earth
Like Judaism?
Post by abelard
Post by saracene
Post by abelard
your succour to national socialism is a mystery to me...
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2017-08-13 14:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 07:51:28 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by abelard
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 06:21:11 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by abelard
isn't a million in one place enough for you??
I care about the motives for inflating the figures.
who cares...national socialists are murdering idiots..
you get life for 1....you get life for a million...
the national socialists killed where-ever they went...
the whole creed is a mental disease upon the face of the earth
Like Judaism?
as usual, no demonstration of your assertion will follow
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2017-08-13 14:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by saracene
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish
connection?
I have no Jewish connection.

I care because I believe in the mantra 'Those who do not learn the
lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.' (not an exact quote, but
close enough)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-08-13 14:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by saracene
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish
connection?
I have no Jewish connection.
you should never tell that to the loons...better let them emphasise
and advertise their idiocy, ignorance and bigotry..
Post by Vidcapper
I care because I believe in the mantra 'Those who do not learn the
lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.' (not an exact quote, but
close enough)
--
www.abelard.org
A. Filip
2017-08-13 14:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by saracene
Pleasse answer. Why do you care so much? What is your Jewish
connection?
I have no Jewish connection.
I care because I believe in the mantra 'Those who do not learn the
lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.' (not an exact quote,
but close enough)
Gross exaggeration is a perfect way to make "lessons of history" fade
away faster, isn't it? It is (short term) impact v. (long term) credibility.
"Lessons of history" will fade way anyway.
--
A. Filip
| What on earth would a man do with himself if something did not stand in his way?
| -- H. G. Wells
A. Filip
2017-08-13 11:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you
get that figure from?
[...]
The plaque at Auschwitz had claimed *LONG* 4 millions as the number of
dead victims [2]. It is no longer displayed but the museum-memorial
have chosen to keep perfect silence about its former presence.
"The former plaque" had been displayed for far too long to deny it's
existence *directly* . Too many visitors had seen it. Too many pictures
had been taken [1].

It would one thing to *openly* claim long standing soviet/communist
propaganda/error. It is quite another thing to shamelessly pretend
the numbers have never been lowered (so much) - it somehow resembles
ways of "1984" IMHO.

[1] https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=auschwitz+4-million+plaque
[2] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120630074432AAmDmjc
Post by Vidcapper
What's the explanation for the plaque change at auschwitz?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the plaque at auschwitz once
claimed that 4 million people were killed in the camp, then it was
later changed to 1.5 million.
--
A. Filip
| Ask not for whom the Bell tolls, and you will pay only the
| station-to-station rate. (Howard Kandel)
abelard
2017-08-13 11:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A. Filip
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you
get that figure from?
[...]
The plaque at Auschwitz had claimed *LONG* 4 millions as the number of
dead victims [2]. It is no longer displayed but the museum-memorial
have chosen to keep perfect silence about its former presence.
"The former plaque" had been displayed for far too long to deny it's
existence *directly* . Too many visitors had seen it. Too many pictures
had been taken [1].
It would one thing to *openly* claim long standing soviet/communist
propaganda/error. It is quite another thing to shamelessly pretend
the numbers have never been lowered (so much) - it somehow resembles
ways of "1984" IMHO.
please explain why you care, as it is no longer believed by
anyone informed...

it doesn't stop the fact that national socialism was a disgusting
and murderous regime
Post by A. Filip
[1] https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=auschwitz+4-million+plaque
[2] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120630074432AAmDmjc
Post by Vidcapper
What's the explanation for the plaque change at auschwitz?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the plaque at auschwitz once
claimed that 4 million people were killed in the camp, then it was
later changed to 1.5 million.
--
www.abelard.org
A. Filip
2017-08-13 14:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by A. Filip
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you
get that figure from?
[...]
The plaque at Auschwitz had claimed *LONG* 4 millions as the number of
dead victims [2]. It is no longer displayed but the museum-memorial
have chosen to keep perfect silence about its former presence.
"The former plaque" had been displayed for far too long to deny it's
existence *directly* . Too many visitors had seen it. Too many pictures
had been taken [1].
It would one thing to *openly* claim long standing soviet/communist
propaganda/error. It is quite another thing to shamelessly pretend
the numbers have never been lowered (so much) - it somehow resembles
ways of "1984" IMHO.
[1] https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=auschwitz+4-million+plaque
[2] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120630074432AAmDmjc
Post by Vidcapper
What's the explanation for the plaque change at auschwitz?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the plaque at auschwitz once
claimed that 4 million people were killed in the camp, then it was
later changed to 1.5 million.
please explain why you care, as it is no longer believed by
anyone informed...
it doesn't stop the fact that national socialism was a disgusting
and murderous regime
I am unable _and unwilling_ to _trust_ people/institutions changing
versions _silently_.

Germans sooner or later will fully use such _silently_ revoked
"exaggerations" to successfully challenge credibility of even
"not exaggerated" atrocities by nazi-Germany.
--
A. Filip
| It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to
| mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry.
| -- H. L. Mencken
abelard
2017-08-13 14:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A. Filip
Post by abelard
Post by A. Filip
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you
get that figure from?
[...]
The plaque at Auschwitz had claimed *LONG* 4 millions as the number of
dead victims [2]. It is no longer displayed but the museum-memorial
have chosen to keep perfect silence about its former presence.
"The former plaque" had been displayed for far too long to deny it's
existence *directly* . Too many visitors had seen it. Too many pictures
had been taken [1].
It would one thing to *openly* claim long standing soviet/communist
propaganda/error. It is quite another thing to shamelessly pretend
the numbers have never been lowered (so much) - it somehow resembles
ways of "1984" IMHO.
[1] https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=auschwitz+4-million+plaque
[2] https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120630074432AAmDmjc
Post by Vidcapper
What's the explanation for the plaque change at auschwitz?
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the plaque at auschwitz once
claimed that 4 million people were killed in the camp, then it was
later changed to 1.5 million.
please explain why you care, as it is no longer believed by
anyone informed...
it doesn't stop the fact that national socialism was a disgusting
and murderous regime
I am unable _and unwilling_ to _trust_ people/institutions changing
versions _silently_.
Germans sooner or later will fully use such _silently_ revoked
"exaggerations" to successfully challenge credibility of even
"not exaggerated" atrocities by nazi-Germany.
thanx for your explanation...more power to you

though there is no way socialism can be whitewashed...however
dishonest its disciples...there isn't a memory hole wide and deep
enough

the problem is they fool the uneducated...


i liked the title of lipstadt's book....

Denying the Holocaust - The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2017-08-13 11:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
they don't...there may have been some early estimates immediately
after the war during the times of chaos...
it is merely repeated by dishonest jooo fetishist loons like bloghead
because they have no real arguments to support their bigotry...

there is only one reasonable response to the likes of bloghead...

raucous mockery


rest of his dribble binned...
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2017-08-13 13:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Or a real and open debate on the 'Holocaust'. There are some here who
talk about wanting open debate yet who are at the same time happy to see
some individuals thrown in prison for having a view they disapprove of
on certain historical events.
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to
accept the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
I have never seen *anyone* claim that 4m died there - where did you get
that figure from?
I suggest that you educate properly on the matter before you make an
even bigger fool of yourself.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
Has it occurred to you that posting unsubstantiated allegations like
this, rather undermines your own use of the same to support your side of
the argument?
And has it occurred to you that once again you are sounding off about
things you clearly don't understand? But perhaps you are one of the
wilfully blind who has no wish to see.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison,
though. It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very
efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
So what term would you use?
No 'term' is required, they are simply people who disagree with the
official version of an historical event.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
This subject was debated very extensively in the first decades after
WW2,
so to claim it hasn't been discussed thoroughly enough is just absurd.
Discussed 'thoroughly enough' for whom? Or do you mean things like the
discredited lampshades and soap stories?

