Where did I read that RealClimate.org was a propaganda arm of the AGW movement?
Well I'm not too sure what it is you actually read. But one thing that is certain is that these data sources must be completely disregarded as they have been gathered by scientists.
And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.
I agree. Whenever I hear "even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still..." I wonder, given the evidence unequivocally demonstrates AGW, why you want idly to while away your times considering non-real states, when the real state demands our attention somewhat more urgently. AGW is, to the best of our knowldege, not "wrong," and what's more, it's time we took the money away from the scientists who have been telling us this for years and gave it to the engineers to get us out of this mess.
The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.
[S]omehow you think your assertion of those facts cuts against what I said.
Accusing bloggers of "bad science" might be taken to imply that they are not serious scientists doing rigorous science. Does to me.
The problem is that when someone from their 'tribe' is caught doing bad science they don't play the honest broker.
No the problem is your tribalism, which being non-American is somewhat difficult for me to understand I must confess. Clearly fairly mainstream science (an I haven't seen claims on realscience that match those in TFA for instance) is challenging to you. So much that you would forbid it being quoted.
They man the fences, truth be damned--no matter now glaringly in the wrong they are.
Might I suggest to you that when you find something someone quotes from them to be demonstrably wrong, you demonstrate that it is in fact wrong. This is much more pursuasive to those of us who aren't divided into your tribes than an argument of the form. [source-of-information] says my tribe is wrong, therefore [source-of-information] is not credible, especially when the source of information has high credibility, as realclimate actually does.
So I stand by my claim. realclimate is too partisan and too dogmatic to be used as a reliable source of information.
Which evidences your partisan position far more than the reliability of realclimate as a source of credible information.
I have a hard time accepting data from 80 years ago from lip blown hand shaped thermometers as equivalent to today's, and with one qualified measuring station per state to today.
Sounds like healthy scepticism, mixed perhaps with a little modern arrogance (our forebears were not as unskilled at instrumentation as you might believe).
Do you think, however, you are the first to question the reliability of the instrumental record? Did you not follow this debate 20 years ago? Have you any idea at what steps were taken to account for any inadequacies in the data?
There is no basis whatsoever for claiming a temperature rise of 1 degree over a time span of a century.
Having a hard time accepting some data is one thing. Making a bare faced statement which flies in the face of scientific orthodoxy, based on this is another. What consideration have you give to temperature records derrived from ice-core samples and dendochronology?
cooked books.
Accusations of fraud require very strong evidence. You have none. Nor can fraud be established merely by virtue of the putative difficulties in the data you raise, (even putting to one side the way science has actually accounted for these difficulties). Case dimissed.
Nope not the same people at all. GISS were downstream recipients of the data.
Now you can say that that was just a simple error.
Data for 90 out of 908 stations was corrupted. After the problem was noticed the error was repaired.
But what an error it was! And it worked extraordinarily in their favor.
"Extraodinarily?" It was up for what? Less than 24 hrs. Gimme a break! This is hardly the most serious problem that has been found in the data, but like other problems, it gets repaired.
Ain't science great? If you can prove something is wrong, you win the argument, and the other side has to go back to the drawing board. What you point to is the fundamental difference between climate scepticism and climate denalism. Scepticism engages with the actual science, it points out the flaw and by doing so constructively moves science towards the direction of greater accuracy. Denialism is based on non-scientific FUD arguments in the form of "The same people who did this" etc. It is not constructive it is simply time wasting, and, when time if of the essence, it ought not be tolerated.
Many other areas of science falsifying data at this level would be ridiculed mercilessly.
Falsifying? Don't be absurd! There was a reporting error in one month between reporting stations and the NOAA, which was promptly corrected. If you can think of any other area of science where an error of this nature has ever attracted as much overinflated ridicule as this let me know.
The political agenda of so many in the AGW debate is so powerful that, yes, I really do believe them capable of lying to support their positions...
I agree, you do believe that and I would add that no one could reasonably come to that conclusion based on this event. The issue here is not why you want to convince yourself that climate scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy to deceive the public, it's what steps you have to take to get well.
Don't link to realclimate.org; its heavily partisan and apologetic for even bad science and outlandish claims.
Oh please, what complete FUD! The guys who run real climate are actual climate scientists working for credible institutions whose science and maths are about as rigorous as you will find on any blog. Yes they have disagreements with others working in the field and they're not afraid to pull punches. But "bad science"? "Outlandish"?!!
C'mon, what you get on realclimate.org is the mainstream science. Cut out the cheap propaganda dude.
When I used the word "campaigning" I was quoting from Jenny Hockings "Lional Murphy: a political biography".
Cheers, thanks for the reference (sorry didn't see earlier that you had responded). Reading the statement he made as AG, which she quotes, there's a sentence which seems particularly topical. My emphasis.
If certain citizens choose to found their own church, then provided they observe the law, they are entitled they are entitled to equal treatment with other churches...
How come the world temprature has dropped half a degree since 2000?
It hasn't.
It is highly questionable whether this "pause" is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 C per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 C per decade - just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.*
According to the GISS data (which takes the polar temperatures into consideration) the decadal trend over 1998-2009 is +0.19C! In light of the fact that the largest increases in temperatures have been observed at the poles, can you understand how a methodology which ignores polar temperatures might not give an accurate global picture of warming?
More importantly do you understand why your question, were it even true, is largely meaningless? If you don't yet understand that comparing the temperatures over a very few of the hottest decades on record (the 1990s and 2000s) has no significant bearing over a record stretching back a century and a half, I suggest you compare the last two decades to the 1890s and 1900s.
And how are world leaders likely to respond if the temperature drops during the 2010s?
Sadly the science tells us that is extrememly unlikely happen. But even if it did, world leaders should respond by accepting the advice of those who understand the statistical significance of any observed falls in trends as against the entire instrumental record. Perhaps you should work at gaining some such understanding yourself?
For fossil carbon, all of the C-14 will have decayed, so if the fraction of C-14 has gone down over time then that's a good indicator that the increase is from a fossil fource.
