This *precisely* answers what you asked for. For everyone's benefit, let me remind you what you asked for (bolding mine):klapauzius said:Not really interested in a discussion of cold fusion (we could make a separate thread, but it wont lead anywhere). Its no parallel to AGW denial, simply because it doesn't contradict anything.
Cold fusion is exactly the case that proves my point. The consensus among scientists and the population is that cold fusion is a fraud and does not exist. That consensus has existed for 25 years now. But there have been many, many peer-reviewed papers which have demonstrated that excess heat was generated, that fusion products were produced and, in some cases, that fission products were produced.klapauzius said:RegGuheert said:Perhaps you are not aware of the history of science? The consensus view has virtually always been proven incorrect by later scientific discoveries. And those who develop the dissenting views do so by following the facts rather than the crowd. And they are typically scorned and ridiculed mercilessly by the consensus scientists. IMO, anyone who believes the consensus view in science is the correct view without confirming it themselves does not understand that consensus is quite the antithesis of science. Science is about the discovery of nature, not about forming a self-admiration society.
Please provide an example.
Bear in mind though that modern science typically is considered to have started in the Renaissance. Therefore, no medieval examples.
Also, please do not use the "flat" world example, as even in Columbus times contemporary science knew already that the world wasnt flat.
I am not aware of any major scientific debate in the past 2 centuries, where this was the case.
The most controversial hypotheses/theories in the 19th century were most likely the deep time hypothesis and the theory of evolution.
Proponents of both were met with disbelief and ridicule, but based on religious beliefs, not science.
Now I know exactly how Donald feels:klapauzius said:Do you want to give another example?
donald said::shrug:
You've done that several times in this thread - asked for an example of what I am saying, and then only to tell me that it's not relevant.
.. So why ask? ...
Like those who blindly quote the consensus view of CAGW, it's best not to quote the consensus view on cold fusion.donald said:Cold fusion is a very bad line of discussion.
How about sticking with earth-y things - Plate tectonics?
donald said:Cold fusion is a very bad line of discussion.
How about sticking with earth-y things - Plate tectonics?
Bah, he gave a poor example first, you know thatRegGuheert said:Now I know exactly how Donald feels
This is an appeal to authority argument.klapauzius said:So where is the "lively" debate among scientists in AGW?
The main critics that keep the debate alive in AGW are either amateurs or beholden to special interests.
donald said:This is an appeal to authority argument.
It should not matter what a person is 'called' because this will end up in a very poor spiral of accusation that one person isn't a 'proper climate scientist'.
I regret to disagree. I would say engineers are very scientific people, to a larger degree more scientific that scientists in that they are far more pedantic and don't tolerate the sort of imprecisions that lead to experimental bias. In general, most engineers I meet hold very similar views to myself - no major issues agreeing that CO2 could be a cause, but actually more doubtful over the measurements of global warming itself. Not rejecting, just doubtful. We've had a succession of cold summers and winters here in UK and we are still being told we're having the warmest years on record. This sort of claim is really pushing the bounds of credibility and interpreting reality.
Engineers understand the imprecisions in measurements, especially when you have to take a zillion data points and try and come up with a statistically representative value from them all. We do this sort of stuff every day and we know it always leads to ambiguities and problems - again, probably more so than scientists themselves, because we sit in meetings for hours arguing about who has the best approach to the data acquisition because we have to to make whatever it is we're doing work, then we go away, do what was decided, and only then find out one of the other suggestions was better once we have to go put our ideas into practice.
When do climate scientists put anything into practice to know how far in error they are?
Engineers like levers, buttons and things. Once a climate scientist comes up with a repeatable experiment we can do to test his theory, then we might get closer towards closing the doubts on the measurement uncertainty in global temperature measurements.
If I were a climate modeller, I would find a big barn or warehouse and I'd measure the temperature inside it over the period of a few days. If my model was unable to predict the temperatures at different points within that barn, then I'd doubt the model, because if it can't figure it out for a flat, cubic few thousand square meter enclosed area then there can be no expectation of predicting the same for an 8,000 mile diameter sphere.
The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages.
RegGuheert said:Here is a bit more high/low temperature data. I picked four locations near where some of us live.
Near Seattle, WA, there were fewer high-temperature records set than during any other decade on record.
