Recent Comments

Prev  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  Next

Comments 3901 to 3950:

3901. Philippe Chantreau at 09:31 AM on 9 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Indeed, to Moliere's own death and collapsing on stage while playing the Imaginary Patient.

3902. Eclectic at 07:52 AM on 9 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Philippe @76 :

      Well said.  You set a very high bar for conspiracy theorists to jump over ~ but they will try to jump (and will succeed, if only in their own minds).

      Yes, an actor who agrees to die, is certainly a Method Actor.

      Please be kind enough to expand on your Moliere reference, which largely has gone over my head.  I have only heard of the titles of his works; never read them.   Probably my first encounter with Moliere was via the Scaramouche novel ~ where the trajectory of the protagonist does indeed slightly follow Moliere's earlier life.

      Were you alluding to "The Imaginary Patient" . . . or to Moliere's own death ( Tuberculosis of the lungs, I gather) . . . or to something else . . . or all of the above?   [Rather off-topic, but interesting, in this chaotic thread.]

3903. MA Rodger at 06:41 AM on 9 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @69,
      I'm not then sure why you should be ceaselessly amaze (as you say you are @67) by "that type of response" if such response "is common to all arguments."
      And within an interchange, if the recipient of "the fact ...knows the fact has no value as a meaningful argument," they would presumably point to it being a statement of "no value" and not let it pass unanswered as though it did have value.
      And beyond prevnting your coment @69 from passing unanswered, I am intrigued to know what this world-inverting "link in FB" would be which you mention @73.

3904. One Planet Only Forever at 06:13 AM on 9 July 2022
      SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
      

      Evan,

      It appears that you may be doing the most that can be expected of a individual – pursue increased awareness and improved understanding and apply it to be less harmful and more helpful. But changes of individual actions are only part of the solution (note: ‘individualism’ is identified as a specific strategy of ‘discourse of climate (action) delay’ presented in the Cambridge Core article “Discourses of climate delay” that is referred to by the Desmog article “Climate Deniers and the Language of Climate Obstruction” that BaerbelW provided a link to in comment 1 on the SkS post “Skeptical Science tackles 'discourses of climate delay' and 'solutions denial'”.)

      The following quote about the ‘individualism discourse’ is from the Cambridge Core presentation:

      “Who is responsible for taking climate action? Policy statements can become discourses of delay if they purposefully evade responsibility for mitigating climate change. A prominent example is individualism, which redirects climate action from systemic solutions to individual actions, such as renovating one's home or driving a more efficient car. This discourse narrows the solution space to personal consumption choices, obscuring the role of powerful actors and organizations in shaping those choices and driving fossil fuel emissions (Maniates, Reference Maniates2001). Blame shifting in this way can be explicit – “Yale's guiding principles are predicated on the idea that consumption of fossil fuels, not production, is the root of the climate change problem” (Yale University). But it can also be implicit, such as in the social media campaign run by BP – “Our ‘Know your carbon footprint’ campaign successfully created an experience that not only enabled people to discover their annual carbon emissions, but gave them a fun way to think about reducing it – and to share their pledge with the world.”

      This is not to suggest that individual actions are futile. Rather, a more productive discourse of responsibility would focus attention on the collective potential of individual actions to stimulate normative shifts and build pressure towards regulation. It would also recognize that regulations and structural shifts are complementary to supporting individual behaviour change.”

      Note that in spite of Yale University producing/hosting Yale Climate Connections the high level position of Yale is less helpful than it could be.

      So, in addition to pursuing increased awareness and improved understanding of how to change what you do to reduce the harm done by what you do, it is important to politically engage in efforts to help others be more aware and better understand the required changes to help achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals (less global warming helps). One way to do that is to understand the importance of, and ways to improve, political policy pursuits like Green New Deals. One improvement I note regarding most Green New Deal presentations is adding mention of the importance of limiting consumption combined with limiting how harmful the remaining consumption is.

      That circles back to the 10% causing 50% concern you raised. The better way to think about the solution is that a major problem is the desires of the other 90% to develop to be like the ‘10% most superior humans’. Those ‘10% most superior humans’ need to set a ‘superior’ sustainable example for the 90% to aspire to. They need to dramatically reduce their consumption and constantly pursue ways for their reduced consumption to be less harmful and more helpful to others including future generations.

      As far as helping others, I would suggest you can relax about concerns that you personally fail to be more helpful to those who live less than a decent basic life. That guilt trip is part of the ‘individualism discourse of delay’. My perspective is that collective government action at all levels (municipal up to national and international) is the best mechanism to help people sustainably improve their lives to at least decent basic lives. Acts of charity should be able to focus on the joy, for the charity giver and recipient, of providing improvements beyond that basic decent life. It is a tragedy to expect individual actions to address a systemic problem like a portion of the population not being able to live at least a decent basic life. Economic development can only be part of the systemic solution to poverty if the economic activity is sustainable and harmless. That said, I support groups like Red Cross, Food Banks, pursuits of sustainable assistance for the Homeless, Amnesty International ...

3905. Philippe Chantreau at 06:12 AM on 9 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      What is plausible and what is not. An interesting question to consider when faced with disinformation.

      Anyone who knows anything about microbiology knew that it was always a matter of when this would happen, not a matter of if. It was discussed in my microbiology class. I wrote a short paper in that context. There were large scale epidemics before, they halways had been limited by the means of transportation of people, the speed of such means, and the modes of transmission of the disease. Anyone with even vague notions of microbiology knew that, with global travel of people going at 80% of the speed of the sound throughout the World, a global pandemic of a respiratory illness was not just probable, but inevitable. There had been multiple warnings, including H1N1, H5N1, MERS, SARS CoV-1, an others. So, in summary, if "someone had told" me, back in 2019 about this coming, I would not have been the least bit surprised. But then again, it's not like I knew nothing of the subject.

      Add to that wild animal populations under ever increasing pressure from humans, with contact between humans and wild reservoirs increasing in frequency and all the ingredients are gathered. This was common knowledge and was the reason why there were plans for possible pandemics being worked out well over 20 years ago.

      Now, let's consider that it's a "fake disease" and that everyone who has been critically ill from this was, possibly, an actor. You'll need lots of them. Said actors will have to simulate shortness of breath well enough to convince EMS personnel, but also should be able to reduce their measurable pulse oximetry while breathing at or above 35 breaths per minute. These patients were routinely found struggling, with a pulse oximetry in the 70s or lower. That is a feat of acting. Then, once they got to the hospital, they had to keep up the act and be able to produce a sample of arterial blood showing severe hypoxia and often hypocarbia as well, without acidosis and even some alkalosis in many cases, because of the low CO2. Of course, they also will need to create patchy ground glass opacities on x-ray that are characteristic of the fake disease, and CT findings to match. Now, keep in mind that you'll have to train tens of thousands of people to do this. Since there is not really a way to simulate it, it has to actually be done. I'll leave to the conspiracy theorists what means could be used to achieve that goal. A drug? Poison? Some alien technology? There has to be something.

      Then, once these actors are hospitalized, they will have to continue with their act, persisting in their inability to exchange gases, but now in a much more controlled environment where whatever means was used to cause the symptoms and "simulate" disease can be more readily identified by health care personnel. Unless, of course, said personnel are in on it. I did not see any significant increase in my pay, and nobody talked to me about this, could have I missed out?

      Considering their acuity, these people will be in a unit where they will have nursing care 24 hours a day, and will be on a monitor continuously measuring their heart rate, repiratory rate, pulse oximetry, you could add end-tidal CO2, and blood pressure every 15 minutes or continuous with an arterial line. So, if the hypoxia is simulated by use of a substance, it would be much more likely to be detected.

