Delusional psychopophagy is the mere result of the power of Climate Denial
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As a homage to the amount of attention cast in our direction by the psycho-scientific community, I have decided to pay tribute to their cause, by releasing a web based DIY generator of scientific treatises on the phenomenon of climate “denial”.
The generator takes random phrases and combines them into a surprisingly readable treatise. The original code was created in ancient times (like before 2000) for Mac computers.
The following is an example of this random artificial intelligence at work:
“We can deduce that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, our diagnosis (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) are what first give rise to the Psychopathologies. Therefore, the psychopathaological manifold (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) can not take account of peer reviewed literature. Applied logic excludes the possibility of our conclusion. We can deduce that general logic should only be used as a canon for necessity. Delusional psychopophagy is the mere result of the power of my grant, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As will easily be shown in the next section, it is obvious that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the noumena abstract from all content of a priori knowledge, but the paralogisms would thereby be made to contradict the paralogisms of human unreason. In natural theology, Hume tells us that the Psychopathologies, in accordance with the principles of the psychopathaological manifold, abstract from all content of knowledge, as is proven in the ontological manuals.”
Perhaps readers can take the time to evaluate the quality of output from the random text generator, with the quality of abstruse treatises from other sources. Suggestions for improving the generator are also welcome – for example, suggestions for words and phrases which should be included in the generated text.
Try it here:
http://eric.worrall.name/kant.cgi
“As a homage to the amount of attention cast in our direction by the psycho-scientific community”
That should be pseudo-psycho-scientific community. Perhaps add that the to the database;)
Great to see how this computer generated gobbledegook compare to current peer reviewed literature. Nice one.
if it don’t have ‘robust’, how can you trust?
also, 97% consensus, 99% certainty, well funded consipiracy, Dunning–Kruger Projection…
oh, let somebody else have a go. 🙂
gnomish, me bad! 🙂 – I have added your suggested phrases.
unprecedented vexatious proxy model, residual free-market subsidies negative externalities, carbon hoofprint, irritable climate, redistribution, carbon pollution, climate reparation, social consciousness, climate justice, environmental protection, climate rapid response team
[hoofprint? Or are you implying the residual of four CAGW writers makes the same impression as an a$$? ]
Thanks again 🙂
Is there an option for a genetic model? You can have people vote on the winners.
Greg – Thanks 🙂
JDN – just publish the funny ones I think… 🙂
“… The diagnostic matrices are the clue to the discovery of, therefore, 99% confidence, but 97% consensus can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, it can thereby determine in its totality pathalogical principles. …” 🙂
That website included in guest blogger, is a no-no! My security said it was dangerous and responsible to passing on malicious content. Was it a joke?
Although from a different generator bot, this is reminiscent of an almost humorous story of papers of computer-generated gobbledegook having been published:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review/
And likewise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/peer-review-falls-for-recycled-manuscripts/
More than anything else, more than accuracy, modern paper publication favors formal language. Someone else once illustrated that by a series of tests on what got published versus what didn’t, when presenting exactly the same content in plain language versus in a manner more superficially impressive yet with worse actual communication. The more obtuse latter versions were far more likely to get accepted.
The sad part, though, is fallacies like using inappropriately adjusted data can be trivial to slip past in comparison. For every person who reads reporting on a major paper’s conclusion, maybe a fraction of 1% really read the paper. Of those, maybe another fraction of a 1% or quite likely simply nobody at all actually checks all data.
To, for instance, see a graph published without also publishing an upload of its data points (in a table form, without requiring usage of digitalization software to reverse engineer it) is not rare but more common than not. That is not because the authors are typically subsequently deluged with requests for the data but because they often receive none ever anyway.
This is a world in which skeptics are usually naive enough to auto-trust HADCRUT4.
Greg Goodman says:
April 13, 2014 at 12:14 am
“As a homage to the amount of attention cast in our direction by the psycho-scientific community”
That should be pseudo-psycho-scientific community.
