Thomas Kuhn revisited (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, November 13, 2011, 17:38 (4737 days ago)
Matt Ridley of the WSJ discusses the resistence to new ideas in science:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577023893088328710.html?KEYWORDS...
Why peer reivew is a form of idea control.
Thomas Kuhn revisited
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, November 14, 2011, 00:21 (4737 days ago) @ David Turell
Matt Ridley of the WSJ discusses the resistence to new ideas in science:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577023893088328710.html?KEYWORDS...
Why peer reivew is a form of idea control.
"After giving a lecture on scientific heresy last week, I was asked how you can tell when a scientific heretic is right rather than mad. I confessed that, as I've grown older, I've becoming more confused on this point. The problem is not just that vindicated heretics are rare, but also that the heretic who's right will be just as partisan—avidly collecting evidence to confirm his idea—as the heretic who's wrong."
It's um... pretty simple. Instead of attacking the ideas from a theoretical viewpoint, attack them experimentally. It's not that confusing of a concept at all.
David, you talk all the time about the "evils" of peer review, however, as Kuhn noted in his own work--heretics in science are almost always vindicated if their ideas have any experimental merit. The process works, albeit in a human fashion. Similar things happened to Higgs.
But you know what caused the truth to come out? Experimental results. Even the most diehard proponent of a theory gives way when experiment clearly shows a better way. (Or in the case of Higgs, makes it one of the only ways to make sense of experimental data.)
[EDITED](REMOVED TEXT)
The real reason you balk at peer review is the fact that ID is not considered a scientific but a philosophical proposition. Of course, you know this already--but the "censorship" that ID writers tend to be exposed to is because of the kinds of papers they submit to. They don't submit these papers to journals of philosophy as would be correct, they try to submit them to technical journals. If you submit a paper about ID that actually creates an experiment that can advance your argument, THEN you deserve a shot at a technical journal. Until then, submit them to the philosophical journals where they belong.
Peer review should exist at a minimum to prevent THIS kind of "science."
[EDIT] The above comment was for a deleted portion which may/may not be pertinent, but it discussed that the DI likes to submit papers for the purpose of couching philosophy as science, knowing full well that the general public often doesn't have enough philosophical awareness to realize what's going on. THAT is what peer-review should be used for.
[EDITED]
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited
by David Turell , Monday, November 14, 2011, 00:50 (4737 days ago) @ xeno6696
The real reason you balk at peer review is the fact that ID is not considered a scientific but a philosophical proposition. Of course, you know this already--but the "censorship" that ID writers tend to be exposed to is because of the kinds of papers they submit to. They don't submit these papers to journals of philosophy as would be correct, they try to submit them to technical journals. If you submit a paper about ID that actually creates an experiment that can advance your argument, THEN you deserve a shot at a technical journal. Until then, submit them to the philosophical journals where they belong.
Peer review should exist at a minimum to prevent THIS kind of "science."
[EDIT] The above comment was for a deleted portion which may/may not be pertinent, but it discussed that the DI likes to submit papers for the purpose of couching philosophy as science, knowing full well that the general public often doesn't have enough philosophical awareness to realize what's going on. THAT is what peer-review should be used for.
[EDITED]
You forget what I have written in the past. ID is not the issue. When I was an active author in the medical literature, there was NO peer review. A journal had its editor and he reviewed. Things were much smaller then and grantsmanship was not a major issue with 'how many articles for tenure' as a force to contend with. Peer review is group fascism. I oppose it on philosophic grounds. Let the reader beware of garbage. If he is knowledgeable and well-read he will spot the junk. Too much junk and the editor is fired.
Glad you are back to debate with.
Thomas Kuhn revisited
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, November 14, 2011, 01:02 (4737 days ago) @ David Turell
You forget what I have written in the past. ID is not the issue. When I was an active author in the medical literature, there was NO peer review. A journal had its editor and he reviewed. Things were much smaller then and grantsmanship was not a major issue with 'how many articles for tenure' as a force to contend with. Peer review is group fascism. I oppose it on philosophic grounds. Let the reader beware of garbage. If he is knowledgeable and well-read he will spot the junk. Too much junk and the editor is fired.
Glad you are back to debate with.
Hit or miss. I just have a lull in work right now, lol...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Climategate is back
by David Turell , Saturday, November 26, 2011, 15:18 (4724 days ago) @ xeno6696
Thre has been another dump of 5,000 emails via internet showing collusion among controlling scientists who receive huge grants.
