AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 1:20am:


What science has he denied.

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 1:20am:



here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-bide...

No wonder people are pissing on 'experts'

No. Because 'experts' are guns for hire.

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 9:42pm:


Oh? Go back to your crusty porn mag, lee. The Scientific Revolution was a long, long time ago and you and yours can't go back no matter how hard you try.

Frank wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:16pm:




So why do you classify someone whos worked for many years in a field gotten qualifications in that area as an 'expert'


Plus the amount of confidence those idiots on Sky talk with, it seems l;ike they think they are experts

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:12pm:



So no evidence for their expertise then? Why am I not surprised. You do know science is an ongoing venture? It doesn't stagnate.

Perhaps you could point out where they are "right" about their scientific conclusions that they draw.

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 8:59pm:


Bah Humbug. They are just as corrupt for the $$$ and propaganda frenzy as Time Magazine, Unicef and many other great established and dusty Propaganda machines.
Just like that crap military propaganda movie The Hurt Locker beating anti-Military movie Avatar for the Bush cause in the Middle-East. Thankfully Cameron was pleased his Ex beat him rather than anyone else. Keeping it humble.
Even during Hillary's campaign all female leading role models (like Rey from Star Wars) were removed from all Art related movie and entertainment merchandise and promotions, while leading Female role models in movies and TV series in 'Political or Legal' roles were pumped out - the Media was grooming the Public to vote for Hillary.

Considering I've never given a rats about Trump. I can't help finding myself disturbed by the sudden vicious attack on Trump right from the start he was asked by 65,000 Americans to run for President. The Media onslaught has been constant and with its many Political allies like Pelosi and media-savvy Harris trying to make dents on Trump's shield. Somehow they all fall short of their 'bullying' attempts on Trump. Clinton failed. Pelosi failed. Harris will fail because she will fail to replace Biden who will be in her way. Strike 3 - the Democrats are out!

Even the 'death threat' of more riots, lootings, murders, etc on the streets by the Democrat backed Lefties and BLMs - if Trump wins a 2nd Term shows what we are dealing with here. My money is on the little red devil Harkonnen Trump, with horns like the thorns of a rose.

8Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 8:40am:



Depends on what he's talking about, what he is saying, who is paying him and what the contrary views are. (Very significant considerations when the expertupuse is based on modeling with lots of assumptions.)

Most experts are such in very narrow fields of specialisations. The further they stray from those narrow fields the less expertise and authority they have.

AiA wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 2:23am:



I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned.

Morty has a point. When a Scientific Magazine gets 'political' - you know its just another corrupt well bought magazine.

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 5:52pm:


lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 9:42pm:


lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 11:37am:


lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 11:39am:


lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 1:26pm:


Did you look up what "sealioning" is lee? 

AiA wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 12:28am:



What did you think when the NYPD union endorsed Trump?

On modeling

For those unfamiliar with the complexity of any topic, modelling gives a reassuring level of precision. The outputs are clean and precise. Graphs can demonstrate an unerring prediction of the future and all can be reassured about the correctness of their policies.

These outputs provide a false precision that hides the making of the sausage and the, often, hundreds of assumptions that must be made to generate a precise estimate. What you get out of the model is only as good as what you put in and there is often little scrutiny of what gets put in.

An over reliance on models ends up hiding the key determinants of a decision’s outcome rather than illuminating them.  Remember we were told at the start of the pandemic that 50,000 to 150,000 Australians could die. These predictions have proven to be widely inaccurate. At the time they were made in good faith but the assumptions do not appear to have been updated based on the information we now have on the virus.

We have seen the same saga occur over other contentious policy issues, such as climate change. Climate change modelling regularly forecasts armageddon-like outcomes if there is no action taken to try to change the temperature of the globe. These models of global climate have to make gigantic assumptions over weather patterns, the role of water vapour and the formation of clouds. It is no surprise then that the models often generate incorrect forecasts.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/virtual-reality-check/

Science and politics don't mix.

When you do mix them you end up with an abomination.

A science magazine that commentates on politics is no longer a science magazine.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 4:24pm:



So you admit SA is writing crap.

AiA wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 9:40pm:



Nope. That's the CAGW'ers.

8AiA wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 9:40pm:

How so?

In your own words.