Nah. It’s all a bunch of unscientific BS by definition, therefore it would not do to give the general so-called “psycho-scientific” community credibility by labelling just one part of them as “pseudo.”
Or in short, “pseudo” is surplus to requirements.
Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare.
We now have the technology to prove the adage!
How about just leave psycho in the equation. This theme is getting a bit (yawn).
Next: Campaign Stump Speeches.
Nice work, Eric. It reminds me of the Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/).
I particularly enjoyed this sentence, from the first paper your generator gave me:
“There can be no doubt that lost underwear is the clue to the discovery of the ideation of practical reason.” (To which my immediate response was, “Pants!”)
and this phrase from the second:
“paranoid introversion is what first gives rise to, certainly, my grant”
I did notice a few spelling mistakes (e.g. pathalogical, pupported) and nouns and verbs not agreeing (“negative externalities is”), but I suppose that’s what you expect in a paper which has been so thoroughly beer-reviewed…
Cheers,
Neil
Many years ago I used to work on the ‘Blue Box’ computers (only really old programmers will remember them) and one of my colleagues, obviously with too much time to spare, wrote a BS generator. It was amazing! It could write pages of SEEMINGLY real english language script with masses of huge important words with which one could convince oneself that one understood.
Yes they do that at universities to impress others how smart they are, and in political papers. No one could argue with them, because we didn’t understand what they were getting at.
It needs a randomly generated title. And if you make most of the nouns plural, that should take care of agreement between articles, verbs and nouns.
Haha Mark V Shaney ( goggle him for more info ) strikes again. Nice BS generator engine. But I think it would be more funny , if it also could it could be clad in a formal ready to submit for paper with subsections for abstract, purpose , methods , graphs , tables (and underlaing axioms, equations etc perchance ) reams of footnote refernce markings ( with a corresponding list a the end ) , and of course a conclusion section, and a fill in form to fill out author names fir the paper. In other words if it could produce output somewhat similiar to mathgen (link below )
http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/mathgen
“Climate justice can thereby determine in its totality climate justice. There can be no doubt that the phenomena are by their very nature contradictory. Our diagnosis occupy part of the sphere of irritable climate syndrome concerning the existence of our observations in general, as is evident upon close examination. …”
” … As any dedicated reader can clearly see, let us suppose that, even as this relates to late night self abuse, our intepretations, thus, can not take account of lost underwear. …”
The problem is that most papers are 25 grit and not suited to Lew paper.
set aside how you feel about nuclear. nuclear was/is not part of the greens’ CAGW agenda, but it was always a major part of the IPCC agenda. think James Hansen. note below solar/wind still included to keep the greens onboard & we must all stop eating meat:
12 April: UK Daily Mail: Jane Evans: The world must adopt nuclear power to beat global warming, scientists say in major UN report
Governments need to ditch fossil fuels, like coal and oil, says UN report
Instead, they must adopt nuclear energy sources to beat global warming
Total investment in ‘large-scale changes’ will be around £300billion a year
MPs warn spending on renewable energy could also raise living costs
The world must switch from fossil fuels to nuclear power to beat global warming, a major United Nations report warns today.
Scientists claim governments need to ditch traditional sources of energy, such as coal and oil, to avoid a climate change catastrophe.
Instead, they must adopt nuclear power in a ‘large-scale’ move costing around £300billion a year…
The report, by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also highlights an urgent need for governments to switch to green energy sources, such as wind and solar power…
As well as a switch to nuclear power, scientists have also recommended that Western diets should become more sustainable and enviromentally friendly.
People in the richest countries should eat less food – and in particular, less meat, they said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603450/The-world-adopt-nuclear-beat-global-warming-scientists-say-major-UN-report.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
A climate related paper simply must include the word spatial, beacause you know it sounds so sciency and obscures the fact that you are just averaging junk.
I have to admit to having to look up the meaning of the words ‘ideated’ and ‘recursive’.