      Of course, now these "actors" are so invested in the whole scheme, we are discussing what to do if they need to be intubated and put on a ventilator (breathing machine), how far we'll go with support, re-assessing what to do in case of cardio-respiratory arrest, etc. That is some serious acting. The better ones of them manage to also raise their D-dimer and throw clots in their pulmonary arteries, because acting is just literally in their blood. Meanwhile, we are furiously testing for every respiratory pathogen known and the only one that turns out positive is the SARS Cov2. That means inevitably that all the labs are in on it as well, whether they are part of a hospital system or independent.

      Then, they push the act to the point where they can no longer survive unless the work of breathing goes to a machine. The best ones decline and decide to die, Moliere would approve. I guess they figured with all the money they made from their "act" their families will easily be able to move out of the trailer into a real house. Except the ones who don't need money that badly, who knows their motive?

      Others go on the vent. Hypoxia persists, of course, because their lungs are essentially destroyed. They are so good at acting that they can give the appearance (and functionality) of ground glass opacity to 85% of their lung tissue. We can't maintain a p/F ration conducive to life with them unless we flip them on their stomach and paralyze them to ensure total compliance with the vent. Oscar nominations on the way. At the height of the Delta wave, our ICU is full of nothing but them, and the other critical patients not positive for the fake disease have to be bedded in a nearby unit. 

      This would mean that there would have to be even more people engaged in supporting the work of the actors than the actors themselves. Whatever they are using to cause the symptoms would have to elude highly knowledgeable and experienced EMS, physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pathologists, lab workers, unless of course we are all in on it, and we all go along and are eager to participate. Millions of dedicated professionals eager to participate in a fraud and disregard all the principles that guided them through their lives up to that point. Some would have to be actors themselves and push it unto the lethal end. Others would have to see their relatives do that.

      Plausibility scales and Occam's Razor can certainly point in a given direction...

3906. Evan at 22:02 PM on 8 July 2022
      SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
      

      OPOF thanks for your references and comments.

      Some are quick to note that 10% of the people cause 50% of the GHG emissions (read here). Get rid of the 10% of the biggest emitters (that probably includes me), and we still have a monumental problem.

      I think about the harm my emissions are doing, and I'm trying to minimize them. I drive an EV, eat predominantely vegetarian, planning to install geothermal heat pumps for home heating/cooling. I don't fly for pleasure anymore. But my GHG emissions are still unsustainably high, and I don't know what to do about it. I care about those suffering the consequences of my actions, but simply don't know how to drop my emissions to a sustainable level.

      It is not just the wealthy, greedy people causing the problem. It is also ordinary, decent, hard-working people who have grown up in an age where fossil fuels power society. Many acts of kindness and charity carry a carbon footprint. It is impossible to do anything in our society without some level of carbon emission.

      And this is part of what makes it such an insidious problem to solve.

3907. nigelj at 17:41 PM on 8 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Ooops. I meant the Sanish Killer flu of 1919.

3908. nigelj at 17:39 PM on 8 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @73

      "Who would have thought three years ago that the world would have been turned upside down by a respiratory illness? If someone had told you in 2019, "Hey guess what? Because of a new respiratory illness, no one will be allowed to travel for months, we'll all have to stay home, we'll all have to go around in masks, we'll have to take a series of jabs if we want to visit our parents in their nursing home and won't be allowed to visit loved ones in hospital, a vastly greater number of people will work from home, etc," would you have believed it possible?"

      I was expecting something like Covid to come along, ever since reading about the Spanish killer flu of 2019 a few years back. I thought it was just a matter of time and that the world was a bit overdue for sometthing like covid. I thought the world would mobilise mask wearing and speed up vaccine rollout. I did not think countries would have the courage to lockdown economies, but after seeing Italy I can see why it happened.

      Basically i could take almost any historicial event and write 5 or 10 points suggesting it could have been staged. Its not hard and proves nothing. Many facts can be explained both in conventional ways and as a staged event. To prove a conspiracy you do actually need hard proof, not circumstantial evidence, and you need to show anomalies cannot possibly have simple innocent explanations. Imho you have failed in all of this regarding covid.

      The second half of your comments is typical thinking of conspiracy theorsts. Some people are very prone to conspiracy thinking:

      psychcentral.com/blog/conspiracy-theories-why-people-believe

      As I previously stated some conspiracies are real and proven, and obviously we should all have a healthy scepticim of the authorities. I certainly do. But large conspiracies are implausible because of the practical impossibilities of organising them and keeping them secret.

3909. One Planet Only Forever at 14:26 PM on 8 July 2022
      SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
      

      Evan,

      This is a good update of the presentation of the technical points regarding future global temperatures.

      The future depends on the rapidity of changes (or delay of changes) of how humans live to limit the harm done by accumulating global warming impacts. The future temperature depends on the collective actions by humans today and in the future. And the tragic starting point is the current damage done and the time required for the massive required corrections of how people live due to the lack of responsible limiting of harmful over-consumption through the past 30 years.

      I have one important point of elaboration.

      In addition to climate “... scientists, such as James Hansen, refer(ring) to global warming as an inter-generational issue, because the time lag means that the heating due to our emissions are only fully felt by later generations.”, policy development experts such as Stephen M. Gardiner have presented the ethical and moral hazard of expecting the developed socioeconomic-political systems to effectively and equitably limit the damaging climate change impacts. Developing sustainable solutions requires significant systemic changes.

      Stephen M. Gardiner’s book “A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change” presents an important perspective (note it was written in 2011). The book should be read in its entirety. But a reasonable understanding can be obtained by reading the abstract and the summary statements regarding each chapter of the contents on the following Oxford University Press Scholarship Online website for the book.

      The following is a key point in the Abstract: “...the key issue is that the current generation, and especially the most affluent, are in a position to pass on most of the costs of their behavior (and especially the most serious harms) to the global poor, future generations and nonhuman nature. This tyranny of the contemporary is a deeper problem than the traditional tragedy of the commons.”

      The ‘human caused global warming and resulting climate change’ problem is a case of some people benefiting from actions that are unsustainable and harmful to others. The ‘benefit by some causing harm to others’ distinguishes the climate change challenge from a tragedy of the commons problem (where all those benefiting from the commons are harmed by the collective damage and over-consumption). And human caused global warming is not the only development where Others who are harmed have little or no ability to limit the harm done to them and get those who harm them to make full amends and reparations for the harm done.

      Rather than just saying global warming is inter-generational, it is important to understand that human caused global warming is one of many developed international and inter-generational tragedies that the developed systems fail to effectively govern because the people who benefit from the damaging unsustainable activity can, and will, misleadingly manipulate public beliefs to powerfully compromise the governing of things and to protect their interests.

3910. Petra Liverani at 14:05 PM on 8 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Nigel @64
      
      The thing is, Nigel, we choose our implausibilities. While one hypothesis might seem extremely implausible so - in its own way - does the one opposing it.
      
      Who would have thought three years ago that the world would have been turned upside down by a respiratory illness? If someone had told you in 2019, "Hey guess what? Because of a new respiratory illness, no one will be allowed to travel for months, we'll all have to stay home, we'll all have to go around in masks, we'll have to take a series of jabs if we want to visit our parents in their nursing home and won't be allowed to visit loved ones in hospital, a vastly greater number of people will work from home, etc," would you have believed it possible?
      
      I used to feel implausibility was a reasonable basis to discount hypotheses until I realised an event I thought had to be as was told by the authorities because the alternative was too implausible was, according to the very clear evidence, in fact not as told by the authorities ... and then the more I learnt, the more I realised how events that might seem at first sight implausible were perfectly plausible in the context of the continuum of the history of seemingly implausible events. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, to really get that explanations that seem implausible are correct means changing one's paradigm of how the world works and most people don't want to do that ... and I don't blame them. I've become alienated from friends and family since I started waking up 8 years ago - I wouldn't really recommend it to anyone ... but then the truth is important to me. I cannot say with certainty though that if I had my time again I'd wake myself up so to speak. Perhaps if I'd known what lay in store I wouldn't have clicked that fateful link in FB and had my world turned upside down.