And please nswer the question: what are those who want to shut down
debate on this issue afraid of? The truth needs no laws to protect it.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-13 11:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to accept
the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
The 4m was a Russian figure and Soviet Russia was not famous for the accuracy of the information that came out. As time went on after the war it was inevitable I suppose that this question was approached from different perspectives (German camp figures, eye witness testimony, etc.} That's how the 'revisions' you allude to took place. There was no conspiracy to exaggerate the death tolls in the concentration camps.

The truth is that due to the destruction of records, the scattering of remains, etc. we just don't know anything beyond just a approximation of the numbers and these seem to average out (in Auschwitz at around 1000000 give or take.

This is still a considerable figure.

To those who say there were no deaths in concentration camps other than those that can be attributable to natural causes I would say this. "Where did they go then?" The population of Jews and other vulnerable groups present in Germany and the subsequently occupied Europe with some degree of accuracy. They were known, they had relatives, friends and neighbours. Their deportations were widely observed.

If they survived their 'adventures' then they or their descendants would be here. Where are they?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
All you can find if you chase these references are pastes and re-pastes by anonymous authors perhaps ultimately originating at some equally anonymous revisionist website.

There is no reliable evidence at all!
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison, though.
It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
I have been endeavouring to find the text of 'Nuremburg Document 274' I found the text of document 270! This was about the treatment of German prisoners in uniform captured in combat.

These Nuremburg documents are publicly archived and are available to anyone who may wish to peruse them. Surely by now genuine researchers would have revealed any questionable content.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
There is no conspiracy to stifle 'real and open debate' either in this country or the US where Holocaust Denial is not a crime. You can publish what you like on this subject as you have just done!
abelard
2017-08-13 11:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to accept
the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
The 4m was a Russian figure and Soviet Russia was not famous for the accuracy of the information that came out. As time went on after the war it was inevitable I suppose that this question was approached from different perspectives (German camp figures, eye witness testimony, etc.} That's how the 'revisions' you allude to took place. There was no conspiracy to exaggerate the death tolls in the concentration camps.
The truth is that due to the destruction of records, the scattering of remains, etc. we just don't know anything beyond just a approximation of the numbers and these seem to average out (in Auschwitz at around 1000000 give or take.
This is still a considerable figure.
To those who say there were no deaths in concentration camps other than those that can be attributable to natural causes I would say this. "Where did they go then?" The population of Jews and other vulnerable groups present in Germany and the subsequently occupied Europe with some degree of accuracy. They were known, they had relatives, friends and neighbours. Their deportations were widely observed.
If they survived their 'adventures' then they or their descendants would be here. Where are they?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
All you can find if you chase these references are pastes and re-pastes by anonymous authors perhaps ultimately originating at some equally anonymous revisionist website.
There is no reliable evidence at all!
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison, though.
It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
I have been endeavouring to find the text of 'Nuremburg Document 274' I found the text of document 270! This was about the treatment of German prisoners in uniform captured in combat.
These Nuremburg documents are publicly archived and are available to anyone who may wish to peruse them. Surely by now genuine researchers would have revealed any questionable content.
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
There is no conspiracy to stifle 'real and open debate' either in this country or the US where Holocaust Denial is not a crime. You can publish what you like on this subject as you have just done!
poor old bloghead is oppressed...along with his fellow
national socialists

though i doubt the germans will be seeking his help anytime soon
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
2017-08-13 13:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is no conspiracy to stifle 'real and open debate' either in this country or the US where Holocaust Denial is not a crime.
Is there not an effort to make it a cirme? Teh late Lord Janner was active in that. Why should that not count as a conspiracy?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You can publish what you like on this subject as you have just done!
Farmer Giles
2017-08-13 13:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
ISTM not that they hold a contrary view, but that they refuse to accept
the evidence does not support that view.
You mean 'evidence' like the four million alleged to have died at
Auschwitz which had to be 'revised' to a fraction of that figure?
The 4m was a Russian figure and Soviet Russia was not famous for the accuracy of the information that came out. As time went on after the war it was inevitable I suppose that this question was approached from different perspectives (German camp figures, eye witness testimony, etc.} That's how the 'revisions' you allude to took place. There was no conspiracy to exaggerate the death tolls in the concentration camps.
The truth is that due to the destruction of records, the scattering of remains, etc. we just don't know anything beyond just a approximation of the numbers and these seem to average out (in Auschwitz at around 1000000 give or take.
This is still a considerable figure.
To those who say there were no deaths in concentration camps other than those that can be attributable to natural causes I would say this. "Where did they go then?" The population of Jews and other vulnerable groups present in Germany and the subsequently occupied Europe with some degree of accuracy. They were known, they had relatives, friends and neighbours. Their deportations were widely observed.
If they survived their 'adventures' then they or their descendants would be here. Where are they?
Post by Farmer Giles
You mean 'evidence' like the torture of the prisoners at Nuremberg who
were made to admit to crimes that today are not even accepted as fact by
the authorities? I see, you mean that sort of 'evidence'.
All you can find if you chase these references are pastes and re-pastes by anonymous authors perhaps ultimately originating at some equally anonymous revisionist website.
There is no reliable evidence at all!
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Vidcapper
I don't agree that holocaust deniers should be thrown in prison, though.
It's not necessary - they destroy their own credibility very efficiently.
The very term 'holocaust deniers' is a misuse of language. Many credible
historians, engineers and scientists have been tarred with this label -
and many thrown in prison - for simply questioning some of the alleged
facts that relate to the issue.
I have been endeavouring to find the text of 'Nuremburg Document 274' I found the text of document 270! This was about the treatment of German prisoners in uniform captured in combat.
These Nuremburg documents are publicly archived and are available to anyone who may wish to peruse them. Surely by now genuine researchers would have revealed any questionable content.
They have, and the torture of prisoners is well known.

Here are just a few testimonies:

In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared:
"The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of
justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ...
The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst."

Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: "As a
representative of the American people I desire to say that what is
taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United
States... A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed,
are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German
businessmen in the name of the United States."

Probably the most courageous condemnation was by US Senator Robert A.
Taft, widely regarded as the "conscience of the Republican party." At
considerable risk to his political career, he denounced the Nuremberg
enterprise in an October 1946 speech. "The trial of the vanquished by
the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with
the forms of justice," he said. Taft went on:

"About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and
vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted
will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In
these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials
-- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to
Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal
procedure, we many discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for
years to come."
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and open
debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real 'deniers' on
are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek to silence those
who differ from the official version of events. The question begged is
just what is it that they are afraid of?
There is no conspiracy to stifle 'real and open debate' either in this country or the US where Holocaust Denial is not a crime. You can publish what you like on this subject as you have just done!
In many countries of the world it is illegal to dispute the alleged
facts of the 'Holocaust', and there have been attempts to make it so
here. However, as has been observed before, for various reasons you are
not exactly unbiased on such matters as this.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Vidcapper
2017-08-13 14:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and
open debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real
'deniers' on are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek
to silence those who differ from the official version of events.
The question begged is just what is it that they are afraid of?
There is no conspiracy to stifle 'real and open debate' either in
this country or the US where Holocaust Denial is not a crime. You can
publish what you like on this subject as you have just done!
ISTM it rather suits the extreme-right to claim 'stifled debate' - that
way then can perpetuate their cover-up myth. When they do get a chance
to air their views, as in the David Irving court case, they are exposed
for the nonsense they are.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-08-13 14:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and
open debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real
'deniers' on are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek
to silence those who differ from the official version of events.
The question begged is just what is it that they are afraid of?
There is no conspiracy to stifle 'real and open debate' either in
this country or the US where Holocaust Denial is not a crime. You can
publish what you like on this subject as you have just done!
ISTM it rather suits the extreme-right to claim 'stifled debate' - that
way then can perpetuate their cover-up myth. When they do get a chance
to air their views, as in the David Irving court case, they are exposed
for the nonsense they are.
they locked up typhoid mary and several of the determined
propagators of aids...