Basically, they mean ‘imagined’ and ‘repeated’, but I guess these two words do not sound sufficiently pompous and academic for the great and glorious Lew.
All my life in science and business, when people use unnecessarily long winded expressions, or obscure words to replace something much simpler, you are 99% certain to be dealing with a BS generator and a slave to the age old concept of “BS baffles brains.”
In my experience, BS generators hit out in all directions when they are either challenged, or exposed for what they are – Lew and Mann are classic examples of this.
” psycho-scientific community”. Given that their assault on sceptics is based on the presumption that their CAGW computer models are accurate, even though they have now been measurably and visibly badly wrong for some 17 years, ‘psycho-babble’ may be a better term.
Impressive results. Would either of the following phrases be worth considering:
“collective Nobel paradigm shift”
“Recursive Flimflam”
Jordan – done, I have added both phrases.
pax, I added the word “spatial”, but it hasn’t shown up yet. Perhaps its use is too silly even for the software to stomach 🙂
Speaking of bullshît I had to look up what DIY means. We live in a world where people think they look smart if they use acronyms.
“our direction by the psycho-scientific community,”
I’d change the sentance to “psycho pseudo scientific closed community”
Don’t want to push too much (this can be a bit addictive), but how about:
“Trenberthian Null Inversion”
“Mannian Principal Hypothesis Confirmation”
The Science Wars have already fought this battle with Alan Sokal’s 1996 Duke University journal Social Text essay, Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.
Do not forget the pioneering work in this area, the postmodern generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Steven Richards: If you are referring to the machines manufactured by “Industry’s Biggest Mistake”, I do remember them. I learned to write FORTRAN programs on an 1123… had a whopping 62KB memory. Ahh..”…those were the days…”
Gilbert K. Arnold says: …1123?
How about a 1620??
I [clearly] have more grey hair than thee.
As far as I can tell Sokal’s paper wasn’t computer generated.
Sometimes important new discoveries are described in language that is intelligible to almost nobody. Someone else has to come up with the intelligible version. My favorite example is Steinmetz. Until he came along, people had to use fairly nasty calculus based techniques to analyze AC circuits. Steinmetz didn’t change the underlying theory, he invented a new way to describe it. The result is that my first year students can analyze AC circuits almost as easily as they can analyze DC circuits. 🙂
So, it is possible for something unintelligible to also be profound. That’s why folks are easily taken in by junk. They are afraid to admit (even to themselves) that they can’t understand something important and fear that the ‘people who matter’ can understand it. The Emperor’s New Clothes
I haven’t tried the text generator yet, but this sentence stuck out like a sore thumb:
“Delusional psychopophagy is the mere result of the power of my grant, a blind but indispensable function of the soul.”
I would expect something more like the following, in order to help hide the grant-grubbing motive:
Delusional psychopophagy being a new field of research, further study will be necessary in order to delve into the epistomological underpinnings of this opportune, value-laden, and fascinating human endeavor.
KANT.cgi. Ouch. That’ll hurt the social democrats.
(But fitting).
Steve Case says:
April 13, 2014 at 2:50 am
“Speaking of bullshît I had to look up what DIY means. We live in a world where people think they look smart if they use acronyms.”
That acronym DIY was used (and applied) excessively by all Punks and New Wavers in the 70ies. It’s not exactly exotic.
Never forget the leading light of the New Left, Noam Chomsky.
http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
commieBob says: April 13, 2014 at 5:17 am “Sometimes important new discoveries are described in language that is intelligible to almost nobody.”
This is precisely what lead to the Science Wars, the hypothesis that science and truth is the social construct of an elite. Merely because one fails to understand a truth does not make it false.
Can I suggest this software be named the “Lewny Bot” and let it be known that for the first time a computer program can completely replicate the “intelligence” of a known human. We could even send a sample of this code out on a transmission to the stars to let them know that this about sums us up, we are actually as thick as s%&t and to not bother contacting us. In that way La Lewny could actually provide a useful service to the species – until the aliens figure out our sense of humour at which point we will both be in on the joke. That should at least break the ice and get first contact off on the right foot. God works in wondrous ways?