3911. Petra Liverani at 13:35 PM on 8 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Oops! I meant "What are the indicators that the pandemic is real rather than fake?" obviously. It's me who argues the other way.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] continuation of moderation challenges deleted.

3912. Petra Liverani at 13:32 PM on 8 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Just to add: it's a very different matter to make a case in reference to an opposing hypothesis than just to make a case without that context.
      
      Without the context of an opposing hypothesis to say: "10,000 deaths from covid were reported in Australia in 2021," can sound very convincing, however, in the context of an opposing hypothesis that recognises that fact but has an alternative explanation for those deaths it's a different matter.
      
      My main point, Bob, is that if the reality of a situation is A rather than B, there will be strong indicators of A. We can use the human-influenced climate change fingerprints as an example. We know climate change is human-influenced by particular indicators that distinguish the human-related cause from other causes. Similarly, if the pandemic is fake or real there will be clear indicators to show what it is. This is what I'm asking for: the indicators. What are the indicators that the pandemic is fake rather than real? And people are free to put forward the number of indicators they think makes their case strongly.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] More challenging of moderation policies deleted.

3913. Petra Liverani at 13:22 PM on 8 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Bob @67

      "Your "ten points' is an amateur debating tactic that will not be allowed here."
      
      I had no idea that 10-point arguments was even a "thing". I just thought that 10 points is a good number to make a case and I still see nothing wrong with it. Your assertion that it is an amateur debating tactic does not offer any illumination I'm afraid.
      
      As I said, Bob, 10 points is an arbitrary number. No one needs to present 10 points for their argument, they simply need to present whatever points they deem required to make their case that the real pandemic hypothesis favours the fake pandemic hypothesis. I simply put my 10 points forward to do my end of the deal so to speak. We can forget my 10 points completely and move to the case the other way.
      
      Do you have a problem with my request for those who believe that there is real pandemic (above and beyond say normal flu season) to put forward their case in whatever form they wish to show that the real pandemic hypothesis favours the fake pandemic hypothesis? 

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] You seem to be under the illusion that the portion of the comments policy that states:

      • All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted

      does not apply to you. I am not participating in this discussion as a commenter. Since I had to start moderating this thread, I had to step out of direct discussion. Any further comments directly towards me will be deleted. Yo have already been warned that moderation policies are not open to discussion.

3914. Petra Liverani at 13:14 PM on 8 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      MA Rodger @68
      
      I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding. Your point is also mine. "The climate's always changed" is accommodated in the man-made climate change argument. Of course, climate scientists know that the climate has always changed and what they study is why it changed when. I remember when I first mentioned man-made climate change to my mother her response was "the climate's always changed" and it really set me back on my heels in confusion - as if climate scientists don't know the climate's always changed - they know it better than anyone. But that type of response is common to all arguments, where the person arguing admits the fact presented in response but knows the fact has no value as a meaningful argument.

3915. MA Rodger at 19:56 PM on 7 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @68,

      I do not see any connection which would require you to begin the comment "Just to add,..." You appear to be suggesting that certain argument proves nothing yet will still be savaged by those responding.

      Simply stating "The climate's always changed," or "CO2 is plant food" does not of itself contradict the accepted fundings of climatology. I think you would need to set out the use of such statements (& the responses) to be able to judge whether "the kind of responses" were inappropriate.

      To provide such context for your "The climate's always changed" statement, the first listed SkS myth cites Dickie Lindzen who is an actual clomatologist but who has never accepted the science of AGW and has done a lot of work attempting to overturn that science. Yet despite his best efforts, he has established nothing and in his attempts to establish something has adopted many egregious arguments like "The climate's always changed." 

      Indeed, the climate has always changed but that does not prevent us understanding why it changes and thus seeing that it has not changed before like today's AGW. Even the PETM which was also driven by rising CO2 levels took tens of thousands of years when we are driving the climate in mere centuries.

      The "CO2 is plant food"  argument is listed as the SkS's 43rd myth which describes why elevated CO2 is not entirely a good thing for plants. And do note that the plants are not very hungry for CO2 as they are only eating up a quarter of the CO2 we serve up.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Note that Petra's comment #68 has now become #67, due to deletion of the previous #67 (which violated several aspects of the Comments Policy).

3916. Petra Liverani at 14:00 PM on 7 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Just to add, so much argument tends to not recognise that the opposing hypothesis can accommodate it rendering it invalid. When I first got interested in climate change I was simply gobsmacked by arguments such as "The climate's always changed," "CO2 is plant food" ... you know the drill. Who's arguing that the climate hasn't always changed?, who's arguing that CO2 isn't plant food? The kinds of responses one gets when one puts forward an argument never ceases to amaze me.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] The comment that you say "just to add" to has been deleted.

      Your "ten points' is an amateur debating tactic that will not be allowed here.

      Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

      Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
       
      Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

      Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

      ---

       

3917. Eclectic at 13:21 PM on 7 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Inoculation not easy, though possible.  Yes, for the established conspiracy theorist, a conversion to rationality seems not possible.  Myself, I am unaware of scientific studies of the natural history of the disease, and of its treatment.  Does conspiracism ease off with advancing age?  (Schizophrenia for example, does tend to "burn out" in later life.)   Please let me know of any prime studies of treatments or of late-stage conspiracism.

      In childhood, I had an encyclopedia volume containing many black-and-white photographs taken through the window of one of those old round Bathyspheres (lowered into the inky darkness of the Marianas Trench or similar).   All sorts of creatures - usually blind monstrosities - were to be seen.  The creatures were unaware of their blindness, of course.

      These days, the best I can hope for is to encounter an abyssal creature which chooses to swim into the lights of the SkSphere.   (Almost typed abysmal creature, per Freudian slip.)  Interesting stuff, I think . . . though Nietzsche warns of the danger of too long a gaze into the abyss.

      Nigelj, thanks for linking the Evan Davis book on "Post Truth".

3918. Philippe Chantreau at 11:36 AM on 7 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Conspiratory thinking is not amenable to reason. The lack of evidence for it is used by the theorist as argument for the skill of the conspirators and the extent of the conspiracy. One can always counter with "it's entirely possible that [insert whatever] is orchestrated by the conspirationists." It can go on like that to infinity. 

3919. nigelj at 08:18 AM on 7 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Regarding conspiracy theories that claim certain historical events are staged or faked. Its obviously incredibly unlikely they are staged, and we can provide compelling evidence they aren't sufficient for sensible people, but it will never be 100% definitive proof something isn't staged. Because theres a remote chance it could be staged in many cases.  So this is why conspiracy theories survive. Even if somoeone in the conspiracy blows the whistle on the conspiracy, the conspiracy theorsts will claim that is staged. They rationalise the issues that way.

      You have to break the conspiracy into components. Ask is there a realistic motive for staging the alleged conspiracy, are there genuine anomalies that do not have sensible explanations, could the conspiracy be kept secret, what is the hard evidence for the conspiracy. Of course on that basis most conspiracies are shown to be nonsense, and just speculation. But that approach  is how you innoculate yourself against conspiracy theories.

      There are real conspiracies such as criminal conspiracies and commercial conspiracies like the Libor scandal, but 1) these tend to have only a few partcipants and 2) they get exposed and 3) the motives are obvious and understandable even if they are criminal.

      Just my take on it.