how different is germany and austria persecuting innocent national
socialists?
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
2017-08-13 14:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Vidcapper
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
However, leaving that aside, we are talking here about real and
open debate and there is no such thing on this matter. The real
'deniers' on are those who refuse to allow such a debate and seek
to silence those who differ from the official version of events.
The question begged is just what is it that they are afraid of?
There is no conspiracy to stifle 'real and open debate' either in
this country or the US where Holocaust Denial is not a crime. You can
publish what you like on this subject as you have just done!
ISTM it rather suits the extreme-right to claim 'stifled debate' - that
way then can perpetuate their cover-up myth. When they do get a chance
to air their views, as in the David Irving court case, they are exposed
for the nonsense they are.
they locked up typhoid mary and several of the determined
propagators of aids...
how different is germany and austria persecuting innocent national
socialists?
Himmler spoke of delosuing. How different is that?

saracene
2017-08-10 19:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:27:43 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think it indicates a lack of critical facility, more than
anything. A lack of cynicism that only comes with experience, and a
willingness to believe that everything is someone else's
responsibility. That is why children are being turned into
snowflakes. It's a deliberate strategy - a kind of cultivation.
Once you've gone down that road, there's no escaping. You feel
helpless, hard done by, and you're easy prey.
the trusting nature of the young..
That ought to be over by about fifteen, people of pretty much any
intelligence will have noticed by then that their own observations and
experiences are not always completely consistent with what they are
being told.
By the time they reach university, they will be aware that some people,
including some of their peers, seem to live in a fantasy world.
Of course, questioning authority is more difficult when *all* authority
seems to speak with the same voice, which accounts for the efforts of
the establishment not merely to propound its own narrative, but to
actively prevent any alternatives being published.
Peer pressure is another factor, which includes the requirement to get one's greens.
Ned Latham
2017-08-10 22:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Joe wrote:

----snip----
Post by Joe
Of course, questioning authority is more difficult when *all* authority
seems to speak with the same voice, which accounts for the efforts of
the establishment not merely to propound its own narrative, but to
actively prevent any alternatives being published.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.
The whole tone of the article is depressing, but in keeping with the
modern narrative that dissenting views must be actively suppressed, and
never, under any circumstances, be refuted by superior argument.
Or (heaven forbid!) fact.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-11 07:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:27:43 +0200
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.
The whole tone of the article is depressing, but in keeping with the
modern narrative that dissenting views must be actively suppressed, and
never, under any circumstances, be refuted by superior argument.
I agree with @jimalkhalili . Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the science. https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/895558619051081729 …

The point that seems to have been missed is that science has little or nothing to do with debate. Rather it is about the collection and interpretation of data (facts) in terms of irrefutable known scientific laws and not what someone has said or not said.

Sure there is often room for argument over interpretation particularly where dats is complex or ambiguous but in the end it always boils down to interpretation of fixed knowns.
Joe
2017-08-11 08:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:27:43 +0200
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is
precisely because people like him do not permit debate, not because
there's nothing to talk about.
The whole tone of the article is depressing, but in keeping with the
modern narrative that dissenting views must be actively suppressed,
and never, under any circumstances, be refuted by superior
argument.
give the impression that there is a meaningful debate about the
science. https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/895558619051081729 …
The point that seems to have been missed is that science has little
or nothing to do with debate. Rather it is about the collection and
interpretation of data (facts) in terms of irrefutable known
scientific laws and not what someone has said or not said.
Sure there is often room for argument over interpretation
particularly where dats is complex or ambiguous but in the end it
always boils down to interpretation of fixed knowns.
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have been
disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and the
science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.

Not to mention Lawson not being a 'scientist' and thereby not being
permitted an opinion on the subject, whereas under other circumstances,
everyone's opinions are 'equally valid'. I'll turn that around by saying
that everyone who isn't almost literally a sheep is a scientist,
passing through life discarding hypotheses which don't work and trying
to establish theories which predict reality... and climatologist or
not, I can damn well have an opinion about how 'combatting climate
change' seems to involve only the transfer of truly vast amounts of
money from some pockets to others.
--
Joe
abelard
2017-08-11 13:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have been
disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and the
science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....

ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...

in the end whatever is believed is...a belief....

in the end there is far more of 'democracy' in 'science' than
some find comfortable to embrace :-)

i'm not sure if the is congruent with what you are 'saying'!
Post by Joe
Not to mention Lawson not being a 'scientist' and thereby not being
permitted an opinion on the subject,
he is a comedian on 'the subject'
Post by Joe
whereas under other circumstances,
everyone's opinions are 'equally valid'. I'll turn that around by saying
that everyone who isn't almost literally a sheep is a scientist,
passing through life discarding hypotheses which don't work and trying
to establish theories which predict reality... and climatologist or
not, I can damn well have an opinion about how 'combatting climate
change' seems to involve only the transfer of truly vast amounts of
money from some pockets to others.
boo hoo...trump is refusing to pay for our free ride

the end of the age of o'barmyism....
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2017-08-11 14:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:15:52 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have
been disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and
the science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
Undoubtedly so, but it isn't science.

My point is that 'scientific consensus' (a term used by the BBC, not by
Prof Cox in this case) is an oxymoron.

Science isn't about consensus. Science is about hypotheses which
predict reality, which may or may not be later proven false, either by
egregiously failing in their predictive power, or when something is
found which definitely contradicts them. They can, by definition, never
be proven true. Nobody is marking our exercise book and telling us when
we've got things right. That 'the science is settled' is another
oxymoron.

That's *all* science is, the best currently-known working model of
reality. It's not subject to agreement between 'authorised' people. The
predictions either stand or fall by themselves, not by appeal to
authority.

And in this particular case, the predictions made by AGW theory have
not been outstandingly accurate. Even the 'simplified' theory fed to us
contained mention of 'positive feedback', which is never going to be
supported by data since it is an obvious lie.
--
Joe
abelard
2017-08-11 17:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:15:52 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have
been disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and
the science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
Undoubtedly so, but it isn't science.
My point is that 'scientific consensus' (a term used by the BBC, not by
Prof Cox in this case) is an oxymoron.
ok sort of
Post by Joe
Science isn't about consensus.
are you sure?
Post by Joe
Science is about hypotheses which
predict reality, which may or may not be later proven false, either by
egregiously failing in their predictive power, or when something is
found which definitely contradicts them. They can, by definition, never
be proven true. Nobody is marking our exercise book and telling us when
we've got things right. That 'the science is settled' is another
oxymoron.
god marks our work :-)
Post by Joe
That's *all* science is, the best currently-known working model of
reality. It's not subject to agreement between 'authorised' people. The
predictions either stand or fall by themselves, not by appeal to
authority.
but we observe them each one individually and alone

an authorised person is ok in a clown's repertoire
Post by Joe
And in this particular case, the predictions made by AGW theory have
not been outstandingly accurate.
how many variables do you want to assume? 50?

how will you define and judge 'accurate'?
(that's the priority q i like to see you comment upon)

which predictions are you uncomfortable with?
Post by Joe
Even the 'simplified' theory fed to us
contained mention of 'positive feedback', which is never going to be
supported by data since it is an obvious lie.
please expand...what 'lie' exactly?

there are several positive feedbacks suggested...and a smaller
number of negative feedbacks
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2017-08-11 18:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:37:33 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:15:52 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have
been disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and
the science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know
this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
Undoubtedly so, but it isn't science.
My point is that 'scientific consensus' (a term used by the BBC, not
by Prof Cox in this case) is an oxymoron.
ok sort of
Post by Joe
Science isn't about consensus.
are you sure?
Certain. Physical reality does not depend on what we believe it to be,
otherwise we could collectively think real fairies into existence.

What people believe, or more accurately, what they profess to believe,
certainly can and does affect collected data, particularly if the data
is not easily independently verified.

