Richard, I believe that I was the one who
cited the two books. Apparently you did not bother to obtain
and read either one? If you had, you would have learned some
REAL science! I also suggested a NASA website and paper on
the internet. I notice you did not bother to mention them.
Why not? Our sun is a variable star. It's variability causes
changes in the amount of radiation in our atmosphere. I also
referenced a classic physics demonstration apparatus known
as the Wilson Cloud Chamber which demonstrates that moisture
condenses on radioactive particles. Changes in the amount of
radioactivity affect the cloud cover which in turn affects
the temperature of our planet. See the observations of
Henrik Svensmark. I have also seen data which confirms
Svensmark without meaning to do so. By the way, I was a
physics major in college. Based on this post of yours I have
to conclude that you are a typical liberal - ignorant and
determined to remain that way. Mr Ridley
and Mr Peiser should be ashamed for including the facts of
scientific studies and reports that question any of the
standard climate alarmist claims. It is a breach of the
public trust to demonstrate that a highly accepted consensus
is not a consensus. It can cause the population to lose
faith in their leaders, especially the leaders that keep
shilling for a consensus that is not a consensus, just to
drive the more-power-to-the-government agendas they have.
Just follow the story about stomach ulcers. It is a story of
one man (well, two, but one gets all the credit). Barry
Marshall, together with Robin Warren. Dr. Marshall was
tormented as he watched the carnage of the disease and its
mistreatment. Misery, death and mutilation. They figured out
the cause, and cure. Dr. Marshall was ignored or ridiculed,
ostracized. He was a "skeptic." A "denier." He tried to
communicate his findings through every venue he could. He
was shut out. Then, he infected himself by drinking a
cocktail made of the stuff from the wounds of ulcer
patients. He then cured himself by taking antibiotics. It
took some time for word to get out, but the nature of, and
cure for the disease is now universally accepted medical
practice.
The point is, it took ONE man (well, two) to prove the
entire medical profession wrong, and he had to slog through
personal and professional attacks to make it happen. Every
doctor, save these two men, were wrong. Proven by a
"denier." This is personal for me. I ended my battle with
ulcers some five years before Dr. Marshall discovered the
cure. I could have been spared years of suffering if the
entire medical profession had not tried to silence Dr.
Marshall. My immune system did eventually fight off the
infection by itself. But many before me were not so lucky.
Many died before he fought the good fight. It takes only one
person to question "established" science, and prove the lot
of them wrong. One person. One "skeptic." One "denier." It's
never "settled." Leslie, that doesn't
change the central thesis. That it only takes the
persistence and determination of one person who is right to
eventually prove the consensus wrong. The bar is set high,
and that is best.
And you are right. Skepticism is a founding pillar of
science. Those who break through the group think must always
take the more challenging path. And bear the slings and
arrows. (Sorry for the melodramatic prose. It is just
convenient.) But my point is that an entire community of
self-congratulating scientists are often wrong. Those who
challenge the commonly accepted theories are the ones who
most dramatically advance science. If we prosecute them and
censure them, we go back to the days that predate the
Enlightenment. It's all well and good to have them defend
themselves before a skeptical and challenging, even harshly
challenging body of peers. But that's not where we find
ourselves. We're talking about the threat of prosecution for
speech. Ostracizing some for publishing opposing ideas.
Censuring peers. Manipulating and hiding data. Setting the
peer review bar high is one thing. Repression is quite
another. Dom - the classic case of this
issue is presented in the book titled Longitude, by Dava
Sobel (Subtitled "The True Story of the Lone Genius who
Solver The Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time). It
reflects the whole gamut of what takes place when a true
scientist is up against an orthodoxy of scientific opinion
and those supporting that orthodoxy also have all the levers
of political power and what passes for the gate keepers of
"official position" on their side as well. I believe
Longitude belongs in the curriculum as a reading requirement
in Junior High/Middle School science courses. |