3920. One Planet Only Forever at 06:27 AM on 7 July 2022
      Skeptical Science tackles 'discourses of climate delay' and 'solutions denial'
      

      Here is my rough draft of a presentation hoping to inoculate people against being misled regarding energy and material consumption. It is regarding ‘discourses of climate (action) delay’ that argue against the need to reduce energy consumption (a follow-up to my comment @12).

      First, read my comment @1 on the 2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26 and read and view the items that it refers to.

      When you see or hear the term ‘energy poverty’ be on alert that the messenger is likely trying to mislead you. Using that term is one of many ways that propagandists for extended and increased fossil fuel use, and increased harm done to the future of global humanity, try to trick people into excusing, or desiring to be, less helpful and more harmful humans.

      Minimizing the damage done by human activity should be an accepted global objective. Regarding climate change the objective is undeniably to minimize the accumulated peak ghg levels and most rapidly reduce them.

      Reducing hedonistic gluttonous over-consumption is an obvious way to achieve the objective of limiting the damage done. That helpful correction does not require new technology to be developed. And it reduces the cost of providing the less harmful technological replacements for the harmfully over-developed systems. It also reduces other unsustainable impacts of over-consumption.

      There will likely be some degree of unsustainable impact of any human activity. With this planet potentially being habitable for 100s of millions of years it is important for humans to learn to live in ways that most sustainably fit into the robust diversity of life (constantly pursuing the fittest ways to live is required for humanity to survive). New technological developments may be helpful. But they are likely to be unsustainable developments in spite of their potential popularity and profitability (warning: popular and profitable developments can be very hard to correct).

      A major problem that is seldom stated in articles regarding climate change is the over-developed unsustainable consumption of energy and other resources. The problem of over-consumption is especially, but not exclusively, applicable to fossil fuel use. It is important to keep in mind that ending the harm of fossil fuel use is not sustainable if the result continues to be unsustainable over-consumption.

      It is undeniable that levels of consumption, especially among the portion of the global population perceived to be ‘higher-status, more advanced’, have developed far beyond what is required to live a decent basic life. Many people have developed powerful desires for hedonistic gluttonous consumption that far exceeds what they ‘need’. And less fortunate people can be tempted to believe that developing towards the ways that those ‘perceived to be superior people’ live is the direction to develop in pursuit of living a better life.

      Misleading political marketers abuse the term ‘energy poverty’. They use it to accuse promoters of sustainable development and the associated corrections of what has developed regarding global climate impacts, which includes cutting back on harmful over-consumption, of driving people into ‘energy poverty’. And they abuse the term to try to glorify continued pursuits of benefit from harmful unsustainable activities. Sure, people living less than decent basic lives may need some increased energy consumption. But they should be helped to develop the lowest impact energy consumption required for decent basic living, otherwise the perceptions of improvement will not last.

      From that awareness and perspective, the likes of Exxon claiming to be helping improve the lives of people who are “living in energy poverty” is very misleading – definitely a ‘discourse of climate delay’. It masks the reality that those who benefit most from operations like Exxon’s are benefiting from the development of harmful hedonistic energy gluttons who appear to be ‘more advanced – higher status’ people.

      Here is the quote from the article containing that claim regarding “living in energy poverty”.

      “Woods plays the blame game, which is so common, with every entity these days with respect to climate change. In this game, everyone stands around pointing fingers, blaming some other entity for climate change, absolving themselves as only responding to market forces, and claiming that action can only happen once some other entity takes action first.

      Exxon, in this case, was only responding to “consumer demand” and still responds to consumer demand, selling oil because there are buyers for it. Woods foresees continuing to meet that demand and considers Exxon the savior for people around the world who are “living in energy poverty.” But a large majority of currently proven oil reserves must stay in the ground if we want to avoid catastrophe, and that catastrophe will disproportionately affect those people living in poverty. He also blames government for not crafting consistent and efficient regulation, after Exxon has lobbied against action for decades.”

      Clearly, the expressed concerns have little to do with helping sustainably improve the lives of people who are living less than decent basic lives. In fact, it could be argued that the propagandist likes of Exxon want more people to ‘enjoy living’ more harmful, less decent, lives of hedonistic gluttonous excess.

3921. Eclectic at 23:39 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @63 :

      It is a tad difficult to discuss things properly with you ~ for some of your comments are rather muddled, and your understanding of "technical" terms (like Occam's Razor) seems to be based on your own special-to-yourself meaning of phrases & words.  Humpty Dumpty word meanings . . .  rather than the standard English used by scientists & logicians & writers in general.  

      Standard words are the necessary tools for thinking & communicating.  Otherwise . . . you end up like the woodworker who tries to make a chair using only his fingernails as tools.

      I could - but won't - reply in greater detail to your ten points.  For the Moderator may be itching to use his umpire's whistle, and send all players from the field.  And it is possible, Petra, that subconsciously you are being overly repetitious in order to get the umpire to stop play.

      Somehow I am reminded of the salutary tale of the guy who played a chess game against a pigeon.  A few minutes into the game, the pigeon soiled the chessboard and knocked over all the pieces and then flew off into the sky while proclaiming victory.

      The other pigeons were impressed.  The human observers weren't.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Inflammatory snipped.

      Petra's pointless "ten points" are ofiicially off topic - here or in any other thread.

      Please leave moderation to the moderators.

3922. Eclectic at 16:51 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra, you are not being skeptical.  You are ignoring all the evidence which is showing that you are wrong, and you are scraping the barrel to find a few crumbs to support some prejudiced beliefs of yours.

      Deep down, do you not wonder why you carry on with this behaviour?

      A Greek philosopher said :-

         "Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom."

      How true!   And Feynman would certainly agree.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Response to deleted comments snipped (warning)

3923. Petra Liverani at 14:49 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Bob
      Actually, to give an example of complicated hypothesis fitting the evidence better all we have to think of is the Theory of Relativity and gravity. What better example could you think of? Gravity works most of the time but the Theory of Relativity works better in certain astronomical cases I believe ... but then I'm vaguely aware of scientists moving away from ToR to other theories. Whatever the situation, certainly simplicity of hypothesis is not what Occam's Razor is about.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Repeating a wrong understanding does not make it right.

3924. Petra Liverani at 14:38 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Eclectic @52

      In the famous words of Einstein [slightly re-phrased]

      . . . "You don't need ten points, one would be enough."

      
      You're perfectly right, Eclectic, you don't need a specific number of points. In many cases one is indeed enough, however, in order to avoid the going round in circles with nitpicking arguments it's easiest if a reasonable number is put forward to make your case from a number of angles.
      
      The thing is if an hypothesis is correct, every single piece of evidence will at least support it if not favour it over any opposing hypotheses so why not put forward a number to make your case foolproof?

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Repetition deleted.

3925. Petra Liverani at 14:22 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      OK so don't bother with 10 points. I invite people to put forward however many points favouring real pandemic over fake they deem sufficient to make their case.
      
      No one has said anything that refutes any of my 10 points. Eclectic did a very poor job which I didn't really bother arguing with except for the first one but if anyone can come with any refutation of any of my 10 points being perfectly consistent with (if not favouring) the fake hypothesis please do so.
      
      So where it stands now as far as I can tell is that:
      -— I've put forward 10 points that at least support, if not favour, the fake pandemic hypothesis
      -— No one has made a case in the opposite direction

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Repetition deleted.

3926. Petra Liverani at 14:13 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      To Bob

      @39
      "[Occam's Razor] has entirely to do with the simplicity of the explanation, not the evidence."

      I argue against that. It's how closely the hypothesis fits the evidence, how few questions and assumptions are raised. You can have a complicated hypothesis that fits the evidence much better than a simple hypothesis and that's where the simplicity lies, in the "fitting like a glove" aspect, not trying to push a square peg into a round hole.

