Banned from Skeptiko until 15 Feb

[Laird]

I wasn't using a moral argument in the post for which you banned me, it is simply what motivated me to make that post. But even if I had been: do you ban members on Skeptiko simply for making arguments with which you disagree?

Obviously I don't

Well, it looks very much to me that you have banned me simply for arguing a case with which you disagree.

but the problem is that throwing moral judgements around in something like the CAGW debate quickly turns into a process of blaming other forum members simply for having a different opinion.

This is irrelevant, because I haven't done that. If you think I have, then show me where you think I have.

What on earth is wrong with pointing out in a thread in which scientific matters are crucial that one of the most prolific contributors to that thread in recent months, who purports to understand that the science is wrong, and why it is wrong, has in fact proved himself to be scientifically illiterate in another thread? Isn't that an entirely relevant fact to point out in that situation?

Because it is easy to pick on some isolated point that someone has got wrong - or simply worded badly - and condemn them in that way.

Ah. So, you really don't understand at all the full extent of LoneShaman's demonstrated scientific errors. There are multiple of them, so we are not (merely) talking about "some isolated point", nor are we (merely) talking about "bad wordings". They are an obvious pattern of bedrock and basic misunderstandings. Here is a list of those which I've noticed. LoneShaman is under the misapprehensions that:

1. Gravity acts so as to reduce the amplitude of a pendulum. (Later, he admitted that he was wrong about this, but, given his admission, it seems unlikely that he understands why).
   
2. A constant force, such as a constant draft of air from an air vent, applied to a pendulum will counteract the effects of air resistance and friction at the pendulum's fulcrum so as to maintain its amplitude indefinitely.
   
3. There is no tension in a solid rod which acts as the connection between the fulcrum point of a pendulum and the pendulum's bob, or, at least, any tension in such a solid rod does not vary in magnitude and direction (even though, as he acknowledges, there is tension when that solid rod is replaced by a cord).
   

Here, because I know you will need it, is the evidence of (for) each of those errors, in LoneShaman's own words in the "Doubts about the moon landings" thread on Skeptiko:

1. In post #217 he wrote (emphasis added): "The restoring force is gravity. Always constant, and toward the Earth or Moon. The other is tension. Along the pendulum line from the bob to the pivot point. It is not constant it is changing in direction and magnitude. I hope that makes sense. Because of these changes gravity is resolved to eventually bring the pendulum to rest."
   
2. In post #130 he posted a video "Moon Hoax Now: Swinging ETB" whose narrator suggested at 0:52 that the bag was swinging in apparently perpetual motion "as if some sort of vent was blowing on it", and again at 1:49 "as if it was being installed right over a vent". LoneShaman appeared to accept and promote this explanation, writing as he introduced the video "Yet another indication of an atmosphere", writing in post #131, "i anticipate similar spurious conjecture to explain away the perpetual motion of the ETB bag" and, finally, writing in post #148: "How about we hear the fancy excuses for the swinging ETB bag. Should be a lark."
   
3. In post #367 he wrote (emphasis added): "The difference is that the first is like a single piece, no tension, no force that varies in direction or amplitude. it could just be a rod it would do the same thing", where in post #365 he had defined that first situation as "a sphere connected by a fixed cylinder that is not flexible, like a metal rod and bob on the end of it". He doubled down in post #370, writing (emphasis added) "Tension is the pulling force transmitted through a cable of some sort. It varies in magnitude as it swings.
   
   It does not vary in a fixed rod."
   

You can't just pass those errors off as "isolated points" or "bad wordings". They are a pattern indicating a fundamental lack of understanding of basic mechanical physics.

Now, what are the chances that a guy who obviously hasn't meaningfully studied, and who misunderstands, an area of science (mechanical physics) which is widely taught in high schools has studied, and understands, an area of science (climate science) which is more advanced, and which is primarily taught in universities - especially when he is on record saying that the only formal study of physics that he has undertaken is the physics unit of an applied science degree which he failed to complete?

David, this is very relevant information to a thread on climate science. Why am I not allowed to point it out on Skeptiko without being banned?

Skeptiko isn't a campaigning platform

If that's what you honestly believe, then you need to pull both Jim_Smith and LoneShaman into line, because their primary activity is campaigning.

