J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 08:49:26 am
..."Hard cases make bad law" ...

I'm not sure I followed that. Are you saying that if they build precedent around "hard" cases that take a lot of work to straighten out, that it results in too heavy a workload for the "easy" cases that could otherwise be handled quickly? A practical matter, since "justice" takes too much work?

Or is it that changes in legal precedent based on a solid foundation would be disruptive for the mass of existing law that's based on simple injustice?


Not at all. The reasoned contention - ratified by experience - is that the "solid foundation" of "legal precedent" tends more reliably to derive from what happens in the great majority of not-so-"hard" cases, not only because such episodes account for most of what gets brought into court but also because the establishment of precedent law preponderantly on the basis of the more frequently occurring problems tends to prevent matters from being brought into court, and even to prevent the problems themselves from developing.  They establish a "better-we-don't-go-there" guidance, and the more understandable that guidance is to the non-lawyer, the better.

That sounds a lot like my first alternative. Do the mass of easy cases some way that's easy, and persuade the hard cases to go away.  

Quote
The "hard" cases happen, no denying it, and they have to be decided, but unless we're dealing with truly stupid statutes at the root of the problem (by "stupid" I mean legislation which aggressively violates individual rights, and it's a damned good idea to get rid of them), such "hard" cases tend to cause nasty headaches well beyond the scope of their particulars.

When it's hard because it's hard to establish the facts, then there's nothing you can do but slog away establishing the facts or else throw up your hands and decide something without the facts. But when it's a conflict between valid rights, or if laws usually misapply rights in a simple way that usually works, isn't it better to actually debug it?

Otherwise you get used to the system operating in failure mode.

Quote


Frank Herbert, in The Dosadi Experiment, briefly described Gowachin law which had a death penalty for giving professional legal advice or legal representation. They made it illegal to be a lawyer.


Making it "illegal to be a lawyer" sounds tempting on the face of it, but all that'd do is to create a black market for legal advice (if not representation).  If there are going to be formal, explicitly articulated codes of law in any polity, there are going to be people who develop expert knowledge of those codes, and those experts are going to be consulted for advice about "rocks and shoals," whether they call themselves lawyers or not.

Sure, we couldn't really get rid of lawyers any more than we can get rid of prostitutes. Herbert showed their laws interacting in a somewhat pleasing way. Like, they insisted that in court nobody had immunity. Anybody could be punished for their crimes revealed by the trial, regardless whether they were the one on trial. So in a trial with three judges, the hero pointed out that one of the judges was known to have practiced galactic law (not on Gowachin) and executed him on the spot.

Of course we couldn't eliminate professional lawyers, but we could at least kill a lot of them and blackmail whichever ones get discovered who actually have money. It's something. I'm not serious, I just liked Herbert's story.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 10:58:13 am by J Thomas »

spudit on May 14, 2011, 09:27:19 am
I suspect there may be something to global warming but, but, are we doing it all by ourselves and is it a bad thing over all if agriculture gets harder in Oklahoma and easier in Minnesota. Dunno, dunno how you could know, sure the people in those states have opinions as to the effects on them but over all? Dunno.

The thing the warmers don't get is that life goes on despite the climate. The world was warmer and wetter in dinosaur days and before than it is now. By those standards, the world is a wreck today. Compared to 20,000 years ago when where I am now was a mile deep in ice, this current interglacial is paradise. And it is a break between cold spells, is CO2 helping or hurting, dunno. I can't control the climate and if some damn fool is changing it by burning coal, fact is, I can't control him either.

Get rid of the lawyers and someone will fill the void. Just ask who comes close now. Off the top of my head, CPAs would become just a bit better on tax law and fill that niche. Nope, as long as there is a complex scenario to be understood someone will be there to explain it. Now simplifying complex manmade things, well, it's complicated.

