How the GW myth is perpetuated


Tonington
#1801
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post


There is no cosmic microwave background.

Simply asserting that doesn't make it so. What does Thunderbolts say the telescopes are measuring then in the microwave range of frequencies?
 
darkbeaver
#1802
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Simply asserting that doesn't make it so. What does Thunderbolts say the telescopes are measuring then in the microwave range of frequencies?

The foreground.

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014

Posted on June 3, 2014 by sschirott
For nearly 150 years despite the lack of observational evidence, the Sun has been considered to be a ball of gaseous material. Such a postulate rests on mathematical arguments. Nonetheless, observations, not mathematics, properly determine the phases of matter. In … Continue reading →
 
Tonington
#1803
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The foreground.

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014

Posted on June 3, 2014 by sschirott
For nearly 150 years despite the lack of observational evidence, the Sun has been considered to be a ball of gaseous material. Such a postulate rests on mathematical arguments. Nonetheless, observations, not mathematics, properly determine the phases of matter. In … Continue reading →

...there's that alternative reality again. I'm being serious, what is being measured at great disatnces in the microwave range of frequencies? If 'the foreground' is your alternative reality, then it's time for me to say good night!
 
darkbeaver
+2
#1804
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

Which scientists are we to believe is my question? Whose PHD is to trusted?

Goodnight.

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background | EU2014

Posted on April 25, 2014 by sschirott
Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the setting of temperatures, using the laws of thermal emission, required enclosure. Clearly, the Big Bang can never meet this requirement. In this presentation, it is demonstrated that the microwave fields, which surround the earth and have excited distant molecules, can be generated by the hydrogen bond within water in the condensed state. A review of the COBE and WMAP are presented, revealing that the microwave anisotropy maps have no scientific validity. The data lack both signal to noise and reproducibility. Furthermore, the PLANCK satellite findings is discussed. These data provide unambiguous evidence that powerful microwave fields do not exist at L2. Penzias and Wilson measured water on Earth. The correct assignment of this signal is vital to better understanding our own planet.
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

very entertaining lectures
 
Tonington
#1805
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

Which scientists are we to believe is my question? Whose PHD is to trusted?

Well before diving into this, I have to say first of all that it's ironic for you of all people to give a rat's @ss about whether or not someone has a PhD. If the process of science framed by politics is as flawed as you say it is, then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting. And second, thanks for actually giving an answer. You're one of the better skeptics that at least isn't afraid to put something out there.

Well, I find it helps to read the source material . You could try that, and do a little bit of research yourself. Might take longer than your cut and pastes though

So the synopsis of the paper is, because astrophysicists don't meet the standards for medical imaging, even though the cosmic microwave background emerges from two independent datasets, it surely then must be a product of something happening on Earth, (no evidence presented for that) and further all cosmological investigations using the satellites are statistically insignificant (also, no hypothesis tested). To call that anything short of an article of faith would be disingenuous.

So what is the relevance of contamination in biological image sampling compared to the contamination in cosmological image sampling? Not addressed. That's like me complaining about failure analysis used by rocket scientists on an engine component because they didn't use the censoring conventions I use with survival curves in an efficacy experiment with lethal end points. Different problems, different methods for handling them. Not all are appropriate for a given application...

And for irony, he objects to the blackbody temperatures because he claims Kirchoff's and Planck's Law (oh double irony beav, he referred to the Planck Constant!) requires that the emitting sample is sufficiently like graphite or soot. It actually does not . That's ironic, because the blackbody radiation given off by the cosmic microwave background, is better than the curve you get if you examine graphite or soot. It's by far the best blackbody curve we can observe. Just google "perfect blackbody spectrum", and doa bit of reading, see what pops up. Spoiler alert, it's the cosmic microwave background.

But kudos for following someone who brings the creation of the universe back to Earth. You're so retro with your geocentric universe.

Now, why don't you tell me what you think of this paper of his Beav?
 
darkbeaver
+1
#1806
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Well before diving into this, I have to say first of all that it's ironic for you of all people to give a rat's @ss about whether or not someone has a PhD. If the process of science framed by politics is as flawed as you say it is, then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting. And second, thanks for actually giving an answer. You're one of the better skeptics that at least isn't afraid to put something out there.