Well, just to take one of those points. I am quite sure that if you installed a pendulum above a vent, it would not come to rest. Even if the flow was uniform (and who is to say if it was) I think a pendulum that could move to some degree in two dimensions would probably end up in a steady state oscillating in a way in which the full force of the draft only operated in a part of the cyclic motion.

I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is probably that it is so hard to be sure that everything is taken into account. For example, were there pumps running inside the LEM that would cause some slight vibration?

David

I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is probably that it is so hard to be sure that everything is taken into account.

I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is that they are wrong.

I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is that they are wrong.

That this statement is promoted in this forum unsettles me. It reeks of arrogance. Surely we proponents should be more open minded and forgiving?

That this statement is promoted in this forum unsettles me. It reeks of arrogance. Surely we proponents should be more open minded and forgiving?

To clarify, I'm talking about his ideas about pendulums, which are just plain wrong. When someone is just plain wrong, there's no call for open-mindedness and forgiveness.

To clarify, I'm talking about his ideas about pendulums, which are just plain wrong. When someone is just plain wrong, there's no call for open-mindedness and forgiveness.

Pretty much. Of course, the point is to educate and inform, it isn't a personal matter - except inasmuch as each person has his or her own style of communication - as well as an individual reaction to discovering one has been wrong.

Reminds me of my school days, I didn't like to be wrong, but when my errors were pointed out I went away and reconsidered, to try to incorporate newly-acquired knowledge into my world view, In that respect, being shown to be wrong was and is beneficial, and indeed necessary, from time to time.

I think the biggest problem with Lone Shaman's ideas is that they are wrong.

Well no - I mean a pendulum could indeed be kept in motion by a stream of gas from a vent. As I was pointing out, the stream of gas would push on the pendulum in an erratic sort of way and almost certainly keep it moving. 

To be honest, however, I didn't read much of that part of the thread in detail because I am suspicious of analyses like this that may not be able to take everything into account. In the same way I am dubious of people who claim to know that the Twin Towers fell in a way that is inconsistent with the official narrative. We just haven't had much experience (globally) of such towers collapsing.

David

Well no - I mean a pendulum could indeed be kept in motion by a stream of gas from a vent. As I was pointing out, the stream of gas would push on the pendulum in an erratic sort of way and almost certainly keep it moving. 

To be honest, however, I didn't read much of that part of the thread in detail because I am suspicious of analyses like this that may not be able to take everything into account. In the same way I am dubious of people who claim to know that the Twin Towers fell in a way that is inconsistent with the official narrative. We just haven't had much experience (globally) of such towers collapsing.

David

You are seriously comparing high-school knowledge of the physics of a pendulum with a massively complex system as though the two were somehow equivalent?

Well no - I mean a pendulum could indeed be kept in motion by a stream of gas from a vent. As I was pointing out, the stream of gas would push on the pendulum in an erratic sort of way and almost certainly keep it moving. 

To be honest, however, I didn't read much of that part of the thread in detail because I am suspicious of analyses like this that may not be able to take everything into account. In the same way I am dubious of people who claim to know that the Twin Towers fell in a way that is inconsistent with the official narrative. We just haven't had much experience (globally) of such towers collapsing.

David

What I'm referring to is the argument that because the pendulum continued to swing, that indicated it wasn't in a vacuum:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/do...ost-137144

[Laird]

Well, just to take one of those points.

So, do you accept that LoneShaman was fundamentally mistaken on the other two?

I am quite sure that if you installed a pendulum above a vent, it would not come to rest. Even if the flow was uniform (and who is to say if it was) I think a pendulum that could move to some degree in two dimensions would probably end up in a steady state oscillating in a way in which the full force of the draft only operated in a part of the cyclic motion.

I think you mean three dimensions, not two. Yes, it is possible that given a pendulum swinging (especially erratically) in three dimensions, the accelerative and decelerative aspects of the vent's force as applied to the pendulum would not be equal, leading to some overall effect on the pendulum's motion, and tending to keep it swinging, especially in erratic motion. But in any case that scenario does not apply: the bag in question was swinging straight back-and-forth in two dimensions, not (erratically or otherwise) in three.

Given a swing in only two dimensions, I can't think of a way of angling or placing a vent such that the draft does not apply the same force during some part of the bag's upswing as during the equivalent part of its downswing, thus cancelling out its effects - even if that force only acted on part of the pendulum's swing. So, no, I don't think that your argument can be maintained in this scenario.