Unthreaded
Robert
yeah, I saw that JCU thing at the time and "filed it".
I wonder (if it hasn't already happened) when we'll be treated to vegan drag queens opining on climate models.... The BBC are obviously on course
btw - it looks like nobody's actually employing Oona, not even JCU .... maybe she's litter picking somewhere?
The more I see AI related stuff like that the more I recall the Harry Tuttle character from Brazil movie. Once the bureaucrats get their hands on it you'll need more than a wooly pully to escape filling out a 27b/6.
tomo
Mailman,
Good to see you getting into the spirit of this modern information age, a step on the path to our glorious AI future.
On that point, I saw this clothing pattern mentioned at Jo Nova's. The claim is that it disrupts facial recognition software (more subtly than going around in a Guy Fawkes mask, I guess) and the second-last photo in the article shows the lady has indeed been unpersoned by the algorithm. Do they not realise that wearing such clothes will make you fair game for being mown down by driverless cars?
tomo,
Last night a friend of mine was saying how weird the world has become, with politicians being scientists, and scientists being politicians. Of course the politicians are only playing at being scientists — lab coats, waffling about energy and all that — but the scientists really *are* being politicians. And of course grand scientific institutions, like James Cook University, have also turned to politics. You'll be pleased to hear that Oona Lonnstedt has been cleared of research misconduct in much the same way as Michael Mann. A paragon of modern science.
Robert Swan
Robert
This abysmal trash is now coming up for a decade old.... (still no mention of the paper's fate at the BBC)
It's an area where I have an assortment of real world experience and at the time I went and read the paper, and others by the same lady and did a bit of a scoping exercise in related areas .... coming away simply astonished and simultaneously angry that simply pitiful (or worse... - invented) field work can be parlayed into febrile propaganda by the usual suspects.
I was directed to some pharma funded medical research in the 1990s by a rather senior public health academic who didn't like what she'd seen but wasn't about to commit career suicide - conclusions and summaries for policy makers almost entirely at odds with the data.... in some cases masterfully (and doubtless expensively) obfuscated.
Hardly a week passes at the moment without a self evidently absurd claim being made supported by "the science" - yes, the MSM are mostly morons - but what does that make the people from previously respected institutions that continue to churn this trash out?
At least with Matt Brown wysiwyg, warts 'n all :-)
tomo
Well Ive just learnt you can get up to 6 tyres in to the boot of a new Prius and you can also get "a lot" of vacuums in to that same boot Robbo! :)
Mailman
Mailman,
Yes it is, but hardly worth losing sleep over. I find a more satisfactory way of losing sleep is spending hours watching those @SuperfastMatt videos. Rather addictive.
Robert Swan
Robbo,
Its all a but of a shit show eh.
Mailman
Mailman,
I prefer your reasoning to that in the article. Yours is, like mine was back at the time, based on seat-of-the-pants/common sense. The article used IMO bogus stats to give it a sciency feel of authority. Just because I favour its conclusions doesn't mean I should consider it helpful. Touting it would weaken our position. if I can pick holes in it, so can a PCR-test defender.
To put it in terms of your metaphor: it's a rotten apple; bad idea to put it in the barrel with the good ones.
tomo,
I remember Feynman describing his "they just don't get it" exasperation at psychologists' reverence for published scientific papers. Once a result was out there, it was *true*, and the last thing you would want to do is go over the old ground. Feynman's response was (more or less) that physicists *had* *to* repeat old experiments: How can you advance if you don't start by getting to the current position?
30 years since that book was published and the psychologists are winning. Shouldn't be a surprise: Feynmans have always been very thin on the ground, and the academies have set their bars so very low.
Robert Swan
more brains and less computers
yeah.... I'm pretty cynical about conclusion sections in much academic research
- robust language a rarity -
tomo
Also, does anyone know if the Government has found itself not guilty in its Chinese Covid enquiry yet?
Mailman
Mann gets a medal
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1784944549770449321
sick bag warning - others do too....