Well, I find it helps to read the source material . You could try that, and do a little bit of research yourself. Might take longer than your cut and pastes though

So the synopsis of the paper is, because astrophysicists don't meet the standards for medical imaging, even though the cosmic microwave background emerges from two independent datasets, it surely then must be a product of something happening on Earth, (no evidence presented for that) and further all cosmological investigations using the satellites are statistically insignificant (also, no hypothesis tested). To call that anything short of an article of faith would be disingenuous.

So what is the relevance of contamination in biological image sampling compared to the contamination in cosmological image sampling? Not addressed. That's like me complaining about failure analysis used by rocket scientists on an engine component because they didn't use the censoring conventions I use with survival curves in an efficacy experiment with lethal end points. Different problems, different methods for handling them. Not all are appropriate for a given application...

And for irony, he objects to the blackbody temperatures because he claims Kirchoff's and Planck's Law (oh double irony beav, he referred to the Planck Constant!) requires that the emitting sample is sufficiently like graphite or soot. It actually does not . That's ironic, because the blackbody radiation given off by the cosmic microwave background, is better than the curve you get if you examine graphite or soot. It's by far the best blackbody curve we can observe. Just google "perfect blackbody spectrum", and doa bit of reading, see what pops up. Spoiler alert, it's the cosmic microwave background.

But kudos for following someone who brings the creation of the universe back to Earth. You're so retro with your geocentric universe.

Now, why don't you tell me what you think of this paper of his Beav?

I will certainly get back two U. I am just a poor chicken farmer suffering a curiosity about the fabric of the onionverse. I see that the term , "recognized leading world exponent of magnetic imaging" carries little weight with you, I might have to use names like Kellogs or Hienz to impress you.
 
Tonington
+1
#1807
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I see that the term , "recognized leading world exponent of magnetic imaging" carries little weight with you, I might have to use names like Kellogs or Hienz to impress you.

Nobody is immune from being a crank. He's a radiology professor, which could explain why he get's the physics on Black body spectrum so wrong.

Recognized expert by whom? No, an appeal to authority does not carry that much weight with me, and again, I find it very ironic that it does with you. That's almost like referring to a consensus without examining the details.

For shame, beav.
 
darkbeaver
#1808
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Well before diving into this, I have to say first of all that it's ironic for you of all people to give a rat's @ss about whether or not someone has a PhD. If the process of science framed by politics is as flawed as you say it is, then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting. And second, thanks for actually giving an answer. You're one of the better skeptics that at least isn't afraid to put something out there.

But kudos for following someone who brings the creation of the universe back to Earth. You're so retro with your geocentric universe.

Now, why don't you tell me what you think of this paper of his Beav?

You present an interesting question," then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting", My cut and paste approach after all this time certainly can't be misunderstood as expertise in any subject, but that does not invalidate the trust I have in my understanding. As you know your own understanding is a sum of all that's come before you so to suggest I isolate and contain my thoughts to a personal box and exclude my superiors is a recipe for error. It is also impossible.
You make other points of interest "creation of the universe" followed by "back to earth" followed by "geocentric universe", creationism is hard to avoid for the human mind ain't it? Are you arguing that the mind of humanity is not centered on earth? Since we are confined physically to earth how is a mistake to consider a geocentric universe as a valid argument in an infinite universe with no recognizable form of containment? The materialist school manically searches for physical material centers but it's not matter that defines humanity it is mind.

Enough dodging your post, I confess and admit I can't do the math and won't. We have scribes and astrologers for that sort of mundane labour.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Nov 23rd, 2014 at 09:10 AM..
 
Tonington
#1809
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

You present an interesting question," then you should trust your own understanding of what you're posting", My cut and paste approach after all this time certainly can't be misunderstood as expertise in any subject, but that does not invalidate the trust I have in my understanding. As you know your own understanding is a sum of all that's come before you so to suggest I isolate and contain my thoughts to a personal box and exclude my superiors is a recipe for error. It is also impossible.

