Posted on 06/09/2002 5:32:47 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
In four short years Jan Hendrik Schon went from scientific nobody to one of the most talked-about young physicists in the world. His competitors had any number of reasons to be impressed.
There was his jump from a little-known German university to Bell Labs in New Jersey, one of the most storied research centers in the world. There was his seemingly tireless ability to crank out scientific papers - 76 with his name since 2000, a pace that leaves many physicists in awe.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunspot.net ...
Physics and psychology are not the same thing. (And I defy you to come up with a greater understatement.)
Good. Lets talk Global Warming!
Alright, let's. Do you have evidence that data have been faked?
Much progress in the sciences is made possible only by death: the death of senior authority figures who resolutely resist accepting certain new discoveries and revelations, and who, by reason of their weight in their field, can inhibit others from investigating those discoveries. Mavericks who manage to catch the attention of the world through unusual channels account for a smidgen more. And then there's the direct road to technology, which some unusually applicable (and potentially lucrative) discoveries can open.
Probably the best guardian of the credibility of science is the ethical attitude that almost always goes along with the drive to become a scientist: the powerful, internalized need to know the truth. Unfortunately, because of the oceans of government-directed grant money that now dominate science in America, this ethic is under a sustained and ominous assault.
Hey, it turns out this has something to do with politics after all!
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Hurry before they bring out the Cheerleaders!
And while I'm defending science, I want to make it clear that I'm talking about real science. I agree with many others here that the so-called "social sciences" are generally bunk.
Sodnagel's Law of Discipline Names:
"If it says 'Science' in the title, it isn't."
Rosie O'Donnell is other than