      If you disagree I'm prepared to discuss further.

      @41
      10 points don't make a gish gallop of themselves - please explain how you think my points comprise a gish gallop.

      There is no "both sides", Bob, and I'm certainly not arguing for that. I know that not even one real point can be put forward favouring the real pandemic, it cannot be done because of the nature of reality. There might be points that "look like" they favour real but if we are able to look at them more closely we'll find they don't stand up. My invitation is simply a challenge to those who believe that the pandemic is real to show them that they cannot find 10 points (or even just the one) that favour real over fake. How that will affect their thinking though is a completely different matter.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Moderation complaints and repetition deleted.

3927. nigelj at 12:30 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Just another comment on  "A book very relevant to the article: Post Truth, by Evan Davis." The reason Im mentioning this is I've read it,  and it takes quite a scholarly approach with reference to various psychogical research, is quite insightful,  and while a little long in parts,  is still reasonably easy to read. 

3928. nigelj at 12:22 PM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Eclectic @52, yes, and one look at covid exploding in Italy early in the pandemic and their hospitals collapsing was pretty much enough to convince me the world had a big problem. I didn't need to over analyse the situation beyond that. And the Italians aren't organised enough or smart enough to fake all that even if they wanted to. Ha ha. 

      Obviously like with anything I'm on the alert for geninely puzzling and suspicious anamolies,  but there just aren't any with Covid or certainly none of huge significance.

      However sorry people if I rambled on about about covid. I'm in the at risk group and so covid conspiracy theorists annoy me. I did think I was making valid points, and was  reasonably polite , which required a bit of self restraint. 

      A book very relevant to the article: Post Truth, by Evan Davis.

      www.amazon.co.uk/Post-Truth-Have-Reached-Bullshit-About/dp/1408703319

3929. Eclectic at 10:19 AM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Philippe C @53.

      The eggshell seems far thicker than yer average troller. 

      And a high percentage of earnestness.

      Do you not find it interesting to gaze into the abyss ? 

3930. Eclectic at 10:13 AM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Sorry BL . . . cross-posted.

      btw, I see the comments now go to 50 before turning a new page.

      Thanks for that.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] The number of comments per page seems to vary, depending on the post (25 or 50). The issue noted a while ago about getting to the correct page on posts with very long comments lists is being looked into.

3931. Philippe Chantreau at 10:10 AM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      I'd suggest DNFTT on this one. Obviously, rationality is going nowhere with P.L.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Expect to see strong moderation in the future. Many of the comments made over the past day or two have now had moderation applied.

3932. Eclectic at 10:09 AM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Nigelj @51 :

      you are quite right about Petra's ten points.

      In the famous words of Einstein  [slightly re-phrased]

      . . . "You don't need ten points,  one would be enough."

      That one point is the PCR analysis.

      There is your sufficient diagnosis, Petra.

      Against that one single point, all the rhetoric and handwaving and Youtubey comments in the world, simply amount to nothing.

3933. nigelj at 08:49 AM on 6 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @49

      "I looked at the USA Today fact-check and nothing in it cannot be accommodated by the fake hypothesis."

      So what? It could all also fit a hypothesis that covid was spread by space aliens. A hypothesis is nothing more than a hypothesis. You have no good quality evidence to turn your hypothesis into a proven theory. All you have is a crazy conspiracy theory.

      "So Reuters says in response to covid being put down on death certificates inappropriately:"

      Maybe it is but there is nothing in this that suggests covid is a hoax. It suggests difficulty recording things appropriately. What we do know is that Covid can be the cause of death, and it can aggrivate some other conditions causing them to progess rapidly causing premature death. You can't see the wood for the trees.

      "Mask enforcement not different for other diseases? I'm not sure what diseases you're referring to, I'm talking about surgery and similar medical situations."

      Did you not read what I already said? How would you do the same for millions and millions of the general public? Its not practical and the authorities in America would be ideologically reluctant because of the impositions on freedom. This is a typical example where you routinely fail to absorb what people say.

      "Regardless of what other possible explanations there are for Portugal and Germany's lack of excess mortality spike against neighbouring countries their lack perfectly fits the hypothesis that it's a result of no aggressive drug trials without contradicting evidence. Of course, I can't say no aggressive drug trials PROVES the lack of excess spike but I can say it offers a perfectly possible explanation in the absence of a better-evidenced one."

      The better evidenced opinion is covid mortality rates vary between countries because of varing conditions that I already expalined. That you dont appear to have absorbed.  In New Zealand not only was there no excess deaths spike for a large part of the covid period excess deaths went down , due to extensive strict lockdowns that reduced covid, car accidents, drownings etc, etc! You can look it up on NZs covid entry on wikipedia.

      "Your arguments against fake are simply offering alternative explanations. You cannot provide any clear evidence that says the pandemic is not fake, that the real pandemic hypothesis is favoured."

      I gave you three links full of clear, compelling science based evidence that the pandemic is real and not fake. You just either can't see it or don't want to see it. Some people have  psychological issues where they cant admit to themselves they got things wrong, and just move on. Maybe you are one.

      "Please give the reference that shows the set of symptoms of covid/variant that distinguishes it from cold, flu and other respiratory illnesses."

      The following references discuss how colds flu and covid have many similar symptoms but some differences and severity of specific symptoms can vary a lot between the conditions.

      www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/covid-19-cold-flu-and-allergies-differences/art-20503981
      
      intermountainhealthcare.org/blogs/topics/live-well/2020/03/whats-the-difference-between-a-cold-the-flu-and-coronavirus/

      Its all somewhat immaterial,  because we also have tests. The combination of tests, excess deaths, evidence of hospitals under pressure, and at least some symptom differences is powerful, undeniably. Except apparently with you!

      "I shall await with interest 10 points that favour real over fake"

      Nobody has to provide ten points. This is not a situation where quantity of points proves anything. A few points is quite sufficient. Refer to the links already posted. Your ten points are weak anyway as already explained.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] If Petra continues to argue along the same lines, posts will likely be deleted in their entirety. Please think twice before responding. Much of what you are responding to has been deleted.

       

3934. One Planet Only Forever at 03:08 AM on 6 July 2022
      2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #26
      

      Thanks for the ‘continuing to be’ well-curated collection of news items.

      "Exxon CEO says no new gas cars globally by 2040, goes wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing about CO2" was particularly interesting. It contains many examples of ‘discourses of climate (action) delay’. And a particularly annoying one is presented in the following quote about continued fossil fuel production and use:

      “Exxon, in this case, was only responding to “consumer demand” and still responds to consumer demand, selling oil because there are buyers for it. Woods foresees continuing to meet that demand and considers Exxon the savior for people around the world who are “living in energy poverty.”

      The “energy poverty” term was also recently used by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. See the last part of the following CTV Calgary News video where Kenney accuses politicians who would maintain and increase carbon fees at this time are ‘driving Canadians into energy poverty to forcing them to use less’.

      CTV Calgary News video “Albertans to get more inflation belief”.

      I am developing a more detailed comment about this for the SkS item “Skeptical Science tackles 'discourses of climate delay' and 'solutions denial'”. The main point of my comment will be that the reality is that many 'higher-status supposedly superior people' have over-developed hedonistic gluttonous desires for energy consumption. Their energy use far exceeds what 'people in poverty' need to develop to live a basic decent life.

3935. Petra Liverani at 20:54 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Nigel, 
      
      In response to your question about the reasons for excess deaths: so many possible reasons. Hospital systems have been turned upside down so an increase in iatrogenic deaths is not unexpected, the vaccine as I've already mentioned, aggressive drug trials and other changes to medication. Since so many variables have been introduced since the alleged pandemic started we certainly can't just point the finger to an alleged novel virus.