There are no experts in here...the irony I'm driving at though is that when you make posts critical about peer review, about vested interests, about the consensus, it's really no different in the end than what you just did. You posted an article that is popular amongst a group of people and trusted that someone knew what they were talking about. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm very good at checking sources.

I think that asking about the relevance of nuclear medicine conventions to satellite imaging of the cosmos is a fair question, and should be answered before attacking data for not using that convention. I think a reviewer of his paper should have asked for that. Maybe he has a very good answer, but he hasn't stated it. That, would make his paper much stronger.

Quote:

Enough dodging your post, I confess and admit I can't do the math and won't.

A for effort.
 
darkbeaver
+2
#1810
I trust my intuition, I know that's akin to consulting chicken guts but It's all I got. Thus far in life its worked and I have no other options.
Always fun to talk with you, thanks.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#1811
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

There are no experts in here...the irony I'm driving at though is that when you make posts critical about peer review, about vested interests, about the consensus, it's really no different in the end than what you just did. You posted an article that is popular amongst a group of people and trusted that someone knew what they were talking about. I'm certainly no expert, but I'm very good at checking sources.

I think that asking about the relevance of nuclear medicine conventions to satellite imaging of the cosmos is a fair question, and should be answered before attacking data for not using that convention. I think a reviewer of his paper should have asked for that. Maybe he has a very good answer, but he hasn't stated it. That, would make his paper much stronger.



A for effort.

It is a fair question and upon further reading it seems the only difference between the two fields is scale.
 
Tonington
+1
#1812
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

it seems the only difference between the two fields is scale.

Hardly, but it's certainly one of them. Surely you can think of some of your own differences. For instance, a magnetic imager in a hospital is not peering around planets, and stars.

Some more questions upon further reading, how exactly does a microwave curve around and follow a trajectory opposite to the vector it originally was emitted/propagated at from the ocean? That is the only way it could have entered the FIRAS spectrophotomoeter, which is pointed away from Earth. Line of sight...it matters.

Supposing he could give an acceptable answer for that, if the cosmic microwave background is contamination from the ocean, why does the CMB signal of 2.7K show up when measuring from the Lagrange points? If it is moving like he said, and it's random, then two things would be expected. First, the 2.7 K signal would not be so reliably produced every time. Second, measuring from a distance further out would reduce the contamination, and the signal would be smaller still. Except it isn't. Measuring from the Lagrange points yields the same signal. If the radiation from the ocean is moving about as Robitaille says, this two things would not be possible. But it should have been obvious beforehand, energy radiated from an object propagates by line of sight...

My final comment on this, microwaves are used for point to point communication. Microwaves have big advantages over lower energy frequencies like radiowaves, one being the amount of information they can carry. However one downside is that the receiver and transmitter have to be pointing at one another. Tower to tower, tower to satellite, they all have to be aligned precisely, or their utility for communication is destroyed.

Microwaves just don't behave the way Robitaille says they do. Ever seen an x-ray machine pointed away from the tissue it's being used to produce images of?
 
darkbeaver
#1813
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Hardly, but it's certainly one of them. Surely you can think of some of your own differences. For instance, a magnetic imager in a hospital is not peering around planets, and stars.

Some more questions upon further reading, how exactly does a microwave curve around and follow a trajectory opposite to the vector it originally was emitted/propagated at from the ocean? That is the only way it could have entered the FIRAS spectrophotomoeter, which is pointed away from Earth. Line of sight...it matters.

Supposing he could give an acceptable answer for that, if the cosmic microwave background is contamination from the ocean, why does the CMB signal of 2.7K show up when measuring from the Lagrange points? If it is moving like he said, and it's random, then two things would be expected. First, the 2.7 K signal would not be so reliably produced every time. Second, measuring from a distance further out would reduce the contamination, and the signal would be smaller still. Except it isn't. Measuring from the Lagrange points yields the same signal. If the radiation from the ocean is moving about as Robitaille says, this two things would not be possible. But it should have been obvious beforehand, energy radiated from an object propagates by line of sight...