As to control of private public places? I carry sometimes and my bank has a big no guns sticker on the door. Secure in the belief that everything in my pants is my business, I ignore it. I surely understand why a bank would be a mite twitchy about guns and I suspect walking in with a rifle would agitate their hive just a bit but it is not a law, it's a request, a preference. Now the postal orrifice, where the mail comes out, has the same rule. There it is a law backed up by all the force of the Feral government. Do I, should I, treat them differently?

 
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

SandySandfort on May 14, 2011, 09:31:35 am
Here is something I find fascinating about the posts on this subject. I started the thread, so you would think I would have posted to most material. But I have not. And it's not J Thomas, it's Tucci.

 I am a professional writer. I try to follow Shakespeare's dictum, "Brevity is the soul of wit." The non-writer's biggest error is logorrhea. Tucci has that in spades.

Over the years I have noted that most doctors and lawyers think they are really good writers, though in truth, most suck. In the past, I have edited magazines and done freelance editing work. The worst stuff always came from those two professions. They were long winded, repetitive, used long convoluted sentences, lacked focus and use too much jargon.

They believe they can write well because of their massive egos (doctors, especially) and the fact that they get published in obscure or specialized journals where they rarely get paid and are only tolerated because they are the only ones who have the specialize knowledge in the subject matter. (By way of illustration, the preceding was a doctor-like run-on sentence. A professional writer would chop that into at least three easy-to-follow sentences to enhance communications. Just sayin'.)

The relevance here, is that Tucci has written little more than massive core dumps of naked opinions, invectives, irrelevancies and unwarranted declaration of certainty, to the subject of this thread.

Yet in all his verbiage he has failed to address (or dodged) one simple question (or to seek clarification, if he feels it is needed). I cannot help but assume this failure is nothing more than moral cowardice on his part. So, I don't intend to reply to him unless he replies to me with an answers my simple question or asks for clarification and then answers my question after he receives that clarification. Of course, I will continue to reply to other people's post, as appropriate.

Having said all that, it might be time to take the initiative here. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. While I am not without blame, the sheer level of rancor out of Tucci has been astounding, especially given his profession. Nevertheless, I am now taking the first step in lowering the level of testosterone and venom.

Henceforth, I will simply refer to Tucci as "Tucc"i and drop my personal assessments, sarcasm, etc. When Tucci answers my question, we can move forward, but I hope without the heat. BTW, I have no problem calling him "Dr. Tucci," if he prefers. I only ask that he reciprocate by calling me by my professional identity. Any one of these will do: "Writer Sandy," "Entrepreneur Sandy" or "Dr. Sandy" (as, of course, I do have a Juris Doctorate.)  Gee, I feel better already.  :)

What say ye, Tucci? How about we drop the name calling, you answer my question and we move forward in the exploration of liability issues in a stateless society?

P.S. Just to be fair, I'm giving you a free pass on part of this post. Say whatever you want about everything that comes before "Henceforth." So I'm giving you the last (nasty) word.  ;)


J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 09:43:37 am
I may have misunderstood. Sandy may explain further. And it's OK if he changes his mind too. There's nothing wrong with saying "It seemed like a good idea at the time but now I have a better idea". I'd hate to be stuck with the position that I know it all already and I'm not going to learn anything.

The big mistake everyone seems to be making is assuming that because a person can make silly or onerous rules for their own property, the will make such rules and be antisocial. That doesn't happen now; why would it happen in a freer society?

Ah. Well, but if we can assume that people will not be antisocial, we don't need laws or arbitration at all. The whole point of discussing this sort of thing is the assumption that people will not always be reasonable.

Now you want to assume that landowners *will* be reasonable so we can trust them to do whatever they want, the same as some people want to believe in police and government-appointed judges. "We can trust them to do the right thing, and we can't trust random citizens. So it's right for them to get all the power." Same thing.

Quote
J Thomas, as much as you think that extremely unlikely and silly scenarios, somehow prove or disprove anything, they don't. Those are what Rand called "lifeboat" scenarios. Their relevance to 99.99% of human interactions is zero.