I still demand we go back to the old days, few grants via government and the end of peer review
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Climategate is back
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 27, 2011, 18:36 (4723 days ago) @ David Turell
Thre has been another dump of 5,000 emails via internet showing collusion among controlling scientists who receive huge grants.
I still demand we go back to the old days, few grants via government and the end of peer review
Fewer Government Grants == less innovation.
Why do I say this?
The race to the moon.
Private companies had very little to gain by sending a person to the moon. In fact, MOST of the projects the government has undertaken have historically been projects that simply carry no immediate commercial value. Indeed, my own field of computers had quite a bit of early drive stemming from the space program--demands that would not and could not have been met by the needs of corporations. (Most corporations need high volumes of transactions, they don't need the more scientific applications of computer architectures.) This is also why I don't think Al Gore's plan of setting a "moon race" target for cleaner energy is a bad idea at all, whether or not the threat of Global Warming is as significant as he claims. (The only secure energy strategy is NOT to rely on anyone at all.) The problem is, in some instances the market doesn't move fast enough, and I see no problem with setting targets to help speed it along.
As far as peer review, again, instruct me how the system has been preventing new ideas from coming to fruition? Especially with the advent of the internet! Name one instance in history where an idea was permanently squashed by peer review? You need to be more patient and let humans do things in their own time. If an idea is powerful enough, those who opposed it look like buffoons. Let time do its work.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Climategate is back
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 27, 2011, 18:40 (4723 days ago) @ xeno6696
Peer review may or may not squash an idea permenantly, but it is definitely guilty of slowing innovation wasting tons of time and energy. If a single idea that is true, or real, is pushed to the background in favor of a 'popular' theory then it is to the detriment of the entire community.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Climategate is back
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, November 27, 2011, 20:08 (4723 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Peer review may or may not squash an idea permenantly, but it is definitely guilty of slowing innovation wasting tons of time and energy. If a single idea that is true, or real, is pushed to the background in favor of a 'popular' theory then it is to the detriment of the entire community.
This is true, Tony, but the argument that David makes against peer review is identical, to me, to saying "Humans should stop being human." In the same stroke we should axe political parties and all of psychology.
*ALL* of us inherit and learn ideas that resound so profoundly to us, that we instinctively fight to protect them. Scientists are no less fallible. An idea takes however much time it takes to be realized by our collective as it takes. No more, no less. You cannot rush this process any more than you can rush having a baby.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Climategate is back
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 00:56 (4723 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by unknown, Monday, November 28, 2011, 01:14
Peer review may or may not squash an idea permenantly, but it is definitely guilty of slowing innovation wasting tons of time and energy. If a single idea that is true, or real, is pushed to the background in favor of a 'popular' theory then it is to the detriment of the entire community.
Thank you. I agree. Matt grew up within this current system, so it is hard for him to see the awful faults.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Climategate is back
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 00:55 (4723 days ago) @ xeno6696
Fewer Government Grants == less innovation.Why do I say this?
The race to the moon.
Private companies had very little to gain by sending a person to the moon.
I wasn't talking about government programs like going to the moon. I think a severe overload of politics has invaded scietific research becsue of all the government grant money.
As far as peer review, again, instruct me how the system has been preventing new ideas from coming to fruition? If an idea is powerful enough, those who opposed it look like buffoons. Let time do its work.
I'm sorry, but I cannot tolerate all the garbage and extraneous journals in the meantime. Look at the lifetime of string theory!!
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Climategate is back
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, November 28, 2011, 01:30 (4723 days ago) @ David Turell
Fewer Government Grants == less innovation.Why do I say this?
The race to the moon.
Private companies had very little to gain by sending a person to the moon.
I wasn't talking about government programs like going to the moon. I think a severe overload of politics has invaded scietific research becsue of all the government grant money.
As far as peer review, again, instruct me how the system has been preventing new ideas from coming to fruition? If an idea is powerful enough, those who opposed it look like buffoons. Let time do its work.
I'm sorry, but I cannot tolerate all the garbage and extraneous journals in the meantime. Look at the lifetime of string theory!!
String theory has resulted in as of yet, only one posited test, and one confirmed novel explanation.
1 confirmation doesn't make it automatically viable, but lets remember here that the confirmation was derived by thinking about the universe in the way of Strings that lead to novel mathematics. (Without String Theory, we may NEVER have found an equation that would explain that phenomenon.)
So... while again even I don't like String Theory, I'm not as ready to dismiss it readily as you seem to be here. Remember that philosophy tends to precede culture by about 200 years; I think that theoretical physics is probably about 200 years ahead of experimental physics in a very similar fashion. Again, I'm not saying that String Theory is correct, but the avenues it has opened into exploring our universe I think are literally at the cutting edge, bleeding edge as the phrase may turn.
As far as all of the journals, etc., when has this ever been different? I remind you that there used to be journals of phrenology and eugenics not 100 years ago. It's not for you or I to judge the ultimate importance of many of these journals until history has had its say.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 19:34 (4722 days ago) @ xeno6696
It is not just waiting for new ideas to perculate up. Read the last two paragraphs of this new comment on climategate. There are immediate concerns when consensus science and governmental expenditure policies get mixed as they are today. Peer review and consensus science are an enormous danger!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html?KEYWORDS...
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 00:00 (4722 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 00:13
It is not just waiting for new ideas to perculate up. Read the last two paragraphs of this new comment on climategate. There are immediate concerns when consensus science and governmental expenditure policies get mixed as they are today. Peer review and consensus science are an enormous danger!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html?KEYWORDS...
I've done digging, and if you go back to the original hacking incident, there is only ONE email that was used to declare the whole thing a hoax, and that email simply referenced a "trick."
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/6/uXesBhYwdRo
^^^I would like your thoughts on this.
[EDIT]
This (and all the other videos) are from a journalist who has been working on climate science for 20 years.
I added a link. It's 20 minutes total, but these two look very critically at the hacked emails.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 02:16 (4722 days ago) @ xeno6696
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/6/uXesBhYwdRo^^^I would like your thoughts on this.
[EDIT]
This (and all the other videos) are from a journalist who has been working on climate science for 20 years.
I have followed this controversy very closely on Steve McEntyre, WUWT; I read Pat Michaels books, followed Fred Singer, etc. Michael Mann produced a fraudulent 'hockey stick' graph, which is now totally discredited, imho. Michael Mann gets 3 million dollars a year for his grant money. His is big business. I have never questioned the the Earth is warming, and human-produced Co2 contributes. But so does sun spot cycles, cloud cover, cosmic waves striking clouds, and on and on. For the past 10 years the temperature is flat. The emails mention that. But Co2 has gone up another 10+ ppm: Co2 and temps are never in lockstep. Those last two paragraphs in the article are the key issue. Third world countries in the UN want the first world countries to give them money to mitigate the 'Co2 problem'. It is all about following the money!
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 19:42 (4721 days ago) @ David Turell
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/6/uXesBhYwdRo^^^I would like your thoughts on this.
[EDIT]
This (and all the other videos) are from a journalist who has been working on climate science for 20 years.
Here is another view from the wsj:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html?KEYWORDS...
your guy is gullible, and I don't know why.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 21:47 (4721 days ago) @ David Turell
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/6/uXesBhYwdRo^^^I would like your thoughts on this.
[EDIT]
This (and all the other videos) are from a journalist who has been working on climate science for 20 years.
Here is another view from the wsj:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html?KEYWORDS...
your guy is gullible, and I don't know why.
If you watched the entire 20min, I don't think he's gullible at all. In fact, the only judgment he makes in both videos are on the political pundits. (Idiots like Limbaugh and Inhofe.) He makes reference to other climate skeptics that have appeared in the peer reviewed literature, and addresses their points. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.
But about the discussion about those fraudulent emails, he explains everything surrounding them and on why those two emails (touted by some of the same experts mentioned above) don't suggest a mass conspiracy.
If you watched the 20 minutes, you would also know that one of the two emailers was criticizing Mann's data back in '98. Where's the conspiracy, David?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 00:49 (4721 days ago) @ xeno6696
If you watched the entire 20min, I don't think he's gullible at all. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.But about the discussion about those fraudulent emails, he explains everything surrounding them and on why those two emails (touted by some of the same experts mentioned above) don't suggest a mass conspiracy.
Where's the conspiracy, David?