My final comment on this, microwaves are used for point to point communication. Microwaves have big advantages over lower energy frequencies like radiowaves, one being the amount of information they can carry. However one downside is that the receiver and transmitter have to be pointing at one another. Tower to tower, tower to satellite, they all have to be aligned precisely, or their utility for communication is destroyed.

Microwaves just don't behave the way Robitaille says they do. Ever seen an x-ray machine pointed away from the tissue it's being used to produce images of?

You should watch his two lectures I believe I left links. You suggested a clip to me a few days ago that I havn't found.
A brain is very much like space in construction believe it or not.

Smoots results are not reproduceable, that's fatal.



Dr. Pierre Latour: Engineering Earth’s Thermostat with CO2 | EU2014

Posted on May 6, 2014 by sschirott
In Dr. Latour’s presentation, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, economics, history and ethics are deployed to identify the barriers to designing the thermostat to control Earth’s atmospheric temperature by adjusting its CO2 input. He explains that Earth’s temperature is a chemical process system. Review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with anthropogenic CO2 in 1997 proved it will never work because it is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2. There are no greenhouse gases in physics. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is green plant food. He goes on to explain that people have beliefs and knowledge. Knowledge of nature is discovered by the scientific method: theory in the language of nature (mathematics), prediction and verification. Such discoveries are held to be true until falsified. Dr. Latour offers claims supported by credible evidence, settled science and warrants how one can know that they are true. Sound engineering requires no less.
Dr. Pierre Latour is a Chemical Engineer, Vice-Chairman, Principia-Scientific International and consultant for identifying, capturing and sustaining measurable benefits from process control, IT and CIM in the HPI by proper determination of operating conditions and the financial benefit of dynamic performance to support licensing solutions based on value-added, shared-risk shared-reward (SR2) business alliances. Justified and installed advanced process control on most oil refinery and petrochemical processes for 62 clients worldwide since 1966. Greenhouse Gas Theory skeptic: CO2 induced global warming and climate change. In addition, Dr. Latour is the Vice President of business development, marketing, engineering, projects and consulting at AspenTech, Dynamic Matrix Control Corp, Setpoint and Biles & Assoc. Chairman of Setpoint Japan and cofounded the last three firms. Further, he is an engineer at Shell Oil and DuPont; Captain, US Army and Apollo Program Simulation Branch Manager, NASA MSC, Houston. CONTROL Magazine Engineer of the Year 1999 and Purdue University Outstanding Chemical Engineer 2007. Authored 87 publications, Cimfuels editor for Fuels. PE TX & CA. Latour holds BS, ChE, VaTech, MS & PhD, ChE, Purdue University.
www.principia-scientific.org
Last edited by darkbeaver; Nov 23rd, 2014 at 06:17 PM..
 
petros
#1814
Quote:

Review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with anthropogenic CO2 in 1997 proved it will never work because it is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2. There are no greenhouse gases in physics

Hmmmm
 
darkbeaver
+1
#1815
A lecture full of numbers and real hardware, crushes the CO2 theory to death. CO2 for dummys.

"There are no green house gases in physics."
 
Tonington
#1816
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Review of control system engineering of Earth’s thermostat with anthropogenic CO2 in 1997 proved it will never work because it is an unmeasurable, unobservable and uncontrollable system. CO2 does not affect temperature; temperature affects CO2. There are no greenhouse gases in physics.

Just how far does your denial go though? Do you deny that greenhouse gases are opaque to IR? You've come full circle again. I can give you the test procedure to figure this out at home. So long as you can get a canister of N2, Alka Seltzer tablets, pop bottles, some pressure relief valves, and thermometers, the greenhouse effect can be demonstrated experimentally without needing fancy laboratory equipment. As a bonus the experiment uses the sun, so no foolish denier can tell you that you ignored the sun when you demonstrate the greenhouse effect to be true.

But it's already been done in labs . As early as 1859.

Oh, and the video clip was a lecture given by Richard Alley
Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube
 
darkbeaver
#1817
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Hmmmm

Logically that should be the end of this thread. That man is a licensed Engineer not some fuzzy headed scientist.
 
Tonington
#1818
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Logically that should be the end of this thread.