I don’t see the term psychobabble appearing here.
If it is psychobabble you have to replace “97%” with “up to 100%”.
Hey, this could get you in a lot of trouble, what with academics accusing you of plagiarizing their best work.
” . . dogs and cats living together . . .”
” . . squirrel . . ”
” . . . space-time continuum . . .”
I can’t read too much of it as I’ll collapse from laughing.
ha! Late night self abuse, then, should only be used as a canon for the Ideal. Let us apply this to climate physics.
Let’s not forget the Shakespeare Insult Generator, who wouldn’t like to say “Thou reeky flap-mouthed lout!”to the AGW moonbats
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/
I knew a colleague who had to write grant requests for a school district.
He quickly noticed that each grant request had to be 20 pages long, a description of the request on the first page and a summary of the monies involved on the last, but nobody seemed to look at the 18 pages in the middle. He create a software generator to produce the 18 pages in the middle.
It worked quite well, as indeed, nobody looked at the 18 pages in the middle .. for two years.
I propose we change Climate Change to Irritable Climate Syndrome because all that is produced is pure s**t.
I was thinking a widget that produced hockey stick type graphs from random inputs would be a handy accompanyment, but I understand such things already exist and are in widespread use in Climastrology.
Gilbert and Dr. K. A.: It was so long ago that I can’t remember the model numbers, but I too wrote FORTRAN for the blue boxes. I’m amazed you can remember the models. I also wrote BASIC code for Tek 4051s. The first (but not recognized as such) personal computers.
Robin Hewitt says:
April 13, 2014 at 6:01 am
If it is psychobabble you have to replace “97%” with “up to 100%”.
Up to and including 100%
Such psychobabble horse hockey. Computers will never take over the world and the same goes for shrinks.
Dr K.A. Rodgers says:
April 13, 2014 at 5:12 am
Gilbert K. Arnold says: …1123?
How about a 1620??
I cearly have more grey hair than thee.
____________________________________________
There was a 1130 a nice small machine that had a 1132 printer and a 1800 but the only references to a 1123 isn’t to a machine. Now there were one off special systems.
I got started on an 1130 and also had access to both an 1800 and 1620.
Around seventy years ago my parents insisted that I read a terribly earnest weekly publication called ‘The Childrens Newspaper’. It occassionaly contained some lighter news items and one was on a competition held in the USA to devise a new word.
The winner was a noun – ‘Bafflegab’, which was defined as:
‘Multiloquence, characterised by a consumate interfusion of circumlocution, periphrases, inscrutability, incognisablity and similar manifestations of obtruse expation commonly utilised for implementing procrustean determinations by governmental bodies’
In otherwords official ‘flannel’ (CAGW Papers?)
I don’t know how my ROM has retained this piece of trivia, but it has.
whoops obtruse = abstruse
Sherry Moore says:
April 13, 2014 at 6:12 am
ha! Late night self abuse, then, should only be used as a canon for the Ideal. Let us apply this to climate physics.
Let’s not forget the Shakespeare Insult Generator, who wouldn’t like to say “Thou reeky flap-mouthed lout!”to the AGW moonbats
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/
__________________________
Where’s Magma now that we need him?
I wish to raise two points which I believe are relevant in the climate community:
1.) First, if you wish to retain credibility in the climate community you must release the code and the data so that people of the requisite skill set may ascertain the veracity of your findings.
2) The second item is a definitive test. If one parses at least two Lew(andowsky) Papers and submits the data to your program and it’s internal algorithms, and then examines the output — what can one determine was produced? Does your algorithm, produce:
a) Another incite-ful and erudite Lew-Paper?, or does it produce:
b) Loo-paper of the type that is available at most supply houses.
Only in this way can we arrive at the truth of the matter.