See, you have been a lawyer and apparently you have never rethought the premises you had to accept then.

What would you think if a computer programmer told you "My accounting program works correctly 99.99% of the time, and that's good enough"? "My database only loses 0.01% of transactions." "See, there are these rare special cases, and if we test for them that would be inefficient 99.99% of the time, so we just ignore them."

How about other professions? "My beef is 99.99% mad-cow-disease free." "My JDAMs explode prematurely only 0.01% of the time."

Quote
If you want to test to destruction--in engineering or life--you first establish a functioning baseline and then realistically ramp things up until something breaks down. Then you can start your analysis.

Sure. So, is a law more like a computer program or more like a computer? You can overclock your processor until the failure rate is a little bit higher than you want to accept and then slow it down a little. But what level of programming errors do you want to accept?

I say laws should be more like mathematical theorems. And your theorem is disproved if there is one counterexample.

"Legally, we will decide that there is no such thing as a prime number. We know that the larger the number, the less likely it's a prime, and so the fraction of primes among all the numbers is vanishingly small. So when a prime actually comes up we will consider it a "hard case" and ignore the possibility otherwise."

"No, wait! There are 4 primes among the first 10 numbers. People use lots of little numbers and there are lots of primes among the little numbers."

"OK, so this ruling needs to be amended. From now on, we rule that legally there are no prime numbers larger than 10,000."

Quote
So it is with social systems. They should be judged on the basis of how they perform in the majority of cases, not on the basis of some scenario that posits a mall that bans, left-handed, albino pygmies... with dandruff. Perfection is not possible. We make things that work in the vast majority of real-life situations and hope for the best. If there is a breakdown, we don't necessarily throw out the system, we refine it.

Mostly people don't even get to design social systems. They just live in them and the systems change, often at random, as a result of people's actions.

But when you're deciding what's fair, you'll get a whole lot less trouble if you actually make sense of it than by using trial-and-error, "This sort of worked in the past and it's been patched repeatedly when it failed and now the remaining failures aren't worth patching. It's fair and just -- because we said so".

Quote
It is child's play to come up with totally unrealistic, extreme scenarios under which any system will break down.

It might be child's play to come up with extreme scenarios where any system will look unfair. I don't know, I haven't tried that for every system. Maybe we could get a system that was actually fair where it wouldn't be childs play to get examples where it fails.

If we state our rules for what we think is fair, we can base  judgements on those rules. Maybe Goedel's theorem applies to this and it's always possible to find cases that the rules don't decide -- but that's different from finding cases where the rules are contradictory.

You have done some of that -- simple explicit rules for what's fair -- and I complain that I don't like your idea of fairness. Like, "let the landowner decide everything and there's always a landowner" is simple and clear, but I don't like it. Why not one that's even simpler?

"Always let the guy who's pointing a gun at you decide what the law is."

We can depend on most people to be reasonable and fair. 99.99% of the time, nobody will point a gun at you unless they have a very good reason. And what's the point of even having a gun if you can't point it at people and make them do what you want? This system looks about as reliable as yours which depends on landowners. And we don't have to worry about what to do when the visitor shoots the landowner instead of vice versa.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 09:53:24 am by J Thomas »

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 09:49:30 am

Henceforth, I will simply refer to Tucci as "Tucc"i and drop my personal assessments, sarcasm, etc. When Tucci answers my question, we can move forward, but I hope without the heat.

Thank you! That's a great offer! I hope he accepts.

Incidentally I believe he did answer your question, buried in a couple of long posts.

It's understandable that you would have missed it.

spudit on May 14, 2011, 09:51:04 am
Defusing the tension is good; bickering and name calling are no fun.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 11:48:28 am

But my own (partial) political conservatism leads me to discredit claims that nuclear power is risky (since they tend not to come from the scientific establishment) and to favor it therefore as a way to keep the economy and the nation strong for both liberal (jobs) and conservative (defense) reasons.