Forget about C14 decay for a moment and consider C12 and C13. It's well established that vegetation preferrentially absorbs the lighter isotope and that the carbon in plants therefore has a lower C13/C12 ratio than the air in which they are grown, and consequently so do fossil fuels. Thus if the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 were due to ultilmately biogenic sources (ie. fossil fuel consumption and land clearing), as opposed to coming say from volcanos, we would expect the C13/C12 ratio to drop over time. Dendochronological research (ie examining the gasses trapped in tree-rings) shows that such a shift in C13/C12 ratio began to be noticiable towards the end of C19th, accelerating in line with our increased use of fossil fuels (some of this use being to clear land at historically unprecedented rates).
We convict for murder with less compelling evidence than this.
How do they know if the CO2 is from fossil fuels or from natural sources, is there actually a test for this?
We are able to distinguish CO2 from biogenic sources (ie fossil fuels and burn off of vegetation) by its distinctive C12/C13 isotope ratio. So yes, there is is test for this. It's the smoking gun.
Implicit in what I wrote were two propositions: A. Some laws, even if they displease men personally, are justly enacted on behalf of the majority of citizens by the elected representatives. In the present case the use of tax exemptions to encourage the survival of social institutions generally perceived as being of social value. B. Some laws, even if they reflect the views of the majority involve a discrimination against particular individuals which is so unjust that it ought never to be countenanced. In the present case, the preferential treatment of church operated businesses as against all others in the same market.
I'll admit that in does look like simple majoritarianism after you quoted A while ignoring B. It is far from that though. Moreover, I'll admit that many of the examples you apparently find unacceptable don't strike me as particularly troubling. At least in terms of these twin propositions.
You could use the same argument to defend anything from instituting "blue laws" which prevent businesses from operating on certain days...
Sure what's the problem with that? Providing always that the kinds of businesses which are restrained from operating are restrained on the basis of the nature of the business and the market they operate in rather than upon a criterion unjustly oppressive to particular individuals qua individuals.
... to criminalizing things which a religion opposes (eg. abortion, stem cell research)...
That a religion happens to oppose these things seems impertinent. If a society feels these are things to criminalise, all other things being equal, is there any basic injustice in criminalising them? That being said, personally I would think it a terrible mistake to do so, and the society that makes that choice deserves the eventual outcome. A society might similarly choose to criminalise private heroin consumption, which some might argue has a positive outcome.
to instituting a separate police force and legal system to enforce religious law (eg. Sharia).
If by this you mean a separate religious law which applies only to a subsection of the community then, no. That would clearly be discriminatory.
We should strive for a higher standard than just organize [sic] mob-rule.
Oh absolutely. The question is how do you propose to do so?
Generally in our theory of democracy that balance is struck by allowing, on the one hand, the majority to elect legislators who make law of general application (which is why ad hominem legislation is such an unspeakable evil).
On the other hand we have courts to apply these laws in individual cases to ensure they are fairly applied and not as the "mob" (ie. Telegraph readers), might chose to apply them to unpopular individuals. And this is why calls for making Judges "more responsive to community values" (not to mention the idiocy of electing judges), is such nonesense. It is the duty of a judge to stand up to "community values."
Of course this is the theory. In NSW we do it a little differently, while the majority elect the legislators, they in turn pass laws at the behest of News Ltd. When it comes to the rights fo the individual we again prefer the rule of Holt Street to the rule of law (as the residential arrangements of a certain excon, even after he served his sentence, demonstrates), but I digress.
In positing that there are, even in laws of apparently general application, injustices to individuals which ought not be tolerated, even if they reflect the majority opinion, I'm actually going somewhat further than this traditional balance. Legally this kind of thinking is not enforceable without the existence of something like a constitutional bill of rights, which Australians have historically rejected. Unfortunately.
But yeah, ultimately democracy sucks! After all, I'm always right, and the majority almost always disagree with me. It's just that I'm not sure that there's an alternative system that would reflect my wisdom any better;).
My point was only about reading between the lines of my own words and adding meaning that does not exist
OK, I took that the wrong way and then got fairly annoyed. So I should commence by apologising for being a prick. Sorry.
That being said I certainly was not reading between the lines of your words and adding meaning. I simply asked the question, when you write "Lionel Murphy's statement" do you mean the out-of-context paraphrase given by OP, or what Murphy actually wrote. If the latter, how do you move from what he actually wrote to the statement that he may have written it to "prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future." Far from reading between your lines I was asking you what you were talking about, and in fact, alerting you to the possibilty that "Murphy's statement" (as paraphrase) might differ substantially from what Murphy stated.
... such as your response "then I suggest moving to China, where they hold ideas of relgious freedom more in concordance with your own" which cropped up in this one. You know NOTHING about my "ideas of relgious freedom"
Indeed I don't, which is why it is expressed as a conditional IF you find the doctrine of religious freedom, as expressed by Murphy J, "perverse". I don't presume you do find it perverse, if anything I would hope the opposite, namely that you share my disapproval at the Chinese adminstration's making Falun Gong a criminal organisation.
I don't see Scientology as any sort of religeon anyway, because just like the Jedi stuff we have seen it grow out of fiction over a fairly short period of time.
That is one of the objections Murphy J covers in that case. He points out that all religions had to start somewhere and he looks at examples such as Mormonism and Christian Science. If you truly believe your own sect to be the one true one it is probably easier to pronounce new religions to be based on fiction. Murphy, on the other hand, was a survivor of the Catholic educations system and was not afraid to point to the clay feet of his own background
The short history and the behaviour of this group also strongly influence me into thinking that it is just a scam.
He has good points about religious tax exemption but that is not what I'm discussing - I'm discussing this group hiding behind a respectable front to create legal difficulties such as this. [From your next point]
Again I must apologise. I really overreached (also misrepresented Murphy J) when I implied these were the defining characteristics of a religion. The point he was making, and I agree, is that far fetched nature of its doctrine, its use of psychological indoctrination techniques and unscrupulous money making methods, don't disqualify it as a religion, the are commonly observed in a variety of religions. Not invariably, as I may have implied.