Galileo, Copernicus and many others through the ages have been on the
wrong end of 'scientific consensus', which did not mean that they were
wrong.
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Science is about hypotheses which
predict reality, which may or may not be later proven false, either
by egregiously failing in their predictive power, or when something
is found which definitely contradicts them. They can, by definition,
never be proven true. Nobody is marking our exercise book and
telling us when we've got things right. That 'the science is
settled' is another oxymoron.
god marks our work :-)
Post by Joe
That's *all* science is, the best currently-known working model of
reality. It's not subject to agreement between 'authorised' people.
The predictions either stand or fall by themselves, not by appeal to
authority.
but we observe them each one individually and alone
an authorised person is ok in a clown's repertoire
Post by Joe
And in this particular case, the predictions made by AGW theory have
not been outstandingly accurate.
how many variables do you want to assume? 50?
how will you define and judge 'accurate'?
(that's the priority q i like to see you comment upon)
which predictions are you uncomfortable with?
The main one: the whole AGW theory rests on an increasing, or even
constant, level of CO2 leading to an accelerating rise in temperature.
The AGW people can't offer a convincing explanation for the levelling
out of the last twenty years, while the CO2 level has continued to
rise at pretty much the same rate. Even the most benign of the IPCC
predictions, based entirely on computer modelling, showed an
accelerating temperature rise.

The best that can be done is to assume that AGW is real, and
therefore the additional heat we know must be there has gone somewhere
hidden such that we can't find it or measure it, thus proving AGW.
There's a name for that kind of argument.

We are invited to believe that additional heat being trapped in the
atmosphere by the water vapour is somehow being teleported away
somewhere else, maybe the depths of oceans, without our being able to
detect it. I'm awaiting experimental evidence, the only real kind.
Teleportation of energy ought to be really useful to humanity.
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Even the 'simplified' theory fed to us
contained mention of 'positive feedback', which is never going to be
supported by data since it is an obvious lie.
please expand...what 'lie' exactly?
there are several positive feedbacks suggested...and a smaller
number of negative feedbacks
That's an easy one: if the climate was an overall positive feedback
system, which was supposedly the reason for the 'hockey stick', then
there would be no recognisable life on Earth. The Earth has been
hotter, with more CO2, and less of its water in the oceans, in the past.
Positive feedback would mean the planet would have already hit its
endstop and stayed there, whatever that might be. And don't waffle
about 'other factors', either CO2 is by far the dominant determinant of
planetary temperature or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

The relatively stable temperature over hundreds of thousands of years,
give or take the odd ice age, confirms the existence of a powerful
overall negative feedback system, whether the 'scientific consensus'
chooses to 'believe' in it or not. Until about 1980, climatologists were
satisfied that water vapour/water droplets/albedo variation was
sufficient to account for it. It was understood that additional water
in the atmosphere would raise the albedo and cool the planet. Somehow,
that is no longer the case, and increased water vapour in the
atmosphere will apparently cause a rise in atmospheric temperature,
thereby increasing the vapour pressure of water and causing increased
evaporation....
--
Joe
abelard
2017-08-11 19:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:37:33 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:15:52 +0200
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have
been disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and
the science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know
this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
Undoubtedly so, but it isn't science.
My point is that 'scientific consensus' (a term used by the BBC, not
by Prof Cox in this case) is an oxymoron.
ok sort of
Post by Joe
Science isn't about consensus.
are you sure?
Certain. Physical reality does not depend on what we believe it to be,
otherwise we could collectively think real fairies into existence.
fine...but 'what we believe' isn't equivalent to reality
Post by Joe
What people believe, or more accurately, what they profess to believe,
certainly can and does affect collected data, particularly if the data
is not easily independently verified.
Galileo, Copernicus and many others through the ages have been on the
wrong end of 'scientific consensus', which did not mean that they were
wrong.
not even partly 'wrong'?

snippy snip
Post by Joe
Post by abelard
how many variables do you want to assume? 50?
how will you define and judge 'accurate'?
(that's the priority q i like to see you comment upon)
which predictions are you uncomfortable with?
The main one: the whole AGW theory rests on an increasing, or even
constant, level of CO2 leading to an accelerating rise in temperature.
it's one factor in a bluddy complex system...

the change in temperature is not instantaneous...if it rises, then
the system will take time to reach a new equilibrium

co2 is only one forcing gas...or even factor...

muck in the atmosphere is counter forcing...and china/india are
putting up a lot of muck...of course muck on the ice fields can
reduce albedo and have a warming effect...
as i said...it's complicated!

and there are several other factors and other worries!
Post by Joe
The AGW people can't offer a convincing explanation for the levelling
out of the last twenty years, while the CO2 level has continued to
rise at pretty much the same rate. Even the most benign of the IPCC
predictions, based entirely on computer modelling, showed an
accelerating temperature rise.
computer modeling is entirely dependent on inputs to the
models
Post by Joe
The best that can be done is to assume that AGW is real, and
therefore the additional heat we know must be there has gone somewhere
hidden such that we can't find it or measure it, thus proving AGW.
There's a name for that kind of argument.
the growing clues are absorption in the oceans...and that is a far
larger potential sink than mud surfaces of the rest
Post by Joe
We are invited to believe that additional heat being trapped in the
atmosphere by the water vapour is somehow being teleported away
that's more or less bollox...the water in the atmosphere is very short
lived and is a dependent variable...
not a forcer as the idiocracy keep claiming/believing
Post by Joe
somewhere else, maybe the depths of oceans, without our being able to
detect it. I'm awaiting experimental evidence, the only real kind.
Teleportation of energy ought to be really useful to humanity.
depends on heat gradients...as i believe you must well know
Post by Joe
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
Even the 'simplified' theory fed to us
contained mention of 'positive feedback', which is never going to be
supported by data since it is an obvious lie.
please expand...what 'lie' exactly?
there are several positive feedbacks suggested...and a smaller
number of negative feedbacks
That's an easy one: if the climate was an overall positive feedback
system, which was supposedly the reason for the 'hockey stick', then
there would be no recognisable life on Earth.
the hockey stick baloney is somewhat posited on enrolment...
i regard dendroclimatology as either very primitive of close to
bollox...
here is roughly why i believe that
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/dendroclimatogy.php
Post by Joe
The Earth has been
hotter, with more CO2, and less of its water in the oceans, in the past.
Positive feedback would mean the planet would have already hit its
endstop and stayed there, whatever that might be. And don't waffle
about 'other factors', either CO2 is by far the dominant determinant of
planetary temperature or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.
to claim that would go beyond the evidence

ghg haven't stopped rising
Post by Joe
The relatively stable temperature over hundreds of thousands of years,
give or take the odd ice age, confirms the existence of a powerful
overall negative feedback system,
at present...until recently...over around 800,000 years

an ice means ice...consider that what is called an ice age depends
on the latitude..or even place you choose!

the biggest fear is large releases of methane(a more forcing gas
than co2...about 12 times iir...but over a shorter time scale)
there are huge reserves in the tundra and in methates in the oceans...

there is also the potential lowering of albedo in the ice fields...and
other areas like deforestation
Post by Joe
whether the 'scientific consensus'
chooses to 'believe' in it or not. Until about 1980, climatologists were
satisfied that water vapour/water droplets/albedo variation was
sufficient to account for it. It was understood that additional water
in the atmosphere would raise the albedo and cool the planet. Somehow,
that is no longer the case, and increased water vapour in the
atmosphere will apparently cause a rise in atmospheric temperature,
thereby increasing the vapour pressure of water and causing increased
evaporation....
the science is recent...it certainly hasn't stopped since 1980...

repeat, this is complicated

you won't get nice easy answers from the mail or anyone who
has looked even as far as myself
--
www.abelard.org
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-12 07:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have been
disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and the
science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
in the end whatever is believed is...a belief....
in the end there is far more of 'democracy' in 'science' than
some find comfortable to embrace :-)
There is little doubt that global warming exists though I would prefer to call it 'global temperature variations, which go back as far as we can investigate but so what? Even over relatively short time spans temperatures fluctuate.

It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.