The conspiracy is a combination of points: The grants that Mann and others get, the billions the third world wants and the phony IPCC with all of its errors and faked data. Maybe conspiracy is the wrong word by definition, but politics and money have gotten some interesting bedfellows in the same boat.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 03:41 (4721 days ago) @ David Turell
If you watched the entire 20min, I don't think he's gullible at all. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.But about the discussion about those fraudulent emails, he explains everything surrounding them and on why those two emails (touted by some of the same experts mentioned above) don't suggest a mass conspiracy.
Where's the conspiracy, David?
The conspiracy is a combination of points: The grants that Mann and others get, the billions the third world wants and the phony IPCC with all of its errors and faked data. Maybe conspiracy is the wrong word by definition, but politics and money have gotten some interesting bedfellows in the same boat.
All I'm saying is this: Accusations of fraud in the science have been flying around for at least 6 years, with no real fruit. Scientists are really good at tearing each other down.
Let's not also forget the cloning hoax.
So Mann gets a grant of 3.0M. How much of that pays his mortgage? How much of it for further research? I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure there's rules in place to prevent you from using grant money to buy yourself nice things. I know at UNMC we had to keep grant money separate for those researchers working on embryonic cell lines due to Bush's archaic prohibitions. So... to me the argument of "There's a lot of money" doesn't really ring true. Where's all the evidence of corrupted spending that you would expect?
[EDIT]
Public money requires auditors.
Obviously it doesn't always work, but military contractors often face a cut of funding when research doesn't pan out.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 05:44 (4721 days ago) @ xeno6696
Where's all the evidence of corrupted spending that you would expect?
You keep ignoring the UN IPCC and the third world with its hand out. It is more than just Mann. (Have you given study to the hockey stick debacle). It is liberal governments that want more and more control through blaming C02., and by the way Limbaugh quotes Roy Spencer as his guiding scientist and advisor.
You are arguing with me from very superficial study of the issue. I have a paper from many years ago at the Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, on line, reviewing Pat Michaels' objections., "Satanic Gases". A LoneStar college discussion group (mainly professors) to which I belonged when in Tomball.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 14:58 (4720 days ago) @ David Turell
Note this editorial from the Wash. Times. Their key issue is the influence on governments' money.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/a-climate-of-fraud/
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 23:33 (4720 days ago) @ David Turell
Where's all the evidence of corrupted spending that you would expect?
You keep ignoring the UN IPCC and the third world with its hand out. It is more than just Mann. (Have you given study to the hockey stick debacle). It is liberal governments that want more and more control through blaming C02., and by the way Limbaugh quotes Roy Spencer as his guiding scientist and advisor.
No ignorance, but as a lay person in the world of climate science, there is simply too much confusion for me to make up my mind firmly:
1. I definitely accept that a warming trend is happening. (Denying this... borders malfeasance.)
2. I am less confident that humans are the cause.
2a. Ice core data was the piece that really cinched it for me... I have heard of no accusations of forging of this data.
3. I am completely for doing something about it, as long as the solutions are of a market-based nature. (ie, no carbon tax, but I fully support new technologies.)
I feel that, having reviewed pieces (by far not all) literature, that the only argument that holds any weight against climate change is the idea of stations recording near heat islands. However, with the 70 stations that Watts and his followers have found that were acceptable--the data from those stations still tracks to the same trend as the aggregate.
As for the money and the allegations of third-world moneybegging...
I don't buy it. I'm expected to believe, that a consensus of first-world scientists are working in conjunction with third-world countries to funnel them money? Really?
You are arguing with me from very superficial study of the issue. I have a paper from many years ago at the Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, on line, reviewing Pat Michaels' objections., "Satanic Gases". A LoneStar college discussion group (mainly professors) to which I belonged when in Tomball.
Climate science isn't my area. I've paid attention to Watts since you posted his link some years ago, but you do know that his books are published by the same PR company that backs big tobacco? That might not seem pertinent, but it informs me that Watts might himself be in the lucrative business of selling books--of which it can be easy to do when controversial subjects are broached.
Sun spots have been debunked. The only thing left standing is us... in terms of real explanations.
Have you heard of the theory of infinite dispersal? You might have... you were in high school when the theory would have been common. It was debunked by acid rain, and the demonstration that sulfuric compounds released by factories caused it.
And if we look at the weight of money, oil companies stand to lose far more by alternate energy sources than third world countries stand to gain. (Which third world countries... no one has ever bothered to answer me that question.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Thursday, December 01, 2011, 00:51 (4720 days ago) @ xeno6696
No ignorance, but as a lay person in the world of climate science, there is simply too much confusion for me to make up my mind firmly:
Fair enough. now we are having a valid discussion.