I think it is a religion, just because so many people, and probably even those on the top of the church actually sincerely believe in it. (Or do you think eg. T Cruise is in it for the money alone?). You most certainly correct in describing it as a "scam." It's just that 'regligion' and 'scam' are not mutually exclusive.
Do not attempt to read between the lines and make up extra meaning that is not there.
Don't you presume to tell me how to read a case, especially one you've apparently never set eyes on. You are clearly out of your depth if you think the jurisprudence of Lionel Murphy can be approached without "reading between the lines."
In the event I'm not actually asking you to read between the lines, I'm simply asking you to read them. Since you are too lazy to look the case up and read it, I'll quote you a few lines.
First of all in fairness to OP, the idea he was paraphrasing in Murphy's own words:
Religious freedom is a fundamental theme of our society. That freedom has been asserted by men and women throughout history by resisting the attempts of government, through its legislative, executive or judicial branches, to define or impose beliefs or practices of religion. Whenever the legislature prescribes what religion is, or permits or requires the executive or the judiciary to determine what religion is, this poses a threat to religious freedom. Religious discrimination by officials or by courts is unacceptable in a free society. The truth or falsity of religions is not the business of officials or the courts. If each purported religion had to show that its doctrines were true, then all might fail.... In the eyes of the law, religions are equal. (at para 7)
Now if you really find anything in that statement "perverted" (and remember Murphy J has yet to hold the Scientology is a religion, this is merely setting up the legal context), then I suggest moving to China, where they hold ideas of relgious freedom more in concordance with your own. But let's go on to examine some of the reasons Murphy J went on to find the Scientology was indeed a religion (actually if you read his judgment he merely demolishes the objections of Vic Sup Crt).
In the older religions propagation occurred in various ways... Indoctrination or "brainwashing' [sic] is typical of many religions. Often this takes place during an intense period of initiation. Adherence and conversion are also achieved in most religions by regular meetings, ceremonies and rituals.... Scientology appears to conform to this general pattern of propagation. (at 37)
And then just to show what a great fan of religion he is, a little later,
Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of god, love and peace. (at 43)
Are you seeing a pattern emerging yet? No? Well here is the paragraph I already quoted where he deals with the SupCrt's contention that Scientology isn't a religion because of it's commercial nature.
Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems.... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying. (at 45)
Now I know you have a diminished capacity to "read between the lines," so that may have flashed past you without you noticing it. So here it is again. [R]eligious tax exemption has led to...
Lionel Murphy's statement fails the standard of the bloody obvious even if he made it to prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future.
By Lionel Murphy's statement, do you mean what Lionel Murphy actually wrote, or the words OP put into his mouth? Have you even read Murphy's judgment in that case? How can you reconcile your reading of his judgment with your contention that he wanted to "prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future"?!
The problem with tax exemption of religion is that ultimately the government decides whether or not it's a religion. It's entirely within their power to revoke that status at their whims.
Well maybe where you live. Here in Australia we have this funny custom we call "Law." The law gives ordinary citizens, along with extra-ordinary "religious" bodies, the right to appeal decisions made by administrative officers which affect them. In fact this association generally known as the Church of Scientology appealed the decision of the Federal Commisioner of Taxation in the leading case defining the legal basis for recognition as a religion for the purposes of taxation. Hint: it's not based on the government's "whim." (Unless you regard the legislature's enactment of legislation - which would seem the easiest way to overturn that decision -as mere "whim").
People should be free to associate with no advantage given to any association through law.
The problem with banning corporations is the very reason they were created by the legislature in the first place, namely "natural" (ie. joint-stock) companies, were simply unable to raise sufficient capital to undertake the large projects which we would regard as essential to modern life. Now unless you are proposing something like a socialist system, it will always be necessary to give legal advantage at least to incorporated companies. Having done so, it would not seem entirely fair to restrict legal advantages to this form of association alone.
As concerns the tax-exempt status of religions, in a (representative) democracy such as Australia, I find no great objection in the to the idea that the people can decide to grant (or not to grant) tax exemption if they believe religious bodies are a valuable social institution which might not survive but for exemption. Or to Opera companies, scientists of note etc etc. Personally my decision would be not to grant it to religions, but that's just me.
similarly
However, the situation we have in Australia, where business ventures owned by religious bodies are in turn tax exempt, constitutes, in my view, and intolerable injustice towards competitors. Take the above mentioned example of Sanitarium(tm) owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. How can it be considered fair to other companies in the food market, to compete with a company that pays not tax?
Lionel Murphy (A High Court Judge) was responsible for campaigning to get Scientology recognised as a religion in Australia.
Campaigning?! I'm calling bullshit on that one mate. (Though I'm open to change my mind if you can provide some evidence to back that claim up.) True he sat on the court that decided the "Scientology Case" but his wasn't even the leading judgment. I think a little quote from his Honour will serve to enlighten as to his attitude towards religion and towards its tax exempt status. Responding to the argument that the "commercial nature" of Scientology showed it wasn't "religious" in nature, he wrote:
Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems.... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying.
If anything Murphy J was "campaigning" to get rid of the tax exempt status for religions.
No it isn't. That's why they're called unit tests and not acceptance tests, which is a separate step in testing.
I'll concede, strictly speaking it's possible to draw a distinction between unit testing and various types acceptance testing. But the in the sense it was being used (and criticised) at the top of this thread, (which is also the sense it is used in XP), such a distinction is not apposite. Unless by "acceptance testing" you mean User Acceptance Testing, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
In test-driven development, you code to silence the test's error messages (or to elicit their praise). Passing the full suite of unit tests is passing the acceptance test.
Here's a hint- it has nothing to do with the code's correctness...
I'm glad you agree.
...or acceptability.
Given that the code is written in order to silence error message, how else can you measure the code's acceptability?
While passing unit tests is a good sign correlating with correctness.