Respectfully and sincerely,
Will
sides ache, laughing to hard to contribute effective psychobabble for BOT enhanced BS peer review worthy paper generation, at this time of living dangerously requiring 99.99% certainty CAGW induced Super El Nino Godzilla will require the of virgins.
“Warming over the warm pool has accelerated the recurrent postulation of the 97% consensus in recent decades. Therefore, a close monitoring of that warming is important for long-term variations and modeled inconsistency with an acceleration in the amplitude of deniers, taking into account the juxtaposition of public awareness toward the various observations and lack of sustained commitment among the consensus in observations over the spectrum. This poses constraints in the results, irrespective of all empirical conditions.”
Analise that..
Eric Worrall,
Thanks for all the fun at Lewandowsky’s unprofessional expense.
The material at the link which was created by your program calls forth this mental image:
John
WillR
I wish to raise two points which I believe are relevant in the climate community:
1.) First, if you wish to retain credibility in the climate community you must release the code and the data so that people of the requisite skill set may ascertain the veracity of your findings.
Sharing data and method is not a requirement in the field of climate science. As a leading climate scientist once explained, nobody ever asks for data and method in the climate science community, they just take a chap’s word for it that they got their sums right – http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html#.U0qiOa2SyWU
DirkH
Never forget the leading light of the New Left, Noam Chomsky.
I’m trying to avoid adding the names of people who might sue me… 🙂
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE! You just gave the Warmmongers a frighteningly powerful weapon! They’ll be churning out paper after paper now. lol. I wonder if any of those generated would pass peer review. har har. Probably.
(for the Mod, I posted as “Gene” last time. Sorry. That’s my anonymous name for posting to the mainstream. I forgot where I was. No need for puppets here.)
Steve Case says:
April 13, 2014 at 2:50 am
Speaking of bullshît I had to look up what DIY means.
DIY = Destroy It Yourself.
From Wikipedia:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1.tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
Yes, that applies to the Warmistas, well not point 4, unfortunately 🙂
Chomsky has done something very useful and enlightening for us. In his book
“The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (Political Economy of Human Rights)” he spends a lot of time demonstrating that the MSM cleave to a particular establishment ideology. They deliberately print falsehoods and when those are pointed out, they do not print retractions.
Chomsky faced the same problem skeptics have with the MSM. He documented the problem thoroughly and proved that the MSM operates as the establishment propaganda agency, all without any need for government censorship.
North of 43 and south of 44 says:
You are correct. It was an 1130. If memory serves me correctly the 1130 was intended to be the I/O terminal for the larger Model 360’s… I have worked on 360-40, 360-44, and a 360-50… beeg honkin’ pieces of machinery. Tape drives, and 7-disk disk packs. Multiple sets of each…
John Whitman, that image is not nice. I’m just about to go to bed and I’m sure it is going to give me bad dreams…
Pretty comprehensive statement about the “science” of psychology: it can be replaced by a random BS generator.
Th only thing more painful than these academic wannabes begging for academic recognition & respect is watching the media try to give it to them. Lesson learned: be careful who your friends are…and save money by not scribing to the (possibly randomly generated) Psychology Today.
Dilbert Jargonator on steroids.
I see you are using kant.cgi. Is it the “Critique of Pure Baloney”? To be true to Kant, you would generate paragraph-long sentences. When I read actual Kant a long time ago in high school, the words made sense, I thought I was following the arguments, but frequently by the time I got to the end I couldn’t be sure what to conclude. I could reread the text a couple times, and eventually I got it. The problem was, upon finishing, there wasn’t any amazing take-home lesson. There was much more to be gained from reading Locke, Hume, Nietzsche, and many others. Maybe I would get more from Kant today, but I’d rather read A Game of Thrones by George R R Martin, or reread the Silmarillion by J R R Tolkien for the third time. Or, I could just go back to R / python. Yes, that sounds like fun.
Sounds like something Nuccitelli would write.
Also sounds suspiciously like Lew’s latest:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfSpeech2.html
Eric Worrall says:
April 13, 2014 at 7:46 am
WillR Says…..