Risk is a hard topic. You can do laboratory tests that determine failure rates for parts, under lab conditions. You can add up the known failure rates and guess from there. But it seems to work better to actually use field data. The failure rates from lab tests are unlikely to be lower than in the field, but....

Probability theory gives us the following --

If you add or subtract multiple gaussian (normal) distributions, you get another normal distribution. If you know mean and variance for the starting distributions you can calculate those for the new one.

If you add or subtract other distributions that all have finite variance, the result will be closer to a normal distribution than the originals were. The sum tends to converge to normal.

If you multiply distributions with finite variance then you tend to get something with finite variance.

If you divide one normal distribution by another normal distribution, you get something with infinite variance. It does not act like you want it to.

How do you tell whether you are sampling a distribution which has finite variance or not? As you keep sampling, you will occasionally get "outliers" which are far from the norm. At first they will seem like just rare outliers. You adjust the mean and variance to account for them. But the longer you collect data, the higher the variance goes. Sometimes the mean keeps rising too. And eventually you have enough data to say this is not a gaussian, or a gamma, or whatever you thought it was. It probably has infinite variance.

Or you may decide that theoretically, if you have reason to think that there is division of one random variable by another. In the equations you use to describe the thing you're measuring, look for division.

Notice how engineers estimate hundred-year-flood levels, and then they get bigger floods sooner than they expected so they make new hundred-year-flood estimates, and then they get bigger floods again. Maybe the climate is changing so the past estimates don't apply. Maybe they're trying to estimate something that does not have finite variance.

So, we have say, 10,000 plant/years of experience with nuclear plants, but they're mostly old plants and we won't build them that way any more. We have, say, 500 years experience with new nuclear power plants, all in other countries. Say we build 20 times as many nuclear plants as currently exist -- then we will get twice sa much new safety data as we already have from the last 10 years. And if there's a very rare accident possible, the chance that it happens that first year is roughly twice the chance it will have ever happened before.

What's the chance we get a really bad accident? We have no experience to judge. We have never had a bad one. If we had a whole lot of power plants and we had one Chernobyl-level accident a year, we could probably handle that. We could find cheap ways to decontaminate. Like, get radio-controlled bulldozers to seal the whole thing in clay. If water can't get in then water mostly won't get out and won't carry contaminants. Then pile a whole lot of dirt on, and cover it with concrete, and call it decommissioned. If anybody sues for damages laugh at them. You're out an expensive nuclear plant so you'll have to pay for a new one, but no big deal except the money.

But what if we got a real bad accident? What's the chance of that? Nobody knows. If it's a normal distribution we can guess. We can assume that the new plants are like the old ones, or the new plants or 10 times better, or whatever. But we don't know that it's a finite variance distribution. We're just guessing. We have no data to go on.

So I say, if we can afford to go slow on nuclear power then we ought to go slow. Find out better how to do it.

But if we can't afford to go slow, if that means we lose a war or something, then we have to take the unknown risks and hope.

We can't get our data for this from the scientific establishment, because the chance of a rare bad accident is not something we can do science on.

SandySandfort on May 14, 2011, 12:56:34 pm
I may have misunderstood. Sandy may explain further. And it's OK if he changes his mind too. There's nothing wrong with saying "It seemed like a good idea at the time but now I have a better idea". I'd hate to be stuck with the position that I know it all already and I'm not going to learn anything.

The big mistake everyone seems to be making is assuming that because a person can make silly or onerous rules for their own property, the will make such rules and be antisocial. That doesn't happen now; why would it happen in a freer society?

Ah. Well, but if we can assume that people will not be antisocial, we don't need laws or arbitration at all. The whole point of discussing this sort of thing is the assumption that people will not always be reasonable.

I observe that most people are social, most of the time. You conclusion has two flaws. (1) It is based on the unstated and false premise that I said all people will not be antisocial. Most won't, so we will still need ways to deal the tiny antisocial minority. (2) Your conclusion is also based on the unstated and false premise that laws and arbitration only deal with antisocial behavior. There are plenty of situations were disputes arise between quite social people. It is because they are social and seriously want to resolve issues, upon which they disagree, that they will seek arbitration of one sort or another.