I wasn't talking about "correctness," but "acceptability." Remember the OP was about the distinction between "good" and "good enough." A unit test is a definition of what contitutes acceptable behaviour by code. It says nothing about correctness, elegance, readibility or whatever. It really is about what is "good enough" as opposed to what is "good." And note, I'm not personally endorsing the "good enought," as opposed to the "good" approach here.
[Passing unit tests] does not prove the code is correct or even good enough to be acceptable.
If code passes unit testing it is acceptable by defintion! The issue isn't whether the code is "bug-free," it's whether the unit tests are.... But I'm repeating myself.
The unit tests may be buggy, or they may be missing important cases.
You know you really ought to read the posts you respond to.
If you believe that passing the unit tests means the code is acceptable and bug-free, you are fool and I don't want you touching any code I am responsible for.
If code passes unit testing it is acceptable by defintion! The issue isn't whether the code is "bug-free," it's whether the unit tests are.
If you have access to any other box, how about a plain-text file there? Even a little security through obscurity (ie hidden file burried in the filesystem somewhere) would be better than letting Firefox automagically fill it in.
I guess you could always encrypt the file so you only have a single one you absolutely must remember (shades of Flourish and Blott's losing all those copies of the Invisible Book of Invisibility though).
You totally missed the point of Capsaicin's post, didn't you?
Yes I did imply that speculation can (and indeed must) be part of the scientific endeavour. But the other point I was trying to make relates the the contemporary tendency of religionists to describe Darwinian theory (or indeed atheism) as "simply another religion," unsubstantiated by evidence. And note, I'm not saying that OP's post, in particular, was motivated by religious belief (I don't know that), but merely that I see this use of "religious" increasingly deployed by 'believers.'
Putting aside the question of whether the accusation that evolutionary theory really is unsubstantiated, those who dismiss it as "religious" are implying that belief held despite lack of supporting evidence (or perhaps in spite of evidence to the contrary) is the defining characteristic of 'religion.' It isn't. What I find interesting is that a believer would want (if only inadvertently) to describe religion as such.
This misuse of 'religious' is actually unfair both to speculative science and to religion (which, I am told, is evidenced by some people's "spiritual experiences").
its still a purely speculative assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There. Fixed that for you.
It is possible to speculate, and even to hold firm beliefs in the absence of evidence, which are not religious (ie. involving some supernatural intelligence) in nature. In fact they might even be scientific, albeit unsubstantiated, in nature. The attempt to equate any kind of unsubstantiated speculation with "religion," is in extremely bad faith. That 'believers' seem to be doing this, involving as it does the tacit admission that religion is an inferior form of knowledge, is actually quite revealing.
Of course with the accumulation of pieces of evidence such as this, we can begin to move from the merely speculative towards the probable.
I hope you realize that your interpretation is pretty superficial.
Sure, I hope you realise that a fair degree of humour was incorporated into it. My more serious biblical intepretation tends to be somewhat less jocular.
First of all, as you even hinted it wasn't Adam and Eve's nudity that was the problem but their very awareness of it-- which actually disproves your argument.
Hinted? I thought I was pretty explicit actually. My argument was that subsequent to that awareness the very idea of human nakedness was threatening to God. I'm not entirely serious, of course. What is threatening to YHVH, as Genesis makes clear, is the idea of human self-awareness, knowledge and indeed enterprise (cf. human tower construction).
Second, most men would find it mildly awkward to see their dads naked, a little more embarrassed to see him drunk, but totally sloshed and nude?...
Now it's your turn to be superficial. Canaan's awkardness or embarassment is not relevant. Canaan innocently walked in on the naked old drunkard. In this story the idea of drinking yourself into a stupor is considered morally neutral (or at least not as negative), while the idea of accidentally looking upon ones naked father is deserving of a curse and all that subsequently entails in the biblical story. We all know what happens to the nation of Canaan, right?. We don't think the naming is merely coincidental, right? (BTW, Noah, was Canaan's grandad, of course. My bad.)
Clearly the author(s) of this story had issues with nudity. That such issues persist and are exacerbated (the human body as the locus of "corruption") in ideology derriving from this source is not surprising. Indeed their particular view of nudity (the guilt of the unintentional perceiver) can seem somewhat odd to people schooled in a more liberal culture..
... I don't think that situation is "OK".
Ah! Now you, in contradistinction to OP, are looking at it from a traditional Judeo-Christian perspective. At least you are if you regard Canaan as more guilty than Noah.;)
Basically, you just cherry-picked, because the book "Song of Solomon" pretty much goes on and on about the loveliness of the human form.
LOL. You cite the Song of Solomon (which piece of erotica is generally regarded as sitting uncomfortably within rest of the biblical corpus) and accuse someone of cherry-picking from the Bible in the very same sentence?! Props man!
P.S. I think it's rather stupid to criminalize God's creation (the body).
You need to read your Bible dude! Nakedness is a big deal to God. It was by their self-awareness of their nudity that God realised that A&E had gained knowledge, threatening to "become like one of us." Gen 3:22 Quick get them outta here!
Consider the story of Canaan seeing his dad Noah nude in his tent after Pa hit the plonk. (Gen 9:18-26) Just looking at "God's creation" justified the Joshua's genocide of the nation that had issued from him.
So I don't know where you are coming from in thinking that nudity ought not to be criminalised (and I agree with you), but it ain't the Judeo-Christian headspace.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I read that RealClimate.org was a propaganda arm of the AGW movement?
Well I'm not too sure what it is you actually read. But one thing that is certain is that these data sources must be completely disregarded as they have been gathered by scientists.
And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.
I agree. Whenever I hear "even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still ..." I wonder, given the evidence unequivocally demonstrates AGW, why you want idly to while away your times considering non-real states, when the real state demands our attention somewhat more urgently. AGW is, to the best of our knowldege, not "wrong," and what's more, it's time we took the money away from the scientists who have been telling us this for years and gave it to the engineers to get us out of this mess.
The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.
Again I agree. And it clearly does.
Think about what I said.