      Moderator Response:

      [DB] Sloganeering snipped

3936. Petra Liverani at 20:36 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Nigel,
      
      I looked at the USA Today fact-check and nothing in it cannot be accommodated by the fake hypothesis. Hazmat suits? Yes we've seen lots of those. Body bags, coffins - please. These do not argue against the fake hypothesis, they can all be faked.
      
      So Reuters says in response to covid being put down on death certificates inappropriately:
      "However, the ONS says that: “In the majority of cases (46,736 deaths, 92.8%) where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate, it was found to be the underlying cause of death”.
      
      We have to believe that, Nigel, and I don't. I gave a link to Dr Scott Jensen criticising the guidelines for what doctors should put on death certificates and I personally know people with loved ones where covid was put and they were clearly very sick with other health problems.
      
      Mask enforcement not different for other diseases? I'm not sure what diseases you're referring to, I'm talking about surgery and similar medical situations. My friend who's a nurse told me that in theatres sometimes the nurses do not even change their own masks. Grabbing a mask out of one's contaminated bag, putting it on and taking it off again is nowhere OK in situations designed to guard against infection that I know of. If you can let me know of one I'd be interested. Of course, if it's SARS-1 or such-like then that doesn't necessarily say a lot ... if this pandemic is a hoax it won't be their first BBQ.

      Regardless of what other possible explanations there are for Portugal and Germany's lack of excess mortality spike against neighbouring countries their lack perfectly fits the hypothesis that it's a result of no aggressive drug trials without contradicting evidence. Of course, I can't say no aggressive drug trials PROVES the lack of excess spike but I can say it offers a perfectly possible explanation in the absence of a better-evidenced one.
      
      Your arguments against fake are simply offering alternative explanations. You cannot provide any clear evidence that says the pandemic is not fake, that the real pandemic hypothesis is favoured. The fact that I can put forward 10 points that perfectly FIT the fake hypothesis even if they don't necessarily favour it is quite something, don't you think?
      
      Please give the reference that shows the set of symptoms of covid/variant that distinguishes it from cold, flu and other respiratory illnesses. And if not all sufferers of the alleged covid or whatever variant exhibit those particular symptoms it's not very convincing is it? We all suffer different symptoms when we get colds and flu. Some lose sense of smell and taste, others don't. Wherever I see covid symptoms, it's always a case of "may" with a reasonably long list that easily fits other illnesses.
      
      I shall await with interest 10 points that favour real over fake. If any of you think that it isn't significant if no one provides those 10 points, I put to you that you do not understand the nature of reality. The nature of reality is that if there were a genuine pandemic it would be no trouble at all to come up with 10 points that favour real over fake.

       

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] An argument that is based on "everything I don't want to believe can be faked" is a classic example of conspiracy thinking and denialism.

      There is no need for you to repeat this in this forum.

3937. nigelj at 18:10 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @46

      "As I said in an earlier comment people are very good at offering alternative explanations for points that seem to favour the hypothesis they oppose but what about their 10 points that favour their chosen hypothesis?

      A couple of lists of why covid is real and not a hoax:

      www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-hoax-idUSKBN25G2KM

       

      www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/05/fact-check-post-falsely-claims-covid-19-pandemic-isnt-real/9076551002/

      www.rd.com/article/covid-19-6-things-that-prove-its-not-a-hoax/
      
      You would need to prove these wrong in detail, and I doubt that you can. So far all I have heard from you is easily rebuted, like Eclectics list did. I'm not going to be debating these latest lists. I'm listing them only for the general interest, and to show people how truly foolish the hoax theories are. I haven't come across anything less like a hoax than covid.

      "But no excess spike in Germany and Portugal also fits my hypothesis OK?"

      Portugal also has a reasonably decent health system and apparently managed covid quite well. The highest covid fatality rates tend to be in countries with weak health systems, or who had poor quality lockdowns or low vaccination rates or aging populations, or which have weak hospital systems or very high density living, or  politicians who dont take the virus seriously, or combinations of these things. Are you seriously trying to tell us you would expect countries and regions of countries to all have the same mortality rates and excess death statistics?

      A very few remaining countries and comparisons like Spain and Portugal might be hard to explain but there will be some reason. Maybe one countries data is incorrect because their data gathering is hopeless. I'm just not that interested, because the overall pattern is so clear and the motivations for covid to be a hoax seem absurd to me, and of course the whole hoax idea has no hard evidence to back it. 

      "Cold and flu themselves do not have distinctive sets of symptoms so can you please list where we see a set of symptoms for covid or any of its variants that distinguishes it from other respiratory illnesses."

      Google the issue. There are plenty of reputable websites that document the symptoms of covid and discuss differences between covid and other diseases. Obviously symptoms are just a guide. Diagnoses of many diseases based purely on symptoms are not 100% conclusive. It needs tests. Are they all hoaxes as well?

      "I know there are instructions on how to wear a mask, Nigel, of course, but there's no enforcement and even if there were, the way it's worn for the pandemic is nothing like the way it's worn in every other situation guarding against infection so we'd have to wonder why in every other case for guarding against infection the rules are incredibly stringent but we only have guidelines that are far more lax and don't need to be followed in any case."

      You provide no evidence that enforcement of mask wearing is different for covid than other diseasers. Please provide a link. And how would you enforce the correct hygenic use of masks with millions of people?  Are you going to have a vast horde of mask police that track millions of people on a daily basis checking on mask use? Have you not considered how impossible this is? Can you see a freedom loving place like America doing this sort of thing? So there are obvious reasons why hygenic mask use isn't enforced very well in places like America like ideology, lax procedures, and its impractical with so many covid cases, and this is far more plausible than some covid hoax.

       

3938. Eclectic at 15:06 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @44 :

      You may be lucky and get a reply from MA Rodger ~ who knows more about scientific publishing than you & me lumped together and multiplied by twenty.

      Published scientific papers (in reputable journals) are where you find real science.  Not in personal blogs, newspapers, television reports, etcetera.  New ideas & advances can start off a bit "sloppy" but firm up over time with more work done.  It can be a bit hit-and-miss in the early stages (never put all your trust in a single paper).  Confusion & contradiction rules! . . . at first, anyway.  Get used to that, and use caution (and use your own intelligence in a humble way).

      Some apparently novel & good papers can later turn out to be poor ~ these get later corrected or retracted or more simply ignored once they are shown to be poor.  ( The lattermost is quite common in the medical/biological fields, owing to the vast multiplicity of known/unknown factors that can cause the papers' conclusions to be largely wrong.  Which is where the statement applies: "more than 50% of published paper are wrong."  Note that this doesn't much apply to the "hard sciences" such as climate physics. )

      Petra, you may or may not hear back from MA Rodger.  From his earlier comment in this thread, I gained the impression that he thought you were suffering from post-concussion syndrome and should be sent from the playing field.

3939. Petra Liverani at 14:59 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Nigel @45

      As I said in an earlier comment people are very good at offering alternative explanations for points that seem to favour the hypothesis they oppose but what about their 10 points that favour their chosen hypothesis?

      "If germany had a low covid mortaity numbers it might just have something to do with the fact they have the highest number of ICU beds per capita of any country and by a wide margin."
      
      But no excess spike in Germany and Portugal also fits my hypothesis OK? And what about Portugal vs Spain? The lack of excess spike perfectly fits my hypothesis whereas you'd also have to find a reason for Portugal's lack.
      
      Cold and flu themselves do not have distinctive sets of symptoms so can you please list where we see a set of symptoms for covid or any of its variants that distinguishes it from other respiratory illnesses.
      