J Thomas, I have decided that I do not wish to be a co-dependent to your bad habit of making posts that lack focus. So, I will limit myself to responding to your first issue or scenario per post. If after others or I have responded to that first element, you feel compelled to reintroduce the other issues/scenarios, knock yourself out, but only one per post, please.

You have a creative and agile mind, J Thomas. All you lack is self-discipline in your writing. The first step is focus. (The second is responding to what is actually written, instead of your restatement. You almost always get it wrong, as above. Actually that might be the first step, but both steps go hand in hand.)

Tucci78 on May 14, 2011, 02:51:52 pm
[I'm too prolix for his taste, medical doctors are arrogant incompetents who can't write, he's a freaking genius with all sorts of editorial experience, and yadda-yadda-yadda.]

One of the Austrian School economists (von Mises, Hayek, I'm not sure) once wrote that putting forth supported argument for free market theory is so damned tough because the various anti-free market crap accepted as "conventional wisdom" is both raddled with error and seductively attractive to what Mencken used to call the "prehensile gentry."

The job of the free market economist, therefore, has to include detailed and absolutely inescapable dissection of the lies at the heart of Keynesianism and mercantilism and socialism and all the rest of the confabulated excuses for violent aggression in the purposeful affairs of human beings. 

I liken it to the lessons taught in trauma surgery. You've gotta cut away the crushed and tattered and otherwise nonviable stuff before you can even begin to understand what there is for you to work with in closing the wound.

So both to address error and to better expound valid observations, I carve until I find tissue that bleeds and has a chance of surviving.

Nasty analogy, ain't it?

But by all means, let's keep it brief.  Counselor Weasel (who started with the animal name-calling to begin with, remember) doesn't like it when we write long posts.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Tucci78 on May 14, 2011, 03:34:05 pm
Those mother bastard "climatologists" had been corrupting peer review.

Note that this does not affect the truth. It only makes it harder to tell whose research to believe. Their conclusions could be right even if their methods were wrong.

Nope. What it means is that the "climatologists" pushing the AGW fraud have deliberately and concertedly evaded the error-checking mechanism of peer review.  If their "truth" was objectively verifiable, why the hell would they do that?

Rhetorical question, of course. They did it because they knew that "Their conclusions" were wrong, and that this must inevitably be demonstrated by honest review of their methods, their data, and the results of their analyses.

In addition, they have used peer review (and induced the collusion of conference and journal editors) to prevent the publication of colleagues' research results in cases where evidence developed thereby has caused the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to be called into question.

Not even the contention that the AGW fraudsters have come across "conclusions" that correctly reflect what happens in the physical universe by way of the "stopped clock" mechanism (methods wrong, output  miraculously right) can be supported. 

When you've caught somebody breaking into a bank, it's pretty stupid to accept his explanation that he was only making a withdrawal from his own savings account.

But let's be brief in this post. Counselor Weasel doesn't like me to make lengthy comments.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 03:40:22 pm

The big mistake everyone seems to be making is assuming that because a person can make silly or onerous rules for their own property, the will make such rules and be antisocial. That doesn't happen now; why would it happen in a freer society?

Ah. Well, but if we can assume that people will not be antisocial, we don't need laws or arbitration at all. The whole point of discussing this sort of thing is the assumption that people will not always be reasonable.

I observe that most people are social, most of the time. You conclusion has two flaws. (1) It is based on the unstated and false premise that I said all people will not be antisocial. Most won't, so we will still need ways to deal the tiny antisocial minority.

If people have some rights even while they are on someone else's property, then we need a way to preserve those rights in the rare case that a landowner abuses them. This is no different from preserving people's rights in general in the rare case when some other person abuses them, whether that other person is on their property or the abuser and abused are both on some third party's property.