"Bad science", "outlandish claims"
[S]omehow you think your assertion of those facts cuts against what I said.
Accusing bloggers of "bad science" might be taken to imply that they are not serious scientists doing rigorous science. Does to me.
The problem is that when someone from their 'tribe' is caught doing bad science they don't play the honest broker.
No the problem is your tribalism, which being non-American is somewhat difficult for me to understand I must confess. Clearly fairly mainstream science (an I haven't seen claims on realscience that match those in TFA for instance) is challenging to you. So much that you would forbid it being quoted.
They man the fences, truth be damned--no matter now glaringly in the wrong they are.
Might I suggest to you that when you find something someone quotes from them to be demonstrably wrong, you demonstrate that it is in fact wrong. This is much more pursuasive to those of us who aren't divided into your tribes than an argument of the form. [source-of-information] says my tribe is wrong, therefore [source-of-information] is not credible, especially when the source of information has high credibility, as realclimate actually does.
So I stand by my claim. realclimate is too partisan and too dogmatic to be used as a reliable source of information.
Which evidences your partisan position far more than the reliability of realclimate as a source of credible information.
I have a hard time accepting data from 80 years ago from lip blown hand shaped thermometers as equivalent to today's, and with one qualified measuring station per state to today.
Sounds like healthy scepticism, mixed perhaps with a little modern arrogance (our forebears were not as unskilled at instrumentation as you might believe).
Do you think, however, you are the first to question the reliability of the instrumental record? Did you not follow this debate 20 years ago? Have you any idea at what steps were taken to account for any inadequacies in the data?
There is no basis whatsoever for claiming a temperature rise of 1 degree over a time span of a century.
Having a hard time accepting some data is one thing. Making a bare faced statement which flies in the face of scientific orthodoxy, based on this is another. What consideration have you give to temperature records derrived from ice-core samples and dendochronology?
cooked books.
Accusations of fraud require very strong evidence. You have none. Nor can fraud be established merely by virtue of the putative difficulties in the data you raise, (even putting to one side the way science has actually accounted for these difficulties). Case dimissed.
You're quoting GISS data??
Apparently.
The same people who did this??
Nope not the same people at all. GISS were downstream recipients of the data.
Now you can say that that was just a simple error.
Data for 90 out of 908 stations was corrupted. After the problem was noticed the error was repaired.
But what an error it was! And it worked extraordinarily in their favor.
"Extraodinarily?" It was up for what? Less than 24 hrs. Gimme a break! This is hardly the most serious problem that has been found in the data, but like other problems, it gets repaired.
Ain't science great? If you can prove something is wrong, you win the argument, and the other side has to go back to the drawing board. What you point to is the fundamental difference between climate scepticism and climate denalism. Scepticism engages with the actual science, it points out the flaw and by doing so constructively moves science towards the direction of greater accuracy. Denialism is based on non-scientific FUD arguments in the form of "The same people who did this" etc. It is not constructive it is simply time wasting, and, when time if of the essence, it ought not be tolerated.
Many other areas of science falsifying data at this level would be ridiculed mercilessly.
Falsifying? Don't be absurd! There was a reporting error in one month between reporting stations and the NOAA, which was promptly corrected. If you can think of any other area of science where an error of this nature has ever attracted as much overinflated ridicule as this let me know.
The political agenda of so many in the AGW debate is so powerful that, yes, I really do believe them capable of lying to support their positions...
I agree, you do believe that and I would add that no one could reasonably come to that conclusion based on this event. The issue here is not why you want to convince yourself that climate scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy to deceive the public, it's what steps you have to take to get well.
Don't link to realclimate.org; its heavily partisan and apologetic for even bad science and outlandish claims.
Oh please, what complete FUD! The guys who run real climate are actual climate scientists working for credible institutions whose science and maths are about as rigorous as you will find on any blog. Yes they have disagreements with others working in the field and they're not afraid to pull punches. But "bad science"? "Outlandish"?!!
C'mon, what you get on realclimate.org is the mainstream science. Cut out the cheap propaganda dude.
When I used the word "campaigning" I was quoting from Jenny Hockings "Lional Murphy: a political biography".
Cheers, thanks for the reference (sorry didn't see earlier that you had responded). Reading the statement he made as AG, which she quotes, there's a sentence which seems particularly topical. My emphasis.
If certain citizens choose to found their own church, then provided they observe the law, they are entitled they are entitled to equal treatment with other churches ...
How come the world temprature has dropped half a degree since 2000?
It hasn't.
It is highly questionable whether this "pause" is even real. It does show up to some extent (no cooling, but reduced 10-year warming trend) in the Hadley Center data, but it does not show in the GISS data, see Figure 1. There, the past ten 10-year trends (i.e. 1990-1999, 1991-2000 and so on) have all been between 0.17 and 0.34 C per decade, close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend, with the most recent one (1999-2008) equal to 0.19 C per decade - just as predicted by IPCC as response to anthropogenic forcing.*
According to the GISS data (which takes the polar temperatures into consideration) the decadal trend over 1998-2009 is +0.19C! In light of the fact that the largest increases in temperatures have been observed at the poles, can you understand how a methodology which ignores polar temperatures might not give an accurate global picture of warming?
More importantly do you understand why your question, were it even true, is largely meaningless? If you don't yet understand that comparing the temperatures over a very few of the hottest decades on record (the 1990s and 2000s) has no significant bearing over a record stretching back a century and a half, I suggest you compare the last two decades to the 1890s and 1900s.
And how are world leaders likely to respond if the temperature drops during the 2010s?
Sadly the science tells us that is extrememly unlikely happen. But even if it did, world leaders should respond by accepting the advice of those who understand the statistical significance of any observed falls in trends as against the entire instrumental record. Perhaps you should work at gaining some such understanding yourself?
Isotopic composition is a good test.
True.
For fossil carbon, all of the C-14 will have decayed, so if the fraction of C-14 has gone down over time then that's a good indicator that the increase is from a fossil fource.