1. I definitely accept that a warming trend is happening. (Denying this... borders malfeasance.)
No question. There are a hugh number of factors, only some of which are well understood. For example most Co2 is volcano produced.
2. I am less confident that humans are the cause.
I am confident that humans are somewhat a part of the cause. How large is that somewhat, i don't know.
2a. Ice core data was the piece that really cinched it for me... I have heard of no accusations of forging of this data.
Correct
3. I am completely for doing something about it, as long as the solutions are of a market-based nature. (ie, no carbon tax, but I fully support new technologies.)
Of course, but listen to Bjorn Lomborg and use new money-requiring processes sparingly until we are sure what the best technologies will be for the future. I think ocean wave production of electricity may be an excellent one.
I feel that, having reviewed pieces (by far not all) literature, that the only argument that holds any weight against climate change is the idea of stations recording near heat islands. However, with the 70 stations that Watts and his followers have found that were acceptable--the data from those stations still tracks to the same trend as the aggregate.
Agreed. But using UHI's has exaggerated the trend.
As for the money and the allegations of third-world moneybegging...I don't buy it. I'm expected to believe, that a consensus of first-world scientists are working in conjunction with third-world countries to funnel them money? Really?
Then why has the IPCC produced such phony stuff like the disappearing glaciers by 2030?
Did you see Spencers credentials?
Climate science isn't my area. I've paid attention to Watts since you posted his link some years ago, but you do know that his books are published by the same PR company that backs big tobacco?
PR companies make money. Not all their clients have the same politics and philosophies.
Sun spots have been debunked. The only thing left standing is us... in terms of real explanations.
My reading says the sun cycles and sun spots are not debunked.
Have you heard of the theory of infinite dispersal? You might have... you were in high school when the theory would have been common. It was debunked by acid rain, and the demonstration that sulfuric compounds released by factories caused it.
I know the acid rain story, not of infinite dispersal.
And if we look at the weight of money, oil companies stand to lose far more by alternate energy sources than third world countries stand to gain. (Which third world countries... no one has ever bothered to answer me that question.)
Mainly African. And carbon-based fuel is still making 80% of our energy and will have to for some time into the future or we will use up all our capital.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 01, 2011, 01:01 (4720 days ago) @ xeno6696
Could you please elaborate on which portion of sun spots/solar activity have been debunked? I only ask because right now I am personally dealing with the effects of a lot of solar activity because it is interfering with our GPS/Radio/Correction signals.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 01, 2011, 04:13 (4720 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Could you please elaborate on which portion of sun spots/solar activity have been debunked? I only ask because right now I am personally dealing with the effects of a lot of solar activity because it is interfering with our GPS/Radio/Correction signals.
If you have 10 minutes,
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI
Describes a paper that refutes solar activity as the cause of the current global warming.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Thursday, December 01, 2011, 05:13 (4720 days ago) @ xeno6696
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 01, 2011, 05:20
Could you please elaborate on which portion of sun spots/solar activity have been debunked? I only ask because right now I am personally dealing with the effects of a lot of solar activity because it is interfering with our GPS/Radio/Correction signals.
If you have 10 minutes,http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI
Describes a paper that refutes solar activity as the cause of the current global warming.
Matt: You have cherry-picked one U-tube video with a few papers on one side. Lindzen is still producing papers that say he is correct. The last 10-11 years the temps have been flat and the sun spot cycle is very low.
Sallie Baliunis would strongly disagree with you, and she is a leading solar expert. I can always pick the other side. This is a huge argument with no clear result.
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360
And Michael Mann (hockey stick) says her work is totally flawed
Remember the phony IPCC assertions. The rule is still follow the money.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, December 02, 2011, 00:56 (4719 days ago) @ David Turell
Could you please elaborate on which portion of sun spots/solar activity have been debunked? I only ask because right now I am personally dealing with the effects of a lot of solar activity because it is interfering with our GPS/Radio/Correction signals.
If you have 10 minutes,http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI
Describes a paper that refutes solar activity as the cause of the current global warming.
Matt: You have cherry-picked one U-tube video with a few papers on one side. Lindzen is still producing papers that say he is correct. The last 10-11 years the temps have been flat and the sun spot cycle is very low.