It's a creative solution to say the landowner is always right because he always gets to make all the rules on his own property, but I don't like it. Give people a trump and a few of them will abuse it.

Quote
(2) Your conclusion is also based on the unstated and false premise that laws and arbitration only deal with antisocial behavior. There are plenty of situations were disputes arise between quite social people. It is because they are social and seriously want to resolve issues, upon which they disagree, that they will seek arbitration of one sort or another.

Suppose two reasonable people. Likely they can work things out without any third person involved, they each listen to what the other wants and work something out that satisfies them both independent of what anybody else says is right.

Suppose two reasonable people have trouble understanding each other. A mediator might be able to listen to them both and get it clear, and they agree without any prior stipulation that they will let him decide for them.

Suppose two reasonable people are bullheaded enough that they simply disagree, and they disagree about what's right, and they don't want to make allowances for each other. They can agree to binding arbitration and then they both do what the arbitrator (that they both chose) says.

It sure looks to me like all the big issues come from the tiny minority of unreasonable people.

It might be a small minority of unreasonable policemen etc that cause most of our problems with the current system. Maybe? Or maybe putting them into positions of authority might tend to *make* them unreasonable? Give them that trump and they get used to the idea that they don't need to be reasonable....

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 03:49:58 pm
Those mother bastard "climatologists" had been corrupting peer review.

Note that this does not affect the truth. It only makes it harder to tell whose research to believe. Their conclusions could be right even if their methods were wrong.

Nope. What it means is that the "climatologists" pushing the AGW fraud have deliberately and concertedly evaded the error-checking mechanism of peer review.  If their "truth" was objectively verifiable, why the hell would they do that?

Rhetorical question, of course. They did it because they knew that "Their conclusions" were wrong, and that this must inevitably be demonstrated by honest review of their methods, their data, and the results of their analyses.

No. If we accept that they did distort the peer-review system more than usual, they could have done it to make *inconclusive* results look conclusive. It is not proof that their conclusions were wrong.
 
Quote
In addition, they have used peer review (and induced the collusion of conference and journal editors) to prevent the publication of colleagues' research results in cases where evidence developed thereby has caused the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to be called into question.

Again, if it's true that they wrongly prevented publication, we need to actually see the research results that were suppressed to decide what those results proved. If someone who is biased rejects your research, that does not prove that your research would have passed legitimate peer review. Back when I looked at creation science stuff, I occasionally saw claims that a creation science researcher had sent his results to some prestigious journal and gotten rejected, and that proved that they were biased and wrong because if they had been honest they would have published his work. I strongly doubt this conclusion in the individual cases I saw. What they published for themselves would not pass my own tests.

Quote
Not even the contention that the AGW fraudsters have come across "conclusions" that correctly reflect what happens in the physical universe by way of the "stopped clock" mechanism (methods wrong, output  miraculously right) can be supported.

Yes, it can.

Quote
But let's be brief in this post. Counselor Weasel doesn't like me to make lengthy comments.

He offered to stop namecalling. You look bad when you reject that offer.

SandySandfort on May 14, 2011, 04:48:29 pm
If people have some rights even while they are on someone else's property, then we need a way to preserve those rights in the rare case that a landowner abuses them. This is no different from preserving people's rights in general in the rare case when some other person abuses them, whether that other person is on their property or the abuser and abused are both on some third party's property.

It's a creative solution to say the landowner is always right because he always gets to make all the rules on his own property, but I don't like it. Give people a trump and a few of them will abuse it.

Fortunately, no one has made the claim that the landowner is always right. So, defeating that strawman proposition doesn't do us any good. People always have rights. That was never the question. The question is what are those rights and when may they be traded away for some advantage? The main question in this thread has to do with limited liability. Can you partially accept a store's limited liability in order to receive a benefit? I say, yes. In fact we do it all the time.   

Suppose two reasonable people...

Stating a conclusion about people and their motives is special pleading. Give me a scenario where, on the basis of their actions, I can infer whether or not they are "reasonable people." Give a scenario from real life, not any of your left-handed, albino pygmies with dandruff. Then we can talk. Something as simple and common as my property line example, please.