Forget about C14 decay for a moment and consider C12 and C13. It's well established that vegetation preferrentially absorbs the lighter isotope and that the carbon in plants therefore has a lower C13/C12 ratio than the air in which they are grown, and consequently so do fossil fuels. Thus if the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 were due to ultilmately biogenic sources (ie. fossil fuel consumption and land clearing), as opposed to coming say from volcanos, we would expect the C13/C12 ratio to drop over time. Dendochronological research (ie examining the gasses trapped in tree-rings) shows that such a shift in C13/C12 ratio began to be noticiable towards the end of C19th, accelerating in line with our increased use of fossil fuels (some of this use being to clear land at historically unprecedented rates).
We convict for murder with less compelling evidence than this.
How do they know if the CO2 is from fossil fuels or from natural sources, is there actually a test for this?
We are able to distinguish CO2 from biogenic sources (ie fossil fuels and burn off of vegetation) by its distinctive C12/C13 isotope ratio. So yes, there is is test for this. It's the smoking gun.
That's simply a tyranny of the majority.
Implicit in what I wrote were two propositions:
A. Some laws, even if they displease men personally, are justly enacted on behalf of the majority of citizens by the elected representatives. In the present case the use of tax exemptions to encourage the survival of social institutions generally perceived as being of social value.
B. Some laws, even if they reflect the views of the majority involve a discrimination against particular individuals which is so unjust that it ought never to be countenanced. In the present case, the preferential treatment of church operated businesses as against all others in the same market.
I'll admit that in does look like simple majoritarianism after you quoted A while ignoring B. It is far from that though. Moreover, I'll admit that many of the examples you apparently find unacceptable don't strike me as particularly troubling. At least in terms of these twin propositions.
You could use the same argument to defend anything from instituting "blue laws" which prevent businesses from operating on certain days ...
Sure what's the problem with that? Providing always that the kinds of businesses which are restrained from operating are restrained on the basis of the nature of the business and the market they operate in rather than upon a criterion unjustly oppressive to particular individuals qua individuals.
That a religion happens to oppose these things seems impertinent. If a society feels these are things to criminalise, all other things being equal, is there any basic injustice in criminalising them? That being said, personally I would think it a terrible mistake to do so, and the society that makes that choice deserves the eventual outcome. A society might similarly choose to criminalise private heroin consumption, which some might argue has a positive outcome.
to instituting a separate police force and legal system to enforce religious law (eg. Sharia).
If by this you mean a separate religious law which applies only to a subsection of the community then, no. That would clearly be discriminatory.
We should strive for a higher standard than just organize [sic] mob-rule.
Oh absolutely. The question is how do you propose to do so?
Generally in our theory of democracy that balance is struck by allowing, on the one hand, the majority to elect legislators who make law of general application (which is why ad hominem legislation is such an unspeakable evil).
On the other hand we have courts to apply these laws in individual cases to ensure they are fairly applied and not as the "mob" (ie. Telegraph readers), might chose to apply them to unpopular individuals. And this is why calls for making Judges "more responsive to community values" (not to mention the idiocy of electing judges), is such nonesense. It is the duty of a judge to stand up to "community values."
Of course this is the theory. In NSW we do it a little differently, while the majority elect the legislators, they in turn pass laws at the behest of News Ltd. When it comes to the rights fo the individual we again prefer the rule of Holt Street to the rule of law (as the residential arrangements of a certain excon, even after he served his sentence, demonstrates), but I digress.
In positing that there are, even in laws of apparently general application, injustices to individuals which ought not be tolerated, even if they reflect the majority opinion, I'm actually going somewhat further than this traditional balance. Legally this kind of thinking is not enforceable without the existence of something like a constitutional bill of rights, which Australians have historically rejected. Unfortunately.
But yeah, ultimately democracy sucks! After all, I'm always right, and the majority almost always disagree with me. It's just that I'm not sure that there's an alternative system that would reflect my wisdom any better ;).
My point was only about reading between the lines of my own words and adding meaning that does not exist
OK, I took that the wrong way and then got fairly annoyed. So I should commence by apologising for being a prick. Sorry.
That being said I certainly was not reading between the lines of your words and adding meaning. I simply asked the question, when you write "Lionel Murphy's statement" do you mean the out-of-context paraphrase given by OP, or what Murphy actually wrote. If the latter, how do you move from what he actually wrote to the statement that he may have written it to "prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future." Far from reading between your lines I was asking you what you were talking about, and in fact, alerting you to the possibilty that "Murphy's statement" (as paraphrase) might differ substantially from what Murphy stated.
Indeed I don't, which is why it is expressed as a conditional IF you find the doctrine of religious freedom, as expressed by Murphy J, "perverse". I don't presume you do find it perverse, if anything I would hope the opposite, namely that you share my disapproval at the Chinese adminstration's making Falun Gong a criminal organisation.
I don't see Scientology as any sort of religeon anyway, because just like the Jedi stuff we have seen it grow out of fiction over a fairly short period of time.
That is one of the objections Murphy J covers in that case. He points out that all religions had to start somewhere and he looks at examples such as Mormonism and Christian Science. If you truly believe your own sect to be the one true one it is probably easier to pronounce new religions to be based on fiction. Murphy, on the other hand, was a survivor of the Catholic educations system and was not afraid to point to the clay feet of his own background
The short history and the behaviour of this group also strongly influence me into thinking that it is just a scam. He has good points about religious tax exemption but that is not what I'm discussing - I'm discussing this group hiding behind a respectable front to create legal difficulties such as this. [From your next point]
Again I must apologise. I really overreached (also misrepresented Murphy J) when I implied these were the defining characteristics of a religion. The point he was making, and I agree, is that far fetched nature of its doctrine, its use of psychological indoctrination techniques and unscrupulous money making methods, don't disqualify it as a religion, the are commonly observed in a variety of religions. Not invariably, as I may have implied.
I think it is a religion, just because so many people, and probably even those on the top of the church actually sincerely believe in it. (Or do you think eg. T Cruise is in it for the money alone?). You most certainly correct in describing it as a "scam." It's just that 'regligion' and 'scam' are not mutually exclusive.