      I know there are instructions on how to wear a mask, Nigel, of course, but there's no enforcement and even if there were, the way it's worn for the pandemic is nothing like the way it's worn in every other situation guarding against infection so we'd have to wonder why in every other case for guarding against infection the rules are incredibly stringent but we only have guidelines that are far more lax and don't need to be followed in any case.
      
      Have you got 10 points? My 10 points are perfectly fine, they are not "full of holes". I don't say any one point proves anything I just say that each of my 10 points perfectly supports if not favours my hypothesis. Where are your 10 points, Nigel?

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Your challenge to count up "points" is pointless. Any future repetitions of this will be deleted.

       

3940. nigelj at 14:16 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @39

      I agree with Eclectics concise summation, and so I don't need go through your entire list.

      Regarding why neighbouring countries mysteriously have different covid mortality rates or excess death statistics. If germany had a low covid mortaity numbers it might just have something to do with the fact they have the highest number of ICU beds per capita of any country and by a wide margin. But I have no interest in going through detailed country by country comparisons. because there are huge number of factors involved and I would expect to see varying mortality rates. Its not suspicious for me.

      Covid has some similarities of symptoms to the flu and the omicron variant has some similar symptoms to the common cold, but there are most certainly striking differences as well and with covid certain symptoms are much more severe. My point is you dont get basic facts right so have little credibility.

      Perhaps America hasn't had rules about how many times you should wear a mask. Before jumping to conclusions this means the whole covid thing is a hoax, did you check other countries? In New Zealand the authorities gave us detailed instructions on mask hygene.

      "Deaths are accommodated by both hypotheses. It's just that for one they're said to be caused by covid and for the other, other causes and where there's excess spike in mortality we can also see reasons other than a novel virus."

      What other reasons are you suggesting for for excess deaths? Remember a large number of countries reported excess deaths over the last two years. Not all did because covid never got a grip in some communities. But the point is how likely is it that there was a whole lot of different factors (the usual things) that all caused much of the world to have an excess deaths in just those two years? Or that there was some mysterious unknown common cause? Both are incrediblly improbable. Covid is a much more likely and simpler explanation.

      Your analysis is so full of holes and mistakes you could drive a truck through it.

       

3941. Petra Liverani at 14:06 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      MA Rodger @35
      
      You refer to pre-publication peer review, however, when certain people wish to do post-publication review, their reviews are rejected. You're familiar with that complaint, no? Of course, if it's not up to standard then why would they publish? That's always a good response, isn't it? Well, it's not up to standard so we won't publish it. The thing is though journals are effectively funded by vested interests. There's the notorious case of Merck and the NEMJ.
      https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-england-journal-and-its-pr-flacks

      The thing is that peer-review is taken to mean something very important about a scientific paper, it's meant to establish its credibility and according to former BMJ editor it doesn't.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Unsubstantiated accusations that the entire scientific publishing system is corrupt snipped.

3942. Eclectic at 13:52 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra,  the PCR test is the evidence.

      IMO, the PCR technique is a scientific marvel.  Useful in crimes; in species identifications; in so many areas.  You should learn about it.

      Petra, you put forward your 10 points for nitpicking.  Don't complain!

3943. Petra Liverani at 13:35 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Sure you can play Eclectic but you need to play by the rules. Deaths are accommodated by both hypotheses. It's just that for one they're said to be caused by covid and for the other, other causes and where there's excess spike in mortality we can also see reasons other than a novel virus.
      
      Put forward your 10 points and exclude any points that fit both hypotheses. Then we're talking.

3944. Petra Liverani at 13:32 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Oops! No doubt it's obvious but just for clarity, 'bearing in mind it is important to exclude evidence that doesn't fit both hypotheses, for example, "case" numbers' should read "fits" rather than "doesn't fit"
      
      Also, just to add, you may find it easy to go in and nitpick my 10 points ... but how easy do you find it to come up with the 10 points that favour real pandemic over fake? That's the question you should really ask yourself, not how you can nitpick my 10 points. A favoured type of argument against points seeming to favour the opposing hypothesis is "but that doesn't prove ...", "but that could be ..." The thing is though, you need to have evidence favouring your own hypothesis not just alternative explanations for what's put forward favouring the opposing hypothesis.
      
      What I always do is bear both the hypotheses I believe correct and the one that opposes it in mind ensuring that all the pieces of evidence as much as possible at least support my chosen hypothesis if not favour it.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] As has been pointed out by following comments, an argument based on "I made 10 points, how many points do you have", is pointless. Especially when your ten points are pointless on their own.

      You are engaging in a Gish Gallop - a well-known debating tactic used by people with no scientific basis for their position.

      Your use of "both sides" is a classic argument style called the "Uncertainty tactic". Your use of selected "experts" also fits into this argument. As well, you are approaching the "false balance" pretense.

      You are now scoring 5 out of 5 on the FLICC scale:

      

       

3945. Eclectic at 13:25 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @39 :

      I have an idle moment ~ so I get to play !

      1.  we'd have no clue . . . apart from the deaths.

      2.  Irrelevant.          3.  PCR > clinically

      4.  Irrelevant.   Syphilis, Tuberculosis, etc = often no distinctive set.

      5.  Shocking to act in haste in a crisis.  Shocking.

      6.  Irrelevant.

      7.  Irrelevant.  There should be no Fire Drills without a real fire.

      8.  Your false dichotomy on masks.  ( And my mask is not black on the inside ~ I have bleached it three times since January. )

      9.  Confusing & contradictory?  Welcome to the real world, Petra.

      10.  Often with multiple contributing causations of death, the certified "first cause" can be a tad "sloppy".   Twas ever thus.  But stand back and look at the millions of Excess Mortality deaths.  Millions.   (The conspiracist only looks at one tree ~ the scientist looks at the forest.)

      Cheers, Petra.

3946. Petra Liverani at 12:25 PM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Nigel @38
      
      "neighbouring countries don't necessarily show the same kind of spike"

      "Ok, but differerent countries have different covid policies, vaccination rates and quality of data. This is a far simpler explanation than some contrived and massively complicated global conspiracy. Occams razor principle."
      
      It's important to note that with regard to simplicity, Occam's Razor refers to the simplicity of how well the evidence fits the hypothesis, not the simplicity of the hypothesis.

      If two countries didn't have aggressive drug trials while the neighbouring countries did then to see what other factors played a role we'd have to look carefully at what measures were taken. From what I gather from the information I've seen, Italy, at least, had very aggressive measures in place so at first sight the fact that aggressive measures were in place didn't play a role. Of course, if you can point me to how Germany and Portugal's measures protected them from the spike we see in their neighbouring countries I'm all ears. And I put forward evidence that aggressive drug trials were in place that we could easily expect a mortality increase from.

      ALL the evidence must be considered.
      -— We see aggressive measures in Italy at least - how were the measures in Portugal and Germany better?
      -— We see evidence of aggressive drug trials where overdose levels of HCQ were administered (2400mg where 2000mg can be considered overdose level)
      -— No OTHER evidence that might suggest the reason for the difference in spikes.

      "Mountains of evidence."

      Mountains of purported evidence. What evidence doesn't fit both hypotheses though? That's the question. The fake pandemic hypothesis includes the purported evidence, it includes "case" numbers, it just says "case" numbers are based on faulty science.
      
      Now that the vaccine has been introduced we have another very important variable with regard to mortality figures. For a start, there is clear evidence that mortality is assigned to the alleged "unvaccinated" who've actually had one dose.
      https://rubyraymedia.com/index.php/top-stories/plandemic/magnificent-mercola-shockingly-cdc-now-lists-vaccinated-deaths-as-unvaccinated
      
      Without necessarily putting evidence (but happy to provide where I haven't put it) I put forward 10 points that favour fake pandemic over real. I invite others to put forward 10 points favouring the other way, bearing in mind it is important to exclude evidence that doesn't fit both hypotheses, for example, "case" numbers.
      
      1. Without being told by government and media 24/7 there was a pandemic we'd have no clue.
      
      2. There were 313,000 cases of the flu in 2019 in Australia (far greater in number than alleged cases of covid the following year) and yet no obvious measures were taken and we weren't advised of case numbers on a daily basis or anything of that nature.
      
      3. There is no gold standard test for the alleged covid and the PCR technique is not a diagnostic test which is stated clearly on its packet and also by its inventor, Kary Mullis, and yet "cases" are based purely on the result of the test, they are not clinically diagnosed.
      
      4. The alleged covid doesn't have a distinctive set of symptoms telling it apart from cold, flu, pneumonia, whatever. If testing stopped tomorrow we'd have no clue that anyone had covid as distinct from other respiratory illnesses.
      
      5. The scientific work done to say there was a novel virus causing a new disease and a pandemic was all done at an unscientific haste.
      
      6. A number of things happened before the pandemic that seem rather coincidental, eg, Event 201, in Oct 2019, a pandemic tabletop exercise partnered by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

      7. We see clear evidence of people acting as covid patients and hospital drills pushed out as real.
      
      8. There is great debate about the effectiveness of masks in the first place but regardless, dirty masks would surely not be considered effective against infection by anyone. The rules, however, only request compliance to wear a mask with no monitoring of level of hygiene. The rule to wear a mask regardless of hygiene makes no sense and we know that people slip on their masks just for compliance' sake while the inside of their mask may well show blackness - I've heard testimony of this. Even those who wish to maintain the kind of levels of hygiene protecting against infection will simply not succeed because masks against infection are not designed to be worn the way they're worn for this alleged pandemic. What we can infer from this very obviously ineffective measure is that masks are about appearance only, nothing to do with health.
      
      9. In addition to the mask problem, guidelines in general have been confusing and contradictory. Why should we believe any of them are effective?
      https://dorseteye.com/the-un-official-coronavirus-guidelines/
      
      10. I have heard from a number of people that covid was put on their loved ones' death certificates when they clearly died from something else. Dr Scott Jensen, also a Minnesota senator, criticises the guidelines for putting covid on death certificates. For this I'll put the evidence.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qWmiWf81zI

       

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] You seem to be as poorly informed about Occam's Razor as you are about other things you say. It has entirely to do with the simplicity of the explanation, not the evidence.

      Your use of the terms "purported evidence" and "alleged", your use of scare quotes around "case",  your use of "why should we believe?" "I have heard", etc. are all very clear indications that you are simply rejecting any evidence that does not fit your beliefs, while accepting any anecdotal evidence that you think supports your belief.

      This bears no resemblance to a scientific approach.

      You have previously been shown the following diagram (twice!). We can now add "re-interpreting randomness" to the list of confirmed behaviours on your part.

      

       

3947. nigelj at 09:02 AM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Petra Liverani @34

      "Sure, now I disbelieve so much from the authorities but only because I've clearly identified so many lies"

      It depends how you define authorities. Its fair to say politicians and media have been caught being "economical with the truth" but scientists perhaps less so because their work has to go through a peer review process. So when I try to make sense of big, controversial issues I tend to look carefully at what the published peer reviewed science says on some issue, and particularly what most of that science is saying.

      But just because people are dishonest doesn't mean something is a hoax! There are many reasons for dishonesty. I recommend a good book: Post Truth, by Evan Davis.

      "Some of the anomalies we see in psychological operations are simply not anomalies that we can glide over. They are very distinctive and we can recognise them as deliberate anomalies not accidental."

      Yes obviously there are sometimes anomalies and some things do turn out to be hoaxes or conspiracies but you have to be extremely careful and knowledgeable and not jump to conclusions. I've seen nothing that makes me think covid is a hoax.I do see clear evidence of  'anmmolies' suggesting some countries are downplaying the mortality rate, and reasons for doing this are obvious. This is the real "conspiracy".

      "Nigel your explanation for a Chinese research team finding Chinese cobras and many-banded kraits to be "reservoirs" of the virus is "flawed early research" but how is that a better explanation than "nonsense"? It really is nonsense because it makes no sense. "

      It is nonsense but my point was it doesn't make covid a hoax. There is simply no logical connection between the two. It just might be the Chinsese trying to cover up the true origins of the virus but I have no proof of that and doubt it would be likely. It was just a case of bad science.

      "What says it's (covid) a real pandemic rather than fake? "

      Mountains of evidence. Just one example. Careful investigations of records show most countries have much higher than normal numbers of people dying over the last two years. This alone is a red flag suggesting the pandemic is real. To suggest this is all faked records is absurd. Because to suggest millions of health care professionals are in on a hoax, and none of them have gone to the media and said whats really going on, is too illogical to take seriously.

      "neighbouring countries don't necessarily show the same kind of spike"

      Ok, but differerent countries have different covid policies, vaccination rates and quality of data. This is a far simpler explanation than some contrived and massively complicated global conspiracy. Occams razor principle.

      This will probably be my last comment because covid is not the real issue and you have already been given infomation on the characteristics of conspiracy theories.

3948. Philippe Chantreau at 02:40 AM on 5 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      This I find especially amusing: "knowing nothing on the subject, I found it compelling."

      I don't know that anything else can be added. It sums up the attitude of a large body of people with opinions. I think that Petra has said everything there was to say for everyone else to form their opinion on hers, and the subject is now thoroughly exhausted. I have to say it takes some serious acting to produce a p/F ratio less than 80 on an arterial blood gas but it may not be compelling enough for someone who doesn't know Jack on the subject.

      What a pathetic joke. 

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] The valid point on having strong opinions on subjects that the writer knows nothing about does not need the snipped closing comment.

3949. Eclectic at 23:28 PM on 4 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      Moderator, indulge me in yet one more post in this thread, please.

       

      Petra Liverani @33 ,

      Thanks, I have now had the chance to see your [linked] videos about the Crisis Actors faking covid in hospital beds.  Brilliant.

      Yes, I am convinced.

      World governments are in a conspiracy to con us, obviously.  No other explanation is possible.

      Gotta say, that the UK authorities are doing a rather cheap job there.   Versus the USA federal government (and 50 state governments) who've been splashing out a real bucketload of money on the job.  For the USA, over 1 million "covid" deaths so far [deaths certified, tested, cross-referenced against Excess Mortality minus influenza ].

      One million, actually dead.

      Now that is what I call Method Acting !

      But how much would the Authorities have had to pay these million actors to undergo actual real death ~ the mind boggles.  And pay to bribe the dead actors' relatives, friends & neighbours? 

      Gotta be $squillions !

      Petra, it's horrifying . . . and yet I half-admire the Authorities' dastardly cruel thoroughness.  The Freudian attraction of pure evil?

      Please sign me up to your organization.

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Although the comments policy does not have explicit statements banning sarcasm, this does get a bit too close to ad hominem and inflammatory commenting.

3950. MA Rodger at 23:27 PM on 4 July 2022
      How to inoculate yourself against misinformation
      

      I am not sure that this lenghty to-&-fro on the exemplar of COVID-19 is very useful for man or beast. Perhaps a roll-back to the initial intorduction of the subject into this thread would cut the subject off at its in-thread intorduction.

      Petra Liverani @4,

      You raise Feynman's 'Cargo Cult Science' and the criticisms of Richard Smith to pre-publication peer review and ask "If eminent scientists criticise "science" why shouldn't we?"

      If you bother to read the criticism of science by these two 'eminent scientists', you may find that their criticism is not in any way as broadly based as you appear to have been arguing down this thread.

Prev  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  Next