Tucci78 on May 14, 2011, 04:50:10 pm
Those mother bastard "climatologists" had been corrupting peer review.

Note that this does not affect the truth. It only makes it harder to tell whose research to believe. Their conclusions could be right even if their methods were wrong.

Nope. What it means is that the "climatologists" pushing the AGW fraud have deliberately and concertedly evaded the error-checking mechanism of peer review.  If their "truth" was objectively verifiable, why the hell would they do that?

Rhetorical question, of course. They did it because they knew that "Their conclusions" were wrong, and that this must inevitably be demonstrated by honest review of their methods, their data, and the results of their analyses.

No. If we accept that they did distort the peer-review system more than usual, they could have done it to make *inconclusive* results look conclusive. It is not proof that their conclusions were wrong.

Can I presume that you've got no experience of (nor an accurate appreciation of what's involved in) peer review?

Understanding that no matter what the AGW fraudsters did to "distort the peer-review system" (what the hell is this "more than usual" bit? any purposeful distortion of peer review is a violation of ethical standards), or how they did it (colluding with each other to arrange for themselves what is commonly called "pal review"), the fact that they did do it is enough to make every damned thing they published absolutely invalid as material to which other scientists can make reference in future.

The whole idea behind the expression "peer reviewed literature" is the assurance that what's published in the proceedings of such conferences and the various referee'd periodicals has been vetted for consistency and validity.  You can use it as support for assertions of fact.  It's the good stuff.

In medicine, there's a lot of respect for periodicals like The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine because the publishers of those journals have established reputations for close scrutiny of the stuff they choose to publish. 

And even those top-of-the-line journals get diddled sometimes. What they do in such cases is to conscientiously publish retractions, and when you go into their digital archives online, there are all sorts of warnings and other caveats to notify the reader that these legacy articles contained errors  and/or duplicities, with links to corrections or retractions.

By evading and corrupting the mechanism of peer review, these "climatologists" have committed such glaring breaches of professional ethics, have so thoroughly violated the scientific method, that they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.   

Think about Jayson Blair (see http://tinyurl.com/7uhnhq). Is anybody ever in future likely to believe his reporting as a journalist?

And you still believe these lying, conniving bastards? What the hell is wrong with you?
 
In addition, they have used peer review (and induced the collusion of conference and journal editors) to prevent the publication of colleagues' research results in cases where evidence developed thereby has caused the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to be called into question.

Again, if it's true that they wrongly prevented publication, we need to actually see the research results that were suppressed to decide what those results proved. If someone who is biased rejects your research, that does not prove that your research would have passed legitimate peer review. Back when I looked at creation science stuff, I occasionally saw claims that a creation science researcher had sent his results to some prestigious journal and gotten rejected, and that proved that they were biased and wrong because if they had been honest they would have published his work. I strongly doubt this conclusion in the individual cases I saw. What they published for themselves would not pass my own tests.

One of the most wonderfully corrupt and stinking aspects of this whole "climate change" hoo-rah over the past couple of decades has been the fraudsters' reeking crap about how "The science is settled!"

Remember that phrase "peer-reviewed literature"? The allegation of the political prostitutes and their "climatologist" pimps has been that if the results of "denier" research (i.e., anything which tends in any way to disprove the AGW hypothesis) cannot get published in those scientific periodicals which the warmist cabal controls by way of corrupted peer review and editorial stonewalling, nobody is supposed to consider it as valid.

So the "denier" scientists and analysts have taken their results to the 'Net with increasing frequency, perforce foregoing the "filters for folly" provided by legitimate peer review (which they really don't want to do, but needs must...) to secure a kind of "open source" review in the public forum.

And the "climatogist" fraudsters cannot rebut them. In the marketplace of ideas, the AGW hypothesis is indefensible. 