Do not attempt to read between the lines and make up extra meaning that is not there.
Don't you presume to tell me how to read a case, especially one you've apparently never set eyes on. You are clearly out of your depth if you think the jurisprudence of Lionel Murphy can be approached without "reading between the lines."
In the event I'm not actually asking you to read between the lines, I'm simply asking you to read them. Since you are too lazy to look the case up and read it, I'll quote you a few lines.
First of all in fairness to OP, the idea he was paraphrasing in Murphy's own words:
Religious freedom is a fundamental theme of our society. That freedom has been asserted by men and women throughout history by resisting the attempts of government, through its legislative, executive or judicial branches, to define or impose beliefs or practices of religion. Whenever the legislature prescribes what religion is, or permits or requires the executive or the judiciary to determine what religion is, this poses a threat to religious freedom. Religious discrimination by officials or by courts is unacceptable in a free society. The truth or falsity of religions is not the business of officials or the courts. If each purported religion had to show that its doctrines were true, then all might fail. ... In the eyes of the law, religions are equal. (at para 7)
Now if you really find anything in that statement "perverted" (and remember Murphy J has yet to hold the Scientology is a religion, this is merely setting up the legal context), then I suggest moving to China, where they hold ideas of relgious freedom more in concordance with your own. But let's go on to examine some of the reasons Murphy J went on to find the Scientology was indeed a religion (actually if you read his judgment he merely demolishes the objections of Vic Sup Crt).
In the older religions propagation occurred in various ways ... Indoctrination or "brainwashing' [sic] is typical of many religions. Often this takes place during an intense period of initiation. Adherence and conversion are also achieved in most religions by regular meetings, ceremonies and rituals. ... Scientology appears to conform to this general pattern of propagation. (at 37)
And then just to show what a great fan of religion he is, a little later,
Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of god, love and peace. (at 43)
Are you seeing a pattern emerging yet? No? Well here is the paragraph I already quoted where he deals with the SupCrt's contention that Scientology isn't a religion because of it's commercial nature.
Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems. ... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying. (at 45)
Now I know you have a diminished capacity to "read between the lines," so that may have flashed past you without you noticing it. So here it is again. [R]eligious tax exemption has led to ...
Lionel Murphy's statement fails the standard of the bloody obvious even if he made it to prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future.
By Lionel Murphy's statement, do you mean what Lionel Murphy actually wrote, or the words OP put into his mouth? Have you even read Murphy's judgment in that case? How can you reconcile your reading of his judgment with your contention that he wanted to "prevent his name being on a precendent that may hurt a real religious group in the future"?!
The problem with tax exemption of religion is that ultimately the government decides whether or not it's a religion. It's entirely within their power to revoke that status at their whims.
Well maybe where you live. Here in Australia we have this funny custom we call "Law." The law gives ordinary citizens, along with extra-ordinary "religious" bodies, the right to appeal decisions made by administrative officers which affect them. In fact this association generally known as the Church of Scientology appealed the decision of the Federal Commisioner of Taxation in the leading case defining the legal basis for recognition as a religion for the purposes of taxation. Hint: it's not based on the government's "whim." (Unless you regard the legislature's enactment of legislation - which would seem the easiest way to overturn that decision -as mere "whim").
People should be free to associate with no advantage given to any association through law.
The problem with banning corporations is the very reason they were created by the legislature in the first place, namely "natural" (ie. joint-stock) companies, were simply unable to raise sufficient capital to undertake the large projects which we would regard as essential to modern life. Now unless you are proposing something like a socialist system, it will always be necessary to give legal advantage at least to incorporated companies. Having done so, it would not seem entirely fair to restrict legal advantages to this form of association alone.
As concerns the tax-exempt status of religions, in a (representative) democracy such as Australia, I find no great objection in the to the idea that the people can decide to grant (or not to grant) tax exemption if they believe religious bodies are a valuable social institution which might not survive but for exemption. Or to Opera companies, scientists of note etc etc. Personally my decision would be not to grant it to religions, but that's just me.
similarly
However, the situation we have in Australia, where business ventures owned by religious bodies are in turn tax exempt, constitutes, in my view, and intolerable injustice towards competitors. Take the above mentioned example of Sanitarium(tm) owned by the Seventh Day Adventists. How can it be considered fair to other companies in the food market, to compete with a company that pays not tax?
Lionel Murphy (A High Court Judge) was responsible for campaigning to get Scientology recognised as a religion in Australia.
Campaigning?! I'm calling bullshit on that one mate. (Though I'm open to change my mind if you can provide some evidence to back that claim up.) True he sat on the court that decided the "Scientology Case" but his wasn't even the leading judgment. I think a little quote from his Honour will serve to enlighten as to his attitude towards religion and towards its tax exempt status. Responding to the argument that the "commercial nature" of Scientology showed it wasn't "religious" in nature, he wrote:
Most organized religions have been riddled with commercialism, this being an integral part of the drive by their leaders for social authority and power (in conformity with the "iron law of oligarchy"). The amassing of wealth by organized religions often means that the leaders live richly (sometimes in palaces) even though many of the believers live in poverty. Many religions have been notorious for corrupt trafficking in relics, other sacred objects, and religious offices, as well as for condoning "sin" even in advance, for money. The great organized religions are big business. They engage in large scale real estate investment, money-dealing and other commercial ventures. In country after country, religious tax exemption has led to enormous wealth for religious bodies, presenting severe social problems. ... Commercialism is so characteristic of organized religion that it is absurd to regard it as disqualifying.
If anything Murphy J was "campaigning" to get rid of the tax exempt status for religions.
No it isn't. That's why they're called unit tests and not acceptance tests, which is a separate step in testing.
I'll concede, strictly speaking it's possible to draw a distinction between unit testing and various types acceptance testing. But the in the sense it was being used (and criticised) at the top of this thread, (which is also the sense it is used in XP), such a distinction is not apposite. Unless by "acceptance testing" you mean User Acceptance Testing, which is a whole different kettle of fish.