I don't think you can use as an example something that has not yet been proven (and probably never will be).RegGuheert said:The point with cold fusion is that the consensus was, and still is, incorrect.
klapauzius said:The repeatable experiments in climate science take a long time....ramp up CO2 in the atmosphere, wait a couple centuries, collect data, see what happens, remove the CO2, wait another couple centuries collect data, see what happens. Compare data between -1000 years and now, write a paper about results....I think this is what you envision? Maybe play with some other stuff, like solar irradiance etc for another couple thousand years...Some fun things to do for the post-human supercivilization that has nailed all the problems of mortality, large scale planetary engineering and terraforming. Preferably we do this experiments with another planet.
It's been proven many thousands of times. The fact that you do not know about it means that you have not looked at scientific the literature. I've provided links that people can use to learn about the science of the past 25 years, but, like climate science, you would rather speak from hearsay instead.Stoaty said:I don't think you can use as an example something that has not yet been proven (and probably never will be).RegGuheert said:The point with cold fusion is that the consensus was, and still is, incorrect.
Record temperatures are not (yet) being adjusted to support a failed belief system.WetEV said:You think record temperatures are more reliable than average temperatures.. why?
I never said that. I wanted to see who was experiencing more extreme weather. This century, none of us are here are experiencing more extreme highs OR lows.WetEV said:You think four locations in the USA are better at estimating global temperature, much less climate that global temperature data sets and ocean temperature data sets... Why?
You've proven yourself to be an unreliable source with regards to reporting facts, while Sloaty and the others have reported information that is supported by experiment and data.RegGuheert said:It's been proven many thousands of times. The fact that you do not know about it means that you have not looked at scientific the literature. I've provided links that people can use to learn about the science of the past 25 years, but, like climate science, you would rather speak from hearsay instead.Stoaty said:I don't think you can use as an example something that has not yet been proven (and probably never will be).RegGuheert said:The point with cold fusion is that the consensus was, and still is, incorrect.
Nubo said:klapauzius said:The repeatable experiments in climate science take a long time....ramp up CO2 in the atmosphere, wait a couple centuries, collect data, see what happens, remove the CO2, wait another couple centuries collect data, see what happens. Compare data between -1000 years and now, write a paper about results....I think this is what you envision? Maybe play with some other stuff, like solar irradiance etc for another couple thousand years...Some fun things to do for the post-human supercivilization that has nailed all the problems of mortality, large scale planetary engineering and terraforming. Preferably we do this experiments with another planet.
Like…. Venus?
Those other scientists must have been napping when that happened. Reg, you really do have a soft spot for the under dog.RegGuheert said:It's been proven many thousands of times.
Cold fusion gained attention after reports in 1989 by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, then one of the world's leading electrochemists,[1] that their apparatus had produced anomalous heat ("excess heat"), of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] The small tabletop experiment involved electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode.[3]
The reported results received wide media attention,[3] and raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.[4] Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5]
By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989, a review panel organized by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) found that the evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process was not persuasive enough to start a special program, but was "sympathetic toward modest support" for experiments "within the present funding system." A second DOE review, convened in 2004 to look at new research, reached conclusions similar to the first.[10] Support within the then-present funding system did not occur.
A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,[6][11] now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).[12][13] Since cold fusion articles are rarely published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the results do not receive as much scrutiny as more mainstream topics.[14]
Stoaty said:Those other scientists must have been napping when that happened. Reg, you really do have a soft spot for the under dog.RegGuheert said:It's been proven many thousands of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LENR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, hell - not much of a parade with only one clown car.klapauzius said:Stoaty said:Those other scientists must have been napping when that happened. Reg, you really do have a soft spot for the under dog.RegGuheert said:It's been proven many thousands of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LENR" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That didnt really come as a surprise.
Lets stick with AGW.
Even Donald didnt want to touch this topic, which scores him some points in my book... :lol:
OK, can I put it another way. Reg has put up localised temps moving in a downward trend, and you've not argued with that other than to say it isn't 'global'.WetEV said:You think record temperatures are more reliable than average temperatures.. why?
donald said:OK, can I put it another way. Reg has put up localised temps moving in a downward trend, and you've not argued with that other than to say it isn't 'global'.WetEV said:You think record temperatures are more reliable than average temperatures.. why?
I'd like to reverse that and therefore ask you to show me locations on earth that have gone up in temperature.
Where are these places, and do we have the data to see this? There must be more places going up than those going down, if the whole is going up.
Or the question in a different way: What is the location on earth that has gone up in temperature by the largest amount, and has dropped by the largest amount, and do we have plots like Reg has shown for those locations?
Enter your email address to join: