Comments on: Defining the Sceptics (Part 8) http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/ a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:27:50 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Larry http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-123498 Larry Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:23:12 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-123498 Green Davey wrote: "P.S. Hey Larry, have you solved Goldbach’s Conjecture yet?" This is one of the great unsolved problems in mathematics. You keep bringing it up; so it's your baby. I wouldn't want to spoil the passionate purple pleasure of discovery for you. In the meantime, I have a prime-number-related problem for you. What's a reasonable approximation of the percentage of the first guzzillion positive integers that are divisible by 2, by 3, or by both, but NOT divisible by primes greater than 3. As Erdos would say, this is so easy that even a baby can do it. P.S. I've never taken a course in number theory, and I have no idea if this is one of the standard exercises. Green Davey wrote:
“P.S. Hey Larry, have you solved Goldbach’s Conjecture yet?”

This is one of the great unsolved problems in mathematics. You keep bringing it up; so it’s your baby. I wouldn’t want to spoil the passionate purple pleasure of discovery for you.

In the meantime, I have a prime-number-related problem for you. What’s a reasonable approximation of the percentage of the first guzzillion positive integers that are divisible by 2, by 3, or by both, but NOT divisible by primes greater than 3. As Erdos would say, this is so easy that even a baby can do it.

P.S. I’ve never taken a course in number theory, and I have no idea if this is one of the standard exercises.

]]> By: hunter http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122561 hunter Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:48:56 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122561 SJT, Thanks for the clarification. I can certainly appreciate the ability to produce typos. SJT,
Thanks for the clarification.
I can certainly appreciate the ability to produce typos.

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122517 Louis Hissink Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:46:53 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122517 But you can add a post admitting error, and showing the corrected word. But you can add a post admitting error, and showing the corrected word.

]]> By: SJT http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122498 SJT Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:18:44 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122498 "SJT, In your ever increasing need to reframe the AGW debate, you have coined a phrase I was not aware of, “SGW”. Please be so kind as to define it (or redefine it, if you have already). TIA," If you look at your keyboard, the "S" and "A" keys are very close to each other, and you can't edit a post here. “SJT,
In your ever increasing need to reframe the AGW debate, you have coined a phrase I was not aware of, “SGW”. Please be so kind as to define it (or redefine it, if you have already).
TIA,”

If you look at your keyboard, the “S” and “A” keys are very close to each other, and you can’t edit a post here.

]]> By: hunter http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122419 hunter Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:54:24 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122419 SJT, In your ever increasing need to reframe the AGW debate, you have coined a phrase I was not aware of, "SGW". Please be so kind as to define it (or redefine it, if you have already). TIA, SJT,
In your ever increasing need to reframe the AGW debate, you have coined a phrase I was not aware of, “SGW”. Please be so kind as to define it (or redefine it, if you have already).
TIA,

]]> By: hunter http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122403 hunter Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:22:31 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122403 Using false comparisons between skeptics of AGW and creationists is fun but does not work. AGW is not the climate science. Just like eugenics was not evolution. But I do see that the 'Luke' combine is braying away about the latest thing the political site RC claims AGW causes: Nothing. So, not only does AGW cause warming. Not only does AGW cause cooling. Now AGW causes nothing to happen. I would suggest that belief in AGW is much closer to Young Earth Creationism than in anything to do with events in the real world, much less rational thought. As far as the red herring AGW believers use about luke warmers, it could be the basis for rational discussion if the AGW community was not so deranged as to reject any modification of their dogma. It is the AGW true believers who attack the luke warmers, not the skeptics. All skeptics are pointing out is the failure of AGW predictions. Luke warming is a great inavlidation of the apocalyptic clap trap we read from the believers here and that you just endured at breakfast from the grand poobah himself. Using false comparisons between skeptics of AGW and creationists is fun but does not work.
AGW is not the climate science. Just like eugenics was not evolution.
But I do see that the ‘Luke’ combine is braying away about the latest thing the political site RC claims AGW causes:
Nothing.
So, not only does AGW cause warming. Not only does AGW cause cooling. Now AGW causes nothing to happen.
I would suggest that belief in AGW is much closer to Young Earth Creationism than in anything to do with events in the real world, much less rational thought.
As far as the red herring AGW believers use about luke warmers, it could be the basis for rational discussion if the AGW community was not so deranged as to reject any modification of their dogma. It is the AGW true believers who attack the luke warmers, not the skeptics.
All skeptics are pointing out is the failure of AGW predictions. Luke warming is a great inavlidation of the apocalyptic clap trap we read from the believers here and that you just endured at breakfast from the grand poobah himself.

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122278 Louis Hissink Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:09:42 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122278 SJT, for the third time: "You will find that most of the science ’sceptics’ with any brains are classified as luke warmers. They wouldn’t be seen dead associating themselves with G&T, Miskcolczi or Beck. McIntyre is too smart for it, for example, he just gets a useful idiot like Watts to do that for him." I demand evidence for this statement please. If you refuse to supply it, do you then expect me to accept what you write as authoritative? SJT, for the third time:

“You will find that most of the science ’sceptics’ with any brains are classified as luke warmers. They wouldn’t be seen dead associating themselves with G&T, Miskcolczi or Beck. McIntyre is too smart for it, for example, he just gets a useful idiot like Watts to do that for him.”

I demand evidence for this statement please.

If you refuse to supply it, do you then expect me to accept what you write as authoritative?

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122277 Louis Hissink Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:05:35 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122277 SJT, again, ,,,, "Is climate science settled? It has a well understood and undeniable physical basis." We take it, then, that it is settled. Green Davey, do form the same conclusion from SJT's reply? SJT, again, ,,,,

“Is climate science settled? It has a well understood and undeniable physical basis.”

We take it, then, that it is settled.

Green Davey, do form the same conclusion from SJT’s reply?

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122273 Louis Hissink Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:59:33 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122273 SJT: "Skepticism requires that you demand evidence, and then evaluate it. If you cannot do so, you have to defer to authority". Wrong - no evidence means one cannot do science, so deferring to authority is the hallmark of a supine devotee. SJT:

“Skepticism requires that you demand evidence, and then evaluate it. If you cannot do so, you have to defer to authority”.

Wrong – no evidence means one cannot do science, so deferring to authority is the hallmark of a supine devotee.

]]> By: SJT http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/07/defining-the-sceptics-part-8/comment-page-1/#comment-122259 SJT Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:30:39 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=5772#comment-122259 "You are half right, in saying that I don’t attack Miskolczi’s supporters. The reason I don’t is that I am not qualified to do so. At the same time, and for the same reason, I don’t attack those who disagree with Miskolczi. I believe in open debate, and I will attack those who try to close it down by abusive rhetoric such as ‘denialist’. " I'm not asking you to attack the supporters, I'm just asking you to see if they actually know what they are debating. I have already asked Jen to justify her support for Miskolczi, she declined on the grounds she was not able to. That is not skepticism. Skepticism requires that you demand evidence, and then evaluate it. If you cannot do so, you have to defer to authority. The Melbourne branch of the Skeptics Society have publicly stated this. You are happy to say you don't understand it, and ask for a debate. There is rarely a debate here, just pretense at understanding. A giveaway was Jens claim that Miskolczi had single handedly created a new law of physics. You would think the skeptics antenna would be quivering at anyone making such a claim. Is climate science settled? It has a well understood and undeniable physical basis. You will find that most of the science 'sceptics' with any brains are classified as luke warmers. They wouldn't be seen dead associating themselves with G&T, Miskcolczi or Beck. McIntyre is too smart for it, for example, he just gets a useful idiot like Watts to do that for him. The only real debate is, how much warming will there be? If can at least all agree that we have got that far, things will be much more sensible and intelligent. “You are half right, in saying that I don’t attack Miskolczi’s supporters. The reason I don’t is that I am not qualified to do so. At the same time, and for the same reason, I don’t attack those who disagree with Miskolczi. I believe in open debate, and I will attack those who try to close it down by abusive rhetoric such as ‘denialist’. ”

I’m not asking you to attack the supporters, I’m just asking you to see if they actually know what they are debating. I have already asked Jen to justify her support for Miskolczi, she declined on the grounds she was not able to. That is not skepticism. Skepticism requires that you demand evidence, and then evaluate it. If you cannot do so, you have to defer to authority. The Melbourne branch of the Skeptics Society have publicly stated this.

You are happy to say you don’t understand it, and ask for a debate. There is rarely a debate here, just pretense at understanding. A giveaway was Jens claim that Miskolczi had single handedly created a new law of physics. You would think the skeptics antenna would be quivering at anyone making such a claim.

Is climate science settled? It has a well understood and undeniable physical basis. You will find that most of the science ’sceptics’ with any brains are classified as luke warmers. They wouldn’t be seen dead associating themselves with G&T, Miskcolczi or Beck. McIntyre is too smart for it, for example, he just gets a useful idiot like Watts to do that for him.

The only real debate is, how much warming will there be? If can at least all agree that we have got that far, things will be much more sensible and intelligent.

]]>