In test-driven development, you code to silence the test's error messages (or to elicit their praise). Passing the full suite of unit tests is passing the acceptance test.
Here's a hint- it has nothing to do with the code's correctness ...
I'm glad you agree.
Given that the code is written in order to silence error message, how else can you measure the code's acceptability?
While passing unit tests is a good sign correlating with correctness.
I wasn't talking about "correctness," but "acceptability." Remember the OP was about the distinction between "good" and "good enough." A unit test is a definition of what contitutes acceptable behaviour by code. It says nothing about correctness, elegance, readibility or whatever. It really is about what is "good enough" as opposed to what is "good." And note, I'm not personally endorsing the "good enought," as opposed to the "good" approach here.
[Passing unit tests] does not prove the code is correct or even good enough to be acceptable.
If code passes unit testing it is acceptable by defintion! The issue isn't whether the code is "bug-free," it's whether the unit tests are. ... But I'm repeating myself.
The unit tests may be buggy, or they may be missing important cases.
You know you really ought to read the posts you respond to.
If you believe that passing the unit tests means the code is acceptable and bug-free, you are fool and I don't want you touching any code I am responsible for.
If code passes unit testing it is acceptable by defintion! The issue isn't whether the code is "bug-free," it's whether the unit tests are.
I call it collecting damages on behalf of mother earth, who sadly doesn't have the legal capacity to sue the human race for injury.
She doesn't have to rely on the law to get her remedy.
If you have access to any other box, how about a plain-text file there? Even a little security through obscurity (ie hidden file burried in the filesystem somewhere) would be better than letting Firefox automagically fill it in. I guess you could always encrypt the file so you only have a single one you absolutely must remember (shades of Flourish and Blott's losing all those copies of the Invisible Book of Invisibility though).
You totally missed the point of Capsaicin's post, didn't you?
Yes I did imply that speculation can (and indeed must) be part of the scientific endeavour. But the other point I was trying to make relates the the contemporary tendency of religionists to describe Darwinian theory (or indeed atheism) as "simply another religion," unsubstantiated by evidence. And note, I'm not saying that OP's post, in particular, was motivated by religious belief (I don't know that), but merely that I see this use of "religious" increasingly deployed by 'believers.'
Putting aside the question of whether the accusation that evolutionary theory really is unsubstantiated, those who dismiss it as "religious" are implying that belief held despite lack of supporting evidence (or perhaps in spite of evidence to the contrary) is the defining characteristic of 'religion.' It isn't. What I find interesting is that a believer would want (if only inadvertently) to describe religion as such.
This misuse of 'religious' is actually unfair both to speculative science and to religion (which, I am told, is evidenced by some people's "spiritual experiences").
its still a purely speculative assertion to say that life spontaneously arises.
There. Fixed that for you.
It is possible to speculate, and even to hold firm beliefs in the absence of evidence, which are not religious (ie. involving some supernatural intelligence) in nature. In fact they might even be scientific, albeit unsubstantiated, in nature. The attempt to equate any kind of unsubstantiated speculation with "religion," is in extremely bad faith. That 'believers' seem to be doing this, involving as it does the tacit admission that religion is an inferior form of knowledge, is actually quite revealing.
Of course with the accumulation of pieces of evidence such as this, we can begin to move from the merely speculative towards the probable.
I hope you realize that your interpretation is pretty superficial.
Sure, I hope you realise that a fair degree of humour was incorporated into it. My more serious biblical intepretation tends to be somewhat less jocular.
First of all, as you even hinted it wasn't Adam and Eve's nudity that was the problem but their very awareness of it-- which actually disproves your argument.
Hinted? I thought I was pretty explicit actually. My argument was that subsequent to that awareness the very idea of human nakedness was threatening to God. I'm not entirely serious, of course. What is threatening to YHVH, as Genesis makes clear, is the idea of human self-awareness, knowledge and indeed enterprise (cf. human tower construction).
Second, most men would find it mildly awkward to see their dads naked, a little more embarrassed to see him drunk, but totally sloshed and nude? ...
Now it's your turn to be superficial. Canaan's awkardness or embarassment is not relevant. Canaan innocently walked in on the naked old drunkard. In this story the idea of drinking yourself into a stupor is considered morally neutral (or at least not as negative), while the idea of accidentally looking upon ones naked father is deserving of a curse and all that subsequently entails in the biblical story. We all know what happens to the nation of Canaan, right?. We don't think the naming is merely coincidental, right? (BTW, Noah, was Canaan's grandad, of course. My bad.)
Clearly the author(s) of this story had issues with nudity. That such issues persist and are exacerbated (the human body as the locus of "corruption") in ideology derriving from this source is not surprising. Indeed their particular view of nudity (the guilt of the unintentional perceiver) can seem somewhat odd to people schooled in a more liberal culture..
Ah! Now you, in contradistinction to OP, are looking at it from a traditional Judeo-Christian perspective. At least you are if you regard Canaan as more guilty than Noah. ;)
Basically, you just cherry-picked, because the book "Song of Solomon" pretty much goes on and on about the loveliness of the human form.
LOL. You cite the Song of Solomon (which piece of erotica is generally regarded as sitting uncomfortably within rest of the biblical corpus) and accuse someone of cherry-picking from the Bible in the very same sentence?! Props man!
P.S. I think it's rather stupid to criminalize God's creation (the body).
You need to read your Bible dude! Nakedness is a big deal to God. It was by their self-awareness of their nudity that God realised that A&E had gained knowledge, threatening to "become like one of us." Gen 3:22 Quick get them outta here!
Consider the story of Canaan seeing his dad Noah nude in his tent after Pa hit the plonk. (Gen 9:18-26) Just looking at "God's creation" justified the Joshua's genocide of the nation that had issued from him.
So I don't know where you are coming from in thinking that nudity ought not to be criminalised (and I agree with you), but it ain't the Judeo-Christian headspace.