'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations. Yes a belief is a belief but hard science needs a much firmer base than mere belief. It's religions are based on relief.
abelard
2017-08-12 10:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have been
disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and the
science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
in the end whatever is believed is...a belief....
in the end there is far more of 'democracy' in 'science' than
some find comfortable to embrace :-)
There is little doubt that global warming exists though I would prefer to call it 'global temperature variations, which go back as far as we can investigate but so what? Even over relatively short time spans temperatures fluctuate.
It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.
how does that accord with the long debate between medicine
and ciggy manufacturers?...when if ever, will you move from
correlation to.... 'stop smoking you idiots'?

we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)

when you have eliminated all that cannot be the case.........
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Yes a belief is a belief but hard science needs a much firmer base than mere belief. It's religions are based on relief.
and if i call your theories 'beliefs'

how will you respond?

define 'much firmer'
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's religions are based on relief.
are you claiming that 'science' is not a matter of 'belief'?

example...i believe killing fellow citizens is 'wrong'...i believe
that society will be much happier with that belief...and i
want it to be 'a law'

is my belief/theory, 'religious'?
--
www.abelard.org
RH156RH
2017-08-12 13:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have been
disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and the
science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
in the end whatever is believed is...a belief....
in the end there is far more of 'democracy' in 'science' than
some find comfortable to embrace :-)
There is little doubt that global warming exists though I would prefer to call it 'global temperature variations, which go back as far as we can investigate but so what? Even over relatively short time spans temperatures fluctuate.
It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.
how does that accord with the long debate between medicine
and ciggy manufacturers?...when if ever, will you move from
correlation to.... 'stop smoking you idiots'?
Invalid. You are deriving is from ought. RH
abelard
2017-08-12 15:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 06:46:42 -0700 (PDT), RH156RH
Post by RH156RH
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by Joe
That was my point: that there scientific theories which have
not yet been disproved, and there are former hypotheses which have been
disproved. That's it. There is no 'scientific consensus', and the
science is never 'settled'. A 'scientist' should know this.
but there is 'a scientific consensus'....
ie, most of those working in the field....or anywhere near it...
do agree there is agw...
in the end whatever is believed is...a belief....
in the end there is far more of 'democracy' in 'science' than
some find comfortable to embrace :-)
There is little doubt that global warming exists though I would prefer to call it 'global temperature variations, which go back as far as we can investigate but so what? Even over relatively short time spans temperatures fluctuate.
It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.
how does that accord with the long debate between medicine
and ciggy manufacturers?...when if ever, will you move from
correlation to.... 'stop smoking you idiots'?
Invalid. You are deriving is from ought. RH
the map is not the territory...or it ought not 'to be'

a hatstand should ought to keep to holding up coats...
that is its cause...
--
www.abelard.org
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-12 17:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.
how does that accord with the long debate between medicine
and ciggy manufacturers?...when if ever, will you move from
correlation to.... 'stop smoking you idiots'?
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.

It seems inconceivable to believe that people did not die from smoking related disease during all that time. In fact, some Victorian doctors extolled the virtues of smoking in that it 'cleared congestion from the lungs' Smoking tended to make one cough you see.

Further to that, most deathe of this period came about through infectious diseses like TB. Many worked in dreadful conditions. In mills where fibres floated through the air. In mines where coal and stone dust were suspended in air. Even outside the work environment the air was full of smoke from factory and house chimneys.

Is it any wonder that the lungs became 'congested' (chronic bronchitis)

Death from 'lung congestion' was a prolonged affair as was lung cancer.

Beyond that smoking was a virtually universal habit. Even I can remember when virtually all adult men and a significant number of adult women smoked. A WW2 soldier's field rations contained a packet of 10 Woodbines. Sailors could draw cheap packet of 'blue bands' (Senior Service) from their messes on board or in shore bases.

Such was the awareness of the danger of cigarette smoking in those days.

Such days are now behind us. As the air became cleaner, improvements in health care, increased resort to autopsies, the evidence became more obvious and led to statistical surveys which showed and afterwards reiterated the statistical link between smoking and subsequently, other diseases.

The tobacco companies initially were in denial but of course we were dealing with vested interests.
Post by abelard
we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
The theory goes back to the 19th Century and Svante Arrhenius.
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)
It would appear that 31000 *scientists* would beg to differ.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
Post by abelard
when you have eliminated all that cannot be the case.........
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Yes a belief is a belief but hard science needs a much firmer base than mere belief. It's religions are based on relief.
and if i call your theories 'beliefs'
Beliefs are not necessarily the products of evidence. There are some people who believe in fairies but I am very sceptical as to whether anyone has ever seen one!
Post by abelard
how will you respond?
That I have expounded no such theories
Post by abelard
define 'much firmer'
Substantial, significant.
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's religions are based on relief.
are you claiming that 'science' is not a matter of 'belief'?
It's not if it is under pinned by irrefutable evidence and lack of conflictive evidence or alternative hypothesis in which case it becomes an established and verifiable fact.
abelard
2017-08-12 18:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.
how does that accord with the long debate between medicine
and ciggy manufacturers?...when if ever, will you move from
correlation to.... 'stop smoking you idiots'?
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.
It seems inconceivable to believe that people did not die from smoking related disease during all that time. In fact, some Victorian doctors extolled the virtues of smoking in that it 'cleared congestion from the lungs' Smoking tended to make one cough you see.
Further to that, most deathe of this period came about through infectious diseses like TB. Many worked in dreadful conditions. In mills where fibres floated through the air. In mines where coal and stone dust were suspended in air. Even outside the work environment the air was full of smoke from factory and house chimneys.
Is it any wonder that the lungs became 'congested' (chronic bronchitis)
Death from 'lung congestion' was a prolonged affair as was lung cancer.
Beyond that smoking was a virtually universal habit. Even I can remember when virtually all adult men and a significant number of adult women smoked. A WW2 soldier's field rations contained a packet of 10 Woodbines. Sailors could draw cheap packet of 'blue bands' (Senior Service) from their messes on board or in shore bases.
Such was the awareness of the danger of cigarette smoking in those days.
Such days are now behind us. As the air became cleaner, improvements in health care, increased resort to autopsies, the evidence became more obvious and led to statistical surveys which showed and afterwards reiterated the statistical link between smoking and subsequently, other diseases.
The tobacco companies initially were in denial but of course we were dealing with vested interests.
the cost if final..
so what most people didn't know in 1850

the logic is similar and there is plenty of data....

what is not clear is how much the cost may be...and on what time scale

of course the time scale won't effect old fogies...

there are technological ways out but currently the filthy fossil
fuel industry has the money to confuse the masses...just
as the fag industry once managed(in the west)
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
The theory goes back to the 19th Century and Svante Arrhenius.
and?
and that is just part of the
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)
It would appear that 31000 *scientists* would beg to differ.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
please sign our partition...but first claim to be 'a scientist'
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
when you have eliminated all that cannot be the case.........
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Yes a belief is a belief but hard science needs a much firmer base than mere belief. It's religions are based on relief.
and if i call your theories 'beliefs'
Beliefs are not necessarily the products of evidence. There are some people who believe in fairies but I am very sceptical as to whether anyone has ever seen one!
you are being evasive...i gave you an example
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
how will you respond?
That I have expounded no such theories
you have no position...well that's a claim that is out of
accord with your posting behaviour...

i do have a position...see below
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
define 'much firmer'
Substantial, significant.
define 'substantial' and 'significant'
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's religions are based on relief.
are you claiming that 'science' is not a matter of 'belief'?
It's not if it is under pinned by irrefutable evidence and lack of conflictive evidence or alternative hypothesis in which case it becomes an established and verifiable fact.
define 'evidence'
define 'irrefutable'

define 'become and established and verifiable fact'....
even you have already admitted it is happening...

it's about cost/benefits....your potential costs vastly
far less than those of a 20yo...
so you're more concerned about the insurance payments
the 20 years old will often be more concerned about
the risks...

and 80 year old will not see smoking as so great a risk
...or getting increasing porkie...

none of that is a matter of 'conflicting evidence'...it is a matter
of selfish self-interest..
it's not about science any more than it's about science for
gore or lawson
lawson and you and gore are arguing politics...not serious
science...
imv you're not even arguing about beliefs...you're more
engaged in propaganda to get what you individually *want*


there is plentiful evidence that it is occurring...
now it's matter of risk assessments and costs...

and if you guess wrong the young are going to inherit even
more and worse problems...
they will pay....not you...

lomborg argues that road with rationality...

i would pay more but then
1)i am risk averse
2)i habitually think long term...

i actually don't mind a small temperature increase...but..
i'm not a consumerist by nature...so i don't mind a lower
number of plastic chinese toys...or even ciggies...

i would like to see a huge increase in nuclear power...
that's only money....and even a few high grade jobs...
--
www.abelard.org
Wally W.
2017-08-12 19:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:05:19 +0200, abelard wrote:

Did you get the anthropo**mentric** "word choice" from Unum?
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-13 07:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The tobacco companies initially were in denial but of course we were dealing with vested interests.
the cost if final..
so what most people didn't know in 1850
the logic is similar and there is plenty of data....
what is not clear is how much the cost may be...and on what time scale
of course the time scale won't effect old fogies...
Just gobbledygook!
Post by abelard
there are technological ways out but currently the filthy fossil
fuel industry has the money to confuse the masses...just
as the fag industry once managed(in the west)
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
The theory goes back to the 19th Century and Svante Arrhenius.
and?
and that is just part of the
What?
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)
It would appear that 31000 *scientists* would beg to differ.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
please sign our partition...but first claim to be 'a scientist'
And do you think it is as simple as that?

If you were organising a campaign would you not insist upon verifiable names and addresses with details of positions held? Would not these details be checked?

There will be no Joe Soaps there. Such people to a very large extent rely upon their reputations their careers depend upon them.

They would have been *invited* to add their names. You and I were not invited. I wonder why? Could it be that we had nothing to add to the credibility f the exercise?
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Beliefs are not necessarily the products of evidence. There are some people who believe in fairies but I am very sceptical as to whether anyone has ever seen one!
you are being evasive...i gave you an example
Yes you gave me an example totally outside of the context of the subject. Why? I did my best with it.
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
how will you respond?
That I have expounded no such theories
you have no position...well that's a claim that is out of
accord with your posting behaviour...
Oh but I have if you are prepared to think about what you read.

To reiterate, I concede that there is a phenomenon commonly referred to as global warming or climate change. For me it is the near universal recession of glaciers and to a lesser extent the shrinkage of the ice cap in the Arctic which provide the conclusive evidence.

However, there my position ends. Climate is a very complex notion and there and to try and nail the cause predominantly to just one factor, is simply asking too much.

Further to that, these *variations* in global temperature are nothing new. If we are to ascribe global warming to a particular anthropogenic activity then how do we explain similar occurrences that happened before man was on this earth?

Then there is the question relating to what I know about the spectroscopy of CO2. There earth radiates absorbed heat across a wide spectrum. CO2 absorbs radiation across a relatively narrow spectrum band and so most infra red emissions from a cooling earth will not be affected.

In short the theory is over simplistic. It completely ignores th presence of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not least water vapour and cloud

Beyond that there are alternative explanations for GW, that do not involve CO2, which seldom get an airing if others don't care to look.
Post by abelard
i do have a position...see below
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
define 'much firmer'
Substantial, significant.
define 'substantial' and 'significant'
You should now by now I don't play silly games.

If you are unfamiliar with commonly used words then I suggest you consult a dictionary.
Post by abelard
even you have already admitted it is happening...
See above where I reiterate.
Post by abelard
it's about cost/benefits....your potential costs vastly
far less than those of a 20yo...
so you're more concerned about the insurance payments
the 20 years old will often be more concerned about
the risks...
and 80 year old will not see smoking as so great a risk
...or getting increasing porkie...
What has all this to do with it?
Post by abelard
none of that is a matter of 'conflicting evidence'...it is a matter
of selfish self-interest..
it's not about science any more than it's about science for
gore or lawson
lawson and you and gore are arguing politics...not serious
science...
imv you're not even arguing about beliefs...you're more
engaged in propaganda to get what you individually *want*
Both me and I suggest Lawson are concerned about the vast amount of money and resources that are being used to fight a danger that might well be over stated. If the decision reached is wrong this will impoverish generations to come.
Post by abelard
there is plentiful evidence that it is occurring...
now it's matter of risk assessments and costs...
and if you guess wrong the young are going to inherit even
more and worse problems...
they will pay....not you...
I have children and grandchildren. In the fullness of time I may well have great grand children. My genes will be carried into the next century and hopefully beyond but that I will never know. Do you suggest I don't care about these things? It is just about all I do care about.
abelard
2017-08-13 11:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The tobacco companies initially were in denial but of course we were dealing with vested interests.
the cost if final..
so what most people didn't know in 1850
the logic is similar and there is plenty of data....
what is not clear is how much the cost may be...and on what time scale
of course the time scale won't effect old fogies...
Just gobbledygook!
yeah, that often effects them
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
there are technological ways out but currently the filthy fossil
fuel industry has the money to confuse the masses...just
as the fag industry once managed(in the west)
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
The theory goes back to the 19th Century and Svante Arrhenius.
and?
and that is just part of the
What?
is being studied...but a very minor part as the science is
already believed by most who study
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)
It would appear that 31000 *scientists* would beg to differ.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
please sign our partition...but first claim to be 'a scientist'
And do you think it is as simple as that?
yes, you're trying to quote it as some source of authority
some fossil media petition
yet so recently you were trying to rubbish alleged 'authorities'

you are practicing double 'standards'
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
If you were organising a campaign would you not insist upon verifiable names and addresses with details of positions held? Would not these details be checked?
There will be no Joe Soaps there. Such people to a very large extent rely upon their reputations their careers depend upon them.
They would have been *invited* to add their names. You and I were not invited. I wonder why? Could it be that we had nothing to add to the credibility f the exercise?
i've seen such lists from long ago...almost all of those
listed were the likes of 90 year old us professors (professor
has a different meaning in the usa and the corruption
has started in the uk) social 'scientists' and similar

and it is still an appeal to authority which you have earlier
(more intelligently) dismissed
now you wish to disinter it for your own support
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Beliefs are not necessarily the products of evidence. There are some people who believe in fairies but I am very sceptical as to whether anyone has ever seen one!
you are being evasive...i gave you an example
Yes you gave me an example totally outside of the context of the subject. Why? I did my best with it.
no you didn't, you tried to avoid it via your own beliefs in fairies
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
how will you respond?
That I have expounded no such theories
you have no position...well that's a claim that is out of
accord with your posting behaviour...
Oh but I have if you are prepared to think about what you read.
To reiterate, I concede that there is a phenomenon commonly referred to as global warming or climate change. For me it is the near universal recession of glaciers and to a lesser extent the shrinkage of the ice cap in the Arctic which provide the conclusive evidence.
However, there my position ends. Climate is a very complex notion and there and to try and nail the cause predominantly to just one factor, is simply asking too much.
Further to that, these *variations* in global temperature are nothing new. If we are to ascribe global warming to a particular anthropogenic activity then how do we explain similar occurrences that happened before man was on this earth?
Then there is the question relating to what I know about the spectroscopy of CO2. There earth radiates absorbed heat across a wide spectrum. CO2 absorbs radiation across a relatively narrow spectrum band and so most infra red emissions from a cooling earth will not be affected.
you remain incorrect, despite i've corrected you previously

most of the infra red is effected

but at least you have part remembered your previous lesson!
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In short the theory is over simplistic. It completely ignores th presence of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not least water vapour and cloud
i've corrected you on that also...water vapour is a dependent variable
...it stays in the atmosphere for 3 or 4 days...co2 for around 100
years...

you don't even know the basic science despite me previously correcting
your misunderstandings
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Beyond that there are alternative explanations for GW, that do not involve CO2, which seldom get an airing if others don't care to look.
but you can't name them...

you must realise that i know you are repeating stuff i've already
posted...
you must realise that i remember some of the various errors you
have previously made and i have corrected you for

at which point you invariably go silent...

i normally leave it alone in order to avoid embarrassing you as
you're generally a good chap...but don't suppose i don't
notice
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
i do have a position...see below
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
define 'much firmer'
Substantial, significant.
define 'substantial' and 'significant'
You should now by now I don't play silly games.
If you are unfamiliar with commonly used words then I suggest you consult a dictionary.
another standard attempt to escape defining your position...you
do not behave as a scientist...
but i'm sure that like hatstand or bloghead you can tell me all manner
of fascinating things about participles whatever they may be...
and how to speell...or some other nonsense

you are selling your own politics just like lawson...you are not
talking about science, you offering no approach let alone
'solutions'
in fact you are sedulously avoiding any manner of commitment
to anything...

it looks far more like...'please don't disturb my fossilised brain'
to me!

i'm not going to waste time further with this political posturing...
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
even you have already admitted it is happening...
See above where I reiterate.
Post by abelard
it's about cost/benefits....your potential costs vastly
far less than those of a 20yo...
so you're more concerned about the insurance payments
the 20 years old will often be more concerned about
the risks...
and 80 year old will not see smoking as so great a risk
...or getting increasing porkie...
What has all this to do with it?
Post by abelard
none of that is a matter of 'conflicting evidence'...it is a matter
of selfish self-interest..
it's not about science any more than it's about science for
gore or lawson
lawson and you and gore are arguing politics...not serious
science...
imv you're not even arguing about beliefs...you're more
engaged in propaganda to get what you individually *want*
Both me and I suggest Lawson are concerned about the vast amount of money and resources that are being used to fight a danger that might well be over stated. If the decision reached is wrong this will impoverish generations to come.
the west is rich beyond any previous times...
money ain't much use to anyone who is ded...

flying around the world going to talk shops is not a solution
to shrinking resources, increasing populations and advancing
deserts...
even paying into one of geldorf's scams will not stop the
millions trying to escape the lands they are destroying...
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
there is plentiful evidence that it is occurring...
now it's matter of risk assessments and costs...
and if you guess wrong the young are going to inherit even
more and worse problems...
they will pay....not you...
I have children and grandchildren. In the fullness of time I may well have great grand children. My genes will be carried into the next century and hopefully beyond but that I will never know.
but your ideas will not.

do you really believe 'it's all about bodies'
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Do you suggest I don't care about these things? It is just about all I do care about.
'i care about the starving of africa...but i care more about
going on a cruise...'
caring is the easy bit...
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2017-08-12 18:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is one thing to recognise and acknowledge a particular phenomenon and quite a different to attribute cause.
how does that accord with the long debate between medicine
and ciggy manufacturers?...when if ever, will you move from
correlation to.... 'stop smoking you idiots'?
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.
It seems inconceivable to believe that people did not die from smoking related disease during all that time. In fact, some Victorian doctors extolled the virtues of smoking in that it 'cleared congestion from the lungs' Smoking tended to make one cough you see.
Further to that, most deathe of this period came about through infectious diseses like TB. Many worked in dreadful conditions. In mills where fibres floated through the air. In mines where coal and stone dust were suspended in air. Even outside the work environment the air was full of smoke from factory and house chimneys.
Is it any wonder that the lungs became 'congested' (chronic bronchitis)
Death from 'lung congestion' was a prolonged affair as was lung cancer.
Beyond that smoking was a virtually universal habit. Even I can remember when virtually all adult men and a significant number of adult women smoked. A WW2 soldier's field rations contained a packet of 10 Woodbines. Sailors could draw cheap packet of 'blue bands' (Senior Service) from their messes on board or in shore bases.
Such was the awareness of the danger of cigarette smoking in those days.
Such days are now behind us. As the air became cleaner, improvements in health care, increased resort to autopsies, the evidence became more obvious and led to statistical surveys which showed and afterwards reiterated the statistical link between smoking and subsequently, other diseases.
The tobacco companies initially were in denial but of course we were dealing with vested interests.
Post by abelard
we do have pretty (to me) convincing theory...
The theory goes back to the 19th Century and Svante Arrhenius.
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
'Consensus' yes! 'democracy' never. It all comes back to interpretation of observable data. There are a number of conflicting theories regarding the cause of these variations.
i see no other seriously convincing theories(to me!)
It would appear that 31000 *scientists* would beg to differ.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html
Post by abelard
when you have eliminated all that cannot be the case.........
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Yes a belief is a belief but hard science needs a much firmer base than mere belief. It's religions are based on relief.
and if i call your theories 'beliefs'
Beliefs are not necessarily the products of evidence. There are some people who believe in fairies but I am very sceptical as to whether anyone has ever seen one!
Post by abelard
how will you respond?
That I have expounded no such theories
Post by abelard
define 'much firmer'
Substantial, significant.
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It's religions are based on relief.
are you claiming that 'science' is not a matter of 'belief'?
It's not if it is under pinned by irrefutable evidence and lack of conflictive evidence or alternative hypothesis in which case it becomes an established and verifiable fact.
response to new thread
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
2017-08-12 18:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.
There are those who attribute the increase in lung cancer to increased radioactivity in tobacco.

http://owndoc.com/cancer/radioactive-tobacco-causes-lung-cancer/
abelard
2017-08-13 11:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:32:13 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.
There are those who attribute the increase in lung cancer to increased radioactivity in tobacco.
so it doesn't kill you the same way? is that the argument?

you're still ded!

anyway...many the adult-children are sucking a brand new
type of dummy so's the fag manufacturers are still coining it
Post by saracene
http://owndoc.com/cancer/radioactive-tobacco-causes-lung-cancer/
--
www.abelard.org
saracene
2017-08-13 13:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:32:13 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.
There are those who attribute the increase in lung cancer to increased radioactivity in tobacco.
so it doesn't kill you the same way? is that the argument?
you're still ded!
Why is ther increased radiocactivity? Were they not so ignorant and stupid in the past as we think? I'm all for debunking recieved opinion when it can be done.
abelard
2017-08-13 13:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 06:24:24 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by abelard
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:32:13 -0700 (PDT), saracene
Post by saracene
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The link between smoking and lung cancer is or was in fact quite tenuous. Tobacco had been smoked for well over 200 years before any link was established.
There are those who attribute the increase in lung cancer to increased radioactivity in tobacco.
so it doesn't kill you the same way? is that the argument?
you're still ded!
Why is ther increased radiocactivity? Were they not so ignorant and stupid in the past as we think? I'm all for debunking recieved opinion when it can be done.
oh, i don't mind...

but i'm more oriented to present and future...

any supposed adult that needs to suck on a dummy
is not my greatest concern!
they want to kill themselves and save the wondrous nhs...
i'm all for darwin in action...i hardly even care if they look
like overgrown baybees...it helps to identify idiots...
always a useful datum

at least they're increasingly being inhibited from blowing their
filth in my face in public spaces, which suits my interests fine
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2017-08-11 13:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Joe
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:27:43 +0200
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/brian-cox-hits-bbc-inviting-climate-change-denier-radio-4/
Here is a man who is aware that he's pretty much the public face of
science in Britain today, speaking with approval about having a
"...Irresponsible and highly misleading to give the impression that
there is a meaningful debate about the science."
OK, he's correct, there is no meaningful debate, but that is precisely
because people like him do not permit debate, not because there's
nothing to talk about.
The whole tone of the article is depressing, but in keeping with the
modern narrative that dissenting views must be actively suppressed, and
never, under any circumstances, be refuted by superior argument.
that was fun

Dexter Tempest? @DexterTempest Aug 10
Replying to @jimalkhalili @BBCr4today

You wouldn't put someone who thinks the world is flat on a travel show
for "balance", why let Lawson on to talk about misguided beliefs?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The point that seems to have been missed is that science has little or nothing to do with debate. Rather it is about the collection and interpretation of data (facts) in terms of irrefutable known scientific laws and not what someone has said or not said.
Sure there is often room for argument over interpretation particularly where dats is complex or ambiguous but in the end it always boils down to interpretation of fixed knowns.
--
www.abelard.org
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-08-12 12:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
You wouldn't put someone who thinks the world is flat on a travel show
for "balance", why let Lawson on to talk about misguided beliefs?
Perhaps, neither would I do the same with Gore and certainly not with Caoline Lucas.

I hope you are saying that before anyone can be taken seriously on this subject then he has to speak from a position of authority which includes some formal study and preferably serious working experience within in the field of science. It is in this sense that science is not 'democratic' as you claim elsewhere because in a democratic setting all opinions are equal. Clearly in science and indeed any academic discipline, all opinions are not and can't be equal.