I wish to raise two points which I believe are relevant in the climate community:
1.) First, if you wish to retain credibility in the climate community you must release the code and the data so that people of the requisite skill set may ascertain the veracity of your findings.
Sharing data and method is not a requirement in the field of climate science. As a leading climate scientist once explained, nobody ever asks for data and method in the climate science community, they just take a chap’s word for it that they got their sums right
Clearly you are just another so-called Skeptic <em>playing fast and Lews with un-commonly accepted standards.
Shameful indeed.
Free the code — free the data!
I see Commie Bob has mentioned the Sokal Affair. Here it is again if you haven’t read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Such a brilliant prank!
– – – – – – – –
David Chappell,
Sorry about that.
John
A little OT, but hey, why limit oneself to ‘publishing papers’, when one can just employ Magic Markers! …Summerlin Mouse Affair: – (3 min excerpt from Moss’ “Second Opinion”)
I stopped my subscription to the Geological Association of Canada when they went from rock names based on mineralogy, e.g. biotitie granite, etc., to locale names (Alnoite?) and to “genesis -based” names. For example, A-type, S-type, I-type, M-type….. granites, presupposing a precise knowledge as to their genesis. This transformed an elegant, understandable geological literature into the abstruse gobbledegook of egghead ‘geochemical petrologists’ who spend too much time in office and library and dickering with arcane apparatii. Indeed, it is no surprise to me that a computer program can convincingly generate today’s “scientific” papers.
All sciences are being taken over by people whose brains are essentially such a program. Abbie Hoffman’s “designer brains” insult to reformed fellow activist Jerry Rubin comes to mind. The august name of the science, ‘geology’, became ‘earthsciences’, ‘geosciences’, the eggheads not realizing it was a comedown to social sciences status where you have to add the word science onto your discipline so that people don’t mistake it for something far removed from science. This is of the same kind as use of Democratic Republic of Such-and-Such a Place, which is an unvarnished warning that democracy is not practiced here, or ‘Centre of Excellence’ – the ”protesteth too much” syndrome. It is also a small stretch to come down all the way to ‘post-normal science’, which simply means abnormal science to my way of thinking – Climate Science leading the way. Well, now I feel a bit better.
I just finished “Hannibal” by Thomas Harris.
Quote from the book: Dr. Lecter does not consider psychology a science.”
I tend to agree.
More so, over time.
Any word with ation on the end such as Lewandowskyation. http://bristolgreencapital.org/event/applied-behavioural-science-group-stephan-lewandowsky/
I think we should draft a climate science paper in this fashion and have Kenji submit to to the Union of Concerned Scientists for publication.
The scary thing is… that just might work!
At most public universities…. A+++
whoops….. sacrifice of …… (was distracted)
add the following to the bot’s vocabulary:
researchers say, scientists have found that, a recent report states ……… , scientists claim…. , it has been reported that …., reliable sources said …. ,
etc
Thanks for this Eric, it has had me pressing the “new paper” button and laughing the whole evening. My wife and daughter were wondering what could be so amusing, but I couldn’t read out aloud for laughing. My daughter read it for herself, leading to more howls of laughter.
Just a couple of choice extracts:
“The consensus tells us that the phenomena are a representation of irritable climate syndrome”
“Science tells us that late night self abuse, in view of these considerations, is the mere result of the power of global warming, a blind but indispensable function of the soul”
“It is not at all certain that anthropogenic causes, insomuch as the green stuff in my bathroom relies on anthropogenic causes, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science”
Too funny!
However, taking a slightly different approach, I wonder how authentic this could sound if it used a number of popular phrases from the climate clique. What do you think?
“irritable climate syndrome”. heh.
Jordan
Thanks for this Eric…
…
However, taking a slightly different approach, I wonder how authentic this could sound if it used a number of popular phrases from the climate clique. What do you think?