Your analogy to the creationists doesn't work.  Hang "creation science" out there on the Web where people can shoot at it, and it gets blown away.  Do the same with analyses of how the AGW fraudsters played "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" (and other distortions and deceptions), and the warmists get screwed. 

The AGW hypothesis - like "creation science" - can't survive honest reasoned analysis in any way.  That's why the perpetrators of this fraud have striven so mightily to freeze out such critique of their bogosity. 

Not even the contention that the AGW fraudsters have come across "conclusions" that correctly reflect what happens in the physical universe by way of the "stopped clock" mechanism (methods wrong, output  miraculously right) can be supported.

Yes, it can.

And your basis for how it can is precisely...what?

He [Counselor Weasel] offered to stop namecalling. You look bad when you reject that offer.

Actually, he didn't.  He offered the use of a contemptuous diminutive ("Tucc'") instead of the "Dr. Monkey" he'd started with. 

Thus my use of the cognomen "Counselor Scuttling Weasel" when referring to him.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 05:11:47 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

quadibloc on May 14, 2011, 06:33:53 pm
By evading and corrupting the mechanism of peer review, these "climatologists" have committed such glaring breaches of professional ethics, have so thoroughly violated the scientific method, that they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
What color is the sky in your world?

Now, it certainly is true that a lot of papers get published based on highly speculative computer models that keep saying different things about what the climate will be like in five or ten years. If these papers were all claiming that the climate in five or ten years really would be exactly like they predicted, plus or minus 5%, then indeed one could say that anyone who supports the AGW view is getting a free pass on peer review - because those papers are contradicting one another that obviously most of them would have to be nonsense.

But that is not happening. While those papers about climate models are getting published, because they contain useful information for other people working on climate models, they do not make exaggerated claims about their likely accuracy.

One of the most wonderfully corrupt and stinking aspects of this whole "climate change" hoo-rah over the past couple of decades has been the fraudsters' reeking crap about how "The science is settled!"

Remember that phrase "peer-reviewed literature"? The allegation of the political prostitutes and their "climatologist" pimps has been that if the results of "denier" research (i.e., anything which tends in any way to disprove the AGW hypothesis) cannot get published in those scientific periodicals which the warmist cabal controls by way of corrupted peer review and editorial stonewalling, nobody is supposed to consider it as valid.
The science is settled, and the fact that anti-AGW papers don't get published should be no more surprising than the fact that Creation Science papers don't get published - for the same reason.

And the "climatogist" fraudsters cannot rebut them. In the marketplace of ideas, the AGW hypothesis is indefensible.
If the AGW hypothesis is so indefensible, why is it that nearly everyone competent to judge it accepts it?

That's like saying evolution is nonsense, and has failed in the marketplace of ideas, because most people in Sa'udi Arabia don't believe in evolution.

Of course, I can't blame the general public for rejecting global warming out of hand - because I don't want to live in a world where the electricity goes off when the wind isn't blowing either.

My answer is simple. Apparently, the AGW science is good. The fear-mongering around nuclear power, on the other hand, is totally bogus - the political correctness conspiracy has, somehow, failed to get competent scientists to endorse it, which is one of the reasons why I don't think they've managed to bully the scientific community into lying about AGW either -

So, build enough nuclear power plants to produce enough electricity... to meet peak-load electrical power demands, to convert home heating from fossil fuels to electrical heating... to produce synthetic fuels, without competing with food production, that allow existing motor vehicles to be used in a carbon-neutral fashion. Do this sustainably through reprocessing and the Thorium breeder.

And enjoy a stronger and richer energy-independent America, with the funding sources for terrorism cut off, and watch as the Greens that wanted a weaker America, unable to maintain a strong military on wind, solar, and geothermal power, and a poorer America where people go back to using slide rules because at least they don't use electricity (perhaps they gossip with local friends or walk to the library instead of using the Internet)... writhe in agony as the hated atom powers the nation.

I dislike ecologist kooks too, but I keep honest scientists out of it.

 

anything