Sallie Baliunis would strongly disagree with you, and she is a leading solar expert. I can always pick the other side. This is a huge argument with no clear result.http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/90.pdf
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080213/NEWS08/802130360
And Michael Mann (hockey stick) says her work is totally flawed
Remember the phony IPCC assertions. The rule is still follow the money.
Remember that my overall state in regards to the mess is: Confused. For every good argument, there's a good counter-argument. To me this of course makes for spirited debate, but it also makes it hard to devise clear-cut policy in regards.
Remember David, I'm a fence-sitter?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Friday, December 02, 2011, 05:18 (4719 days ago) @ xeno6696
Remember that my overall state in regards to the mess is: Confused. For every good argument, there's a good counter-argument. To me this of course makes for spirited debate, but it also makes it hard to devise clear-cut policy in regards.
Remember David, I'm a fence-sitter?
I know. Just stay very skeptical, and vote against spending money until we all know what we logically should do.
Thomas Kuhn revisited; data review
by David Turell , Friday, December 02, 2011, 05:34 (4719 days ago) @ David Turell
Another angle in the peer review process and the need to publish, is the lack of complete data availablity, with the sense that data is specifically being hidden to avoid errors being found. FOI laws are ignored, etc.
There is a push to correct this issue.
http://www.nature.com/news/psychology-must-learn-a-lesson-from-fraud-case-1.9513
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Co2 and ice sheets
by David Turell , Friday, December 02, 2011, 18:15 (4718 days ago) @ David Turell
Back to climate. Co2 jumps up and down without us humans around:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111201174225.htm
Thomas Kuhn: Karl Popper lives
by David Turell , Friday, December 02, 2011, 18:58 (4718 days ago) @ David Turell
Science is in a boil, from 8,000 journals in 1970 to almost 31,000 now. And 2/3rds of the stuff (in the medical drug interest area) is not reproducable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672541590.html?KEYWORDS...
Furthermore there are liberal and conservative views of proposed theories, as rigid as the folks in Congress in the USA.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577058111041127168.html?KEYWORDS...
Scientific research has exploded, but is it real, and is peer review really helping or hindering? Comments, Matt?
Thomas Kuhn revisited;Climate skepticism
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 06, 2011, 14:36 (4714 days ago) @ David Turell
Land-based measures of temperature covers 30% of the global surface. These recorders are poorly sited, affected by UHI effects (urban heat islands), and the only source of rising temperature measurements. Be skeptical of all the IPCC global warming hype:
http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/06/salvaging_the_mythology_of_manca...
Thomas Kuhn revisited;Climate skepticism
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 06, 2011, 15:49 (4714 days ago) @ David Turell
Land-based measures of temperature covers 30% of the global surface. These recorders are poorly sited, affected by UHI effects (urban heat islands), and the only source of rising temperature measurements. Be skeptical of all the IPCC global warming hype:
http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/06/salvaging_the_mythology_of_manca...
Be very skeptical of computer models for air temperature, which do not take everything around the Earth into account. Do these folks really know what they are studying?:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=three-quarters-of-climate
Thomas Kuhn revisited; Co2 and ice sheets
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 01, 2012, 15:57 (4657 days ago) @ David Turell
Back to climate. Co2 jumps up and down without us humans around: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111201174225.htm-New research suggests the arrival of plants cooled the Earth enough for ice ages-http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-ice-ages.html
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 00:07 (4722 days ago) @ David Turell
For my real reply, I must ask you, how does science work if it doesn't work by consensus?
Don't technical experts need to agree that a theory is an answer, for it to be an accepted theory? For example, isn't it true that more than one doctor must agree that strep is caused by bacteria in order for all doctors to claim that strep is caused by bacteria? Or is Jenny McCarthy right that thimerosol causes Autism?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Thomas Kuhn revisited; for Matt especially
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 02:19 (4722 days ago) @ xeno6696
For my real reply, I must ask you, how does science work if it doesn't work by consensus?
Don't technical experts need to agree that a theory is an answer, for it to be an accepted theory? For example, isn't it true that more than one doctor must agree that strep is caused by bacteria in order for all doctors to claim that strep is caused by bacteria? Or is Jenny McCarthy right that thimerosol causes Autism?
Consensus leads to directions for advancing research, but lock-step consensus is what I object to, limiting the spread of directions.