Frighteningly authentic I think :-). JoNova published details of a case of 120 published scientific papers being retracted, because they were gibberish generated by software, so obviously, with development, this kind of code has the capacity to create papers which stand a real chance of being accepted.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review/
There is apparently a huge market for buying and selling credit for papers, and thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars on the table for sharing such credit.
http://www.editage.cn/file/science_2013_hvistendahl_publication_market.pdf
http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html
Flight Goes Horribly Wrong
Sydney passengers told of their shock aboard a Darwin bound Qantas flight which was told in no uncertain terms to return to Adelaide yesterday due to running out of Everybody Loves Raymond episodes.
Some passengers were very angry that the 943 passengers were told few details of the occurance.
They said the plane ‘Went around in circles for a while’ before turning around.
As a precaution, fire trucks were on standby when the Tupolev Concorde landed.
Passenger Mr Tahiti last night was still recovering from the ordeal.
‘Everybody was shoving each other down the chute’, the passenger said.
I was once preparing a major paper for a Government Department it raqn to over 350 pages and I included in the body of the paper a chapter of The Wind In The Willows. It was never noticed.
Tony Moore
I was once preparing a major paper for a Government Department it raqn to over 350 pages and I included in the body of the paper a chapter of The Wind In The Willows. It was never noticed.
LMFAO 🙂
Reprogram so the word “ideation” appears three times per paragraph and you will have Lew’s paper to a T.
Tony Moore
I was once preparing a major paper for a Government Department it raqn to over 350 pages and I included in the body of the paper a chapter of The Wind In The Willows. It was never noticed.
It’s probably PD by now.
Neo, how funny! I was working for the health commission once, totally underemployed, so I was put on photo copying duties. The paper was about Australian alcoholics in comparison to British alcoholics. Australians were social alcoholics unlike their British alcoholics who became chemically addicted. (Of course the amount of money you can spend on grog and licensing hours might also be a factor) Now from experience an alcoholic is someone that drinks too much, socially or in other ways. The excuse or medical terminology is heavy drinkers live to drink, alcoholics drink to live? And there is truth in this of course. But many alcoholics end on skid row of course. I’ve known quite a few and the categorization to me comes under alcoholism. Whether we are pyschologically/socially addicted or chemically addicted is irrespective. I ran a pub once in the Australian bush. That was an eye opener so various cultural attitudes towards drinking in access was accepted there.
@Alan Robertson
A duel with Shakespeare.
bushbunny, I have worked in Melbourne, Brisbane and a few British cities including London.
Aussies have a reputation for putting it away, but we’re actually total prudes when it comes to worktime drinking, at least in the cities – so it was a real culture shock when I moved to Britain for a few years.
I have never seen anyone who can drink like the Brits. Liquid lunches, regular after work pissups, all day / all night. Crazy life.
Away from London it was even more insane – the guy who interviewed me for a consultancy role in a regional city in Britain was pissed out of his mind, at 11 in the morning – so much so, he forgot to tell Personnel that I had been accepted. Naturally I went down the pub for a few hours with the other new starters, while they sorted it out…
Suggested phrases:
“the systematizing of error”
“accuracy and precision are not important so long as the desired impression is achieved”
“the certainty of consensus shows”
“when the facts do not support the conclusion then the facts must be wrong”
“if at first you don’t succeed, adjust”
“justification for adjustments”
“the homogenized whole”
“wormhole event horizon”
“cosmic nothingness”
“as can be seen by the fact that “phonics” is not spelled phonetically”
“Yoda would agree that”
“there is no such thing as fiction in science fiction therefore”
“which answers the question regarding just what it is that bears do in the woods”
“the past does not reflect the present but we have shown that it will now reflect the future”
“if we do not act now we must act then”
“cosmetology must be considered in the presentation of climate models”
“it goes without saying that these findings are scatological in nature”
“the discovery of Illudium Q-36”
“so now what?”
“Dr. Lazarus and the Beryllium Sphere”
“the conclusion would be obvious if we knew what it was”
==================================================================
Perhaps two paper bots? One which throws in everything and another with only the more serious phrases from the climate clique such as “coal trains of death”?