Only in your alternative reality, which we've already established.
 
darkbeaver
#1819
I just talking about you.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Just how far does your denial go though? Do you deny that greenhouse gases are opaque to IR? You've come full circle again. I can give you the test procedure to figure this out at home. So long as you can get a canister of N2, Alka Seltzer tablets, pop bottles, some pressure relief valves, and thermometers, the greenhouse effect can be demonstrated experimentally without needing fancy laboratory equipment. As a bonus the experiment uses the sun, so no foolish denier can tell you that you ignored the sun when you demonstrate the greenhouse effect to be true.

But it's already been done in labs . As early as 1859.

Oh, and the video clip was a lecture given by Richard Alley
Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube

An Engineer has spoken, the thread is closed.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Only in your alternative reality, which we've already established.

Well that Engineer has thousands of believers who've paid him millions and millions of dollars to design controls for billion dollar projects, and they all work to specs. Smoot and company make interpretive unreproduceable modern art.

I'm forced to go with the guy who builds working models everyday.
 
darkbeaver
#1820
"Science is essentially and irrefutably so, the pursuit and enhancement of alternatives to contemporary realities." Dr Glass Beaker PHD
 
captain morgan
+2
#1821
Is this the Dr. Beaker to whom you refer?

 
darkbeaver
+3
#1822
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Is this the Dr. Beaker to whom you refer?

Yes that's him, he's deceased now, an unfortunate accident with fissile material in the pursuit of science. I watched all his lectures when I was younger. Brilliant man, the world misses him.
 
captain morgan
+1
#1823
I believe that the above photo was taken mere moments prior to the melt-down that lead to his untimely demise
 
darkbeaver
#1824
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I believe that the above photo was taken mere moments prior to the melt-down that lead to his untimely demise

A very sad day in science. It's rare these days to encounter such dedication to humanity.

I believe he worked with Dr Bunsen on the fluid properties of chocolate.
 
Walter
+2
#1825
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

A very sad day in science. It's rare these days to encounter such dedication to humanity.

I believe he worked with Dr Bunsen on the fluid properties of chocolate.

He of the Bunsen burner. What ever happened to Drs. Retort, Pipette, Graduated Cylinder?
 
darkbeaver
+1
#1826
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

He of the Bunsen burner. What ever happened to Drs. Retort and Pipette

Retired I should imagine.

Young people today don't know about these pioneers.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#1827
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/201...in-the-wind-2/

Electric fields freely accelerate charged particles, which move outward in opposite directions, activating an electric current that follows the Sun’s magnetic field. That field is carried into Earth’s electrical environment along gigantic Birkeland current filaments. It was reported elsewhere that in September 2002 a major premise of Electric Universe theory was confirmed: weather systems on Earth are electrically connected to a field of charged particles called the ionosphere. Dual bands of plasma shining in ultraviolet light were found by the IMAGE satellite. The plasma streams are circling the Earth in opposite directions along the equator, carrying positive and negative electric charges.

Along with that observation, the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) satellites found what were called “space tornadoes” (Birkeland currents), electrified plasma vortices rotating faster than 1,600,000 kilometers per hour, about 64,000 kilometers from Earth. The THEMIS satellites, together with Earth-based stations, verified that those charged plasma formations are connected to the ionosphere. This means that the Sun is directly coupled to lightning generators on Earth—otherwise called thunderstorms.
As previously written, the capacitor effect is probably what contributes to lightning discharges. Capacitors are usually made of two conductors separated by an insulating medium, or dielectric insulator. An electric charge on one conductor attracts an opposite charge to the other conductor, resulting in an electric field between them that acts as an electrical energy reserve. Thunderstorms are most likely behaving like capacitors: the clouds are one plate, the ground another, and the atmosphere is the dielectric insulator.
Since the clouds are connected to the ionosphere, electric charges carried into the ionosphere by the solar wind cause increases in the electrical energy in the clouds, which also increases the stored charge in the ground. That accumulated charge overcomes the atmosphere’s ability to keep the two separate, so they reach out to each other in the form of “leader strokes.” When the two lightning leaders meet, a circuit between the clouds and the ground (or between one cloud and another) is completed: lightning flashes.
 