People without scientific backgrounds cannot read a couple of books or articles and become scientists. Without that learning, training and experience, they can only hold mere opinions which count for little or nothing. Yet we have all kinds of people, politicians, media celebrities, entertainers, and so on who have turned the whole issue into some kind of pseudo debate that some would suggest has got out of hand.

Lawson's grouse AIUI is that the agw circus have politically manoeuvred what a scientific issue into a policy positon with the result that a great deal of change that will not be without economic consequences all without any convincing case being made.
abelard
2017-08-12 12:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
You wouldn't put someone who thinks the world is flat on a travel show
for "balance", why let Lawson on to talk about misguided beliefs?
Perhaps, neither would I do the same with Gore and certainly not with Caoline Lucas.
agreed...which is no excuse at all for lawson

i do admit to being more inclined to tolerate idiocy from leftists...
it is quite unacceptable in alleged tories!
lefties just can't help themselves...
http://www.abelard.org/sums/teaching_number_arithmetic_mathematics_understanding_graphs_charts.php#hoodwinked

the blue illustration is from a site patronised by lawson...

not quite my version of a 'clever chancellor'!
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
I hope you are saying that before anyone can be taken seriously on this subject then he has to speak from a position of authority which includes some formal study and preferably serious working experience within in the field of science. It is in this sense that science is not 'democratic' as you claim elsewhere because in a democratic setting all opinions are equal. Clearly in science and indeed any academic discipline, all opinions are not and can't be equal.
i am saying that science is far nearer to religion/belief
than most seem to realise
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
People without scientific backgrounds cannot read a couple of books or articles and become scientists. Without that learning, training and experience, they can only hold mere opinions which count for little or nothing. Yet we have all kinds of people, politicians, media celebrities, entertainers, and so on who have turned the whole issue into some kind of pseudo debate that some would suggest has got out of hand.
most are not arguing about 'science'...they are supporting
football teams
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Lawson's grouse AIUI is that the agw circus have politically manoeuvred what a scientific issue into a policy positon with the result that a great deal of change that will not be without economic consequences all without any convincing case being made.
lawson is every bit as culpable as gore...he's just supporting
the other football team

there are matters like insurance policies...

lomberg(sp) is far more useful if you want to attend to economics
approaches...

lawson is little more use than monckton
--
www.abelard.org
Vidcapper
2017-08-12 14:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Lawson's grouse AIUI is that the agw circus have politically
manoeuvred what a scientific issue into a policy positon with the
result that a great deal of change that will not be without
economic consequences all without any convincing case being made.
lawson is every bit as culpable as gore...he's just supporting the
other football team
there are matters like insurance policies...
lomberg(sp) is far more useful if you want to attend to economics
approaches...
lawson is little more use than monckton
I'd much rather hear from his daughter anyway. ;)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
2017-08-12 15:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Lawson's grouse AIUI is that the agw circus have politically
manoeuvred what a scientific issue into a policy positon with the
result that a great deal of change that will not be without
economic consequences all without any convincing case being made.
lawson is every bit as culpable as gore...he's just supporting the
other football team
there are matters like insurance policies...
lomberg(sp) is far more useful if you want to attend to economics
approaches...
lawson is little more use than monckton
I'd much rather hear from his daughter anyway. ;)
at least she only goes on about kakes and kreem
--
www.abelard.org
Ned Latham
2017-08-10 22:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Having seen two nieces waste a few years at uni, and emerge
somewhat politicised, I think it's all part of a plot to
"get 'em young". It appears to have had a negligible
influence on their level of knowledge of anything in
particular. I think we should promote 'distance learning'
(like the OU) where there ought to be fewer distractions
for those genuinely interested in study.
It's amusing to hear someone in a politics newsgroup describe
politicising as a bad thing... isn't that why we're here?
No. We're here to become politically aware, not brainwashed.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by saracene
We don;t want our little nieces turned in to Marxists and feminists,
though, which it presumbaly what is meant. Some of us come there to
combat that sort of politics.
Yes, and that's what they turned into. I've been to a few graduation
ceremonies in the last decade, and could hardly believe the sort of,
frankly aggressive, political nonsense that covered the notice boards.
Of course, it only works with impressionable young minds, so I suppose
it's very effective, but rather depressing.
I think the appropriate term there is "sinister", Dan. Think about
the ability to control minds in such a finely tuned fasshion.
Sonoster? Or sinister? I'd agree with that.
Sinister. Sorry about the typo.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Ned Latham
A lot of those kids are intelligent; their politicisation has
required a not inconsiderable amount of learning, and they have
learnt it well. If their learning has been guided by people
of the right political leanings, they will be good employees
for political organisations, including political parties and
all broadcast media. The compartmentalrism of their minds is
what enables this rather amazing ability of intelligent people
to believe in the stupid.
The wasting of their minds on their ideologies is only one
aspect of the problem that mind control has wrought: a
dramatic and dangerous change in their effect on society;
viz, the more of them there are, the more powerful is the
Politikal Korrektness Kult.
I think it indicates a lack of critical facility, more than anything.
Yep. Critical thinking, it seems, has been dropped from all curricula.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
A lack of cynicism that only comes with experience,
I think a bit of healthy skepticism inculcated early would be preferable,
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
and a willingness to believe that everything is someone else's
responsibility. That is why children are being turned into snowflakes.
It's a deliberate strategy - a kind of cultivation. Once you've gone
down that road, there's no escaping. You feel helpless, hard done by,
and you're easy prey.
I don't see the snowflakes as feeling that way: they seem to me
rather aggressive in their pouncing on anything that contradicts
their opinions.

Or is that just rabid defensiveness?
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Ned Latham
rather amazing when you think about it: you can can
turn intelligent people into mindless robots without
damaging their intelligence.
Fuckin' WOW!
7
2017-08-09 22:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every
endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s
had a very bad effect on education.
The fix is simpler than first inspection.

The engineering and science profession have broken away
and call it something else from the rest of the crowd
its called a BSc. All it needs is for management pooliticians
to know that it is more valuable than "a degree".
Basil Jet
2017-08-10 00:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by 7
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Tibor Fischer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/fellow-lecturers-wont-say-public-students-today-moaning-illiterate/
"There is still a mania that everyone should go to university and every
endeavour should be a degree (whether sculpting or golf management). It’s
had a very bad effect on education.
The fix is simpler than first inspection.
The engineering and science profession have broken away
and call it something else from the rest of the crowd
its called a BSc. All it needs is for management pooliticians
to know that it is more valuable than "a degree".
That would lead to even more attempts to crush males out of science.
True Blue
2017-08-10 10:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students pay a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five? But there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don’t really have the tools to >benefit fully from a course, which is quite often not that demanding.
My niece has just completed her degree in psychology at Lincoln University. I can honestly say her worth as an employee, or even as a person prepared for life, is not what is was three years ago. She is now embued with a lifeview passed to her by academics who have never seen the outside of a school of some form or another.
Ned Latham
2017-08-10 13:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by True Blue
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
In the humanities we seem to have a system where many students
pay a lot of money, learn very little and gain very little
employability. The students I mentioned who are functionally
illiterate represent perhaps only one per cent, three, five?
But there they are, at university.
The real problem is the much larger group who don't really
have the tools to benefit fully from a course, which is quite
often not that demanding.
My niece has just completed her degree in psychology at Lincoln
University. I can honestly say her worth as an employee, or even
as a person prepared for life, is not what is was three years
ago. She is now embued with a lifeview passed to her by academics
who have never seen the outside of a school of some form or another.
It's a good bet that she's perfect for someone in politicsi, perhaps
as a PA: I think that finding prospective employers whose public
political profile is compatible with her conditioning should be
rather easy if she's in line with a popular opinion; difficult if
not.

But you never know; circumstances could give her an opportunity at
any time no matter *what* her leaning is. Intelligent people have
the advantage of a higher than average probability of not only of
receiving opportunity, but of recognising it and being able to
make use of it.

Good luck!
Loading...