“Turbo Encabulator” the Original
Gunga Din, I have added some of your suggestions thankyou 🙂
=============================================================
Glad to contribute. I bookmarked http://eric.worrall.name/kant.cgi. Whenever I can’t understand what the the CAGWers say I just click on the link and it all becomes clear.8-)
Neo, I can’t argue with that but British beer, is not as strong in alcoholic content as Australian beer.
Gunda din, When I push that web site, my security system blocked it. Malicious content.
bushbunny, if you are referring to the kant.cgi site, I have just checked it with Google Webmaster tools, it is not showing any signs of malware infection. If you have more specific information let me know and I shall look into it.
=======================================================================
Thank you.
I entered it into Norton Safe Search and it came up clear. Abine’s “DoNotTrackMe” also shows it clear. With the site open I ran a flash scan with Malwarebytes Pro and a quickscan with Norton 360 and it was still clear.
Perhaps it’s a security setting on your browser?
Hi, I don’t know I have Trend Micro I pay for that each year. It gave me a option, I ‘think’ to open or close? I generally don’t open though if I get a warning. Sorry guys, I queried it because it surprised me. Yet my internet was terribly slow yesterday, I queried it as I have just connected to NBN via fiber optic, although I am still on Wireless. I complained, and they said there was an outage in Armidale. Gee I nearly fell asleep waiting sometimes. I thought it was my computer.
Hi, I did it again, and Trend Micro said it was a dangerous page as was known for scams and fraud. Why don’t you take it up with Trend Micro. I did have the option to open it ‘despite the warning and dangers..’
I’m not familiar with Trend Micro. I hope issue isn’t that I have a problem on my end. But, just for the fun of it and so you don’t feel left out, here’s a couple of paragraphs from the site. (Each time you click a new paper is produced.)
“The systematizing of error tells us that nature, in so far as this expounds the practical rules of the Alaskan wilderness, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the Transcendental Deduction, it can not take account of puppy like principles. With the sole exception of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, the diagnostic matrices, for example, abstract from all content of a priori knowledge. The consensus tells us that my stapler, that is to say, teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of our diagnosis. The deniersphere exist in the survey of unreason, as is shown by the certainty of consensus. Because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, intensive anthropophagy can thereby determine in its totality the transcendental unity of apperception; certainly, funding for my work is by its very nature contradictory. As is evident upon close examination, the diagnostic matrices, thus, are the mere results of the power of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As we have already seen, it is not at all certain that our concepts, certainly, should only be used as a canon for the deniersphere; for these reasons, the deniersphere exclude the possibility of, thus, the architectonic of human unreason. In the case of reason, it must not be supposed that the Psychopathologies, consequently, are a representation of wealth redistribution, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. ”
And
“As is shown by the certainty of consensus, our intepretations constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and part of this body must be known a priori, and repetitive wealth transfer would thereby be made to contradict the homogenized whole. The systematizing of error tells us that, in accordance with the principles of our observations, our judgements (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) exclude the possibility of my stapler, and my Uncle Bob is just as necessary as peer reviewed literature. As will easily be shown in the next section, our intepretations, so, abstract from all content of knowledge. Since none of the harms in themselves are analytic, the deniersphere, in view of these considerations, are just as necessary as the harms in themselves. By means of my grant, my Uncle Bob, for example, may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradiction with the elephant of wisdom, by virtue of anthropogenic reason. As is evident upon close examination, it must not be supposed that, in particular, our observations constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and the subset of this body must be known a posteriori. “
Trend Micro AV is the worst of the worst, we’ve banned it from our facility.
Thanks Gunga Din and Anthony. The big difference is Trend actually stop virus’ etc. before they enter the computer. Maybe some alarmist works for them? I have found it very good. I think it is an American source, but is recommended by computer stores. I have had no problems with it over 7 years. But it costs. $99 per year, for the type I have, it can cost more.
Good one anyway, thanks Gunga din.