CDNBear
+3
#1828
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Yes, that's all true. I just don't get how it's inconvenient? How is it inconvenient, besides the fact that here I am explaining how these were not mainstream findings?

How were they not mainstream findings? They were broadcast globally as the pitfalls of the AGW model. The dire predictions or our not so glorious future.

And they never came to to fruition. True, convenient, in a thank gawd sorta way. But they were the face of the message, the blurtings of the bobbleheads on the nightly news and the fodder for forums for years.

The fact that they didn't come fruition is inconvenient for the pushers.

Quote:

This is what happens, in every field. Like when I mentioned some scientists dispute evolution- that's not inconvenient to those biologists in the mainstream who accept the findings and theory of evolution. I'm not concerned at all that some people are wrong. It's expected, and it means that there is a competition among ideas. I'd be concerned if there weren't any wrong hypotheses. The fact that there are is normal. In my field right now, there is a big debate on the temperature impacts on immune development. Some people think the low temperatures in some hatcheries are leading to reduced antigen processing, and thus the fish have weaker immune responses when transferred to sea. Others think it has more to do with how fast the vaccine emulsion-water mixed in oil- breaks down, so how long the antigen is available for processing before the two phases separate and the residue is broken down. Eventually, there will be enough data available that we'll be able to piece together what the real story is, but that's no guarantee that all of the immunologists and vaccinologists are going to accept it, especially after studying this for some 10-20 years for some of them, if not more.

Neat, so in the mean time, what are you guys doing about it?

Quote:

Really, what I'm objecting to is lumping everyone together. That's just wrong, and it happens all the time. Every single new thread that gets posted, the usual suspects are here, and whenever they can't dispute something, they often will say something along the lines of the IPCC and East Anglia are corrupt, and that's sufficient for them to dismiss any new findings. That's just plain bull $hit.

To you, a scientist, it's bullsh*t. To the those of us in trades, it's what we can read and understand.

Quote:

Being wrong, of course it matters. I just don't see how it's inconvenient in this case.

It's inconvenient to the pushers.
 
waldo
-1
#1829

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

How were they not mainstream findings? They were broadcast globally as the pitfalls of the AGW model. The dire predictions or our not so glorious future.

And they never came to to fruition. True, convenient, in a thank gawd sorta way. But they were the face of the message, the blurtings of the bobbleheads on the nightly news and the fodder for forums for years.

they were/are not mainstream scientific positions/findings. Surely, media projection isn't your measure of "mainstream science"... is it? The sorry state of media coverage of science is a reflection of the ever-diminishing reliance on things like news agencies that simply host articles for broad distribution. Corporate right-sizing and the bottom-line has all but ended the positioning of dedicated and knowledgeable "science journalists"... those who knew enough to converse with actual scientists in order to bring information to the layperson. And, equally, in the past, scientists didn't recognize the importance of conveying their findings to a general populace. Today, we have significant outside influences working to push dubious scientific information up into the mainstream media outlets... and... we have no shortage of tabloid type sources simply attempting to sell stories to pad their bottom-line finances.

one could challenge you directly to make your case that those items mentioned in that graphic were mainstream science positions/findings... however, I doubt you'd take up that challenge. One could go through each and every one of those and show what little scientific standing they had... of course, that would take some effort to flush out... and even then, those with an agenda intending to perpetuate items within that graphic wouldn't accept what was presented anyway.

a case in point: from that graphic, " the 70's Global Cooling meme ":

an assortment of meta-studies have actually looked at scientific publications during that period in question in an attempt to put to rest this meme. Example: the Peterson et al paper that most authoritatively speaks to what publications existed in the '65-to-79 year' period and what position/findings they held.
An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

 
taxslave
+2
#1830
Oh boy another meaningless graph.
 

Similar Threads

42
History or Myth
by darkbeaver | Aug 2nd, 2009
0
The Shortage Myth
by darkbeaver | Dec 5th, 2007
35
How the Myth of Jesus came about
by Dreadful Nonsense | Oct 27th, 2007
17
The Myth of Zarqawi
by vista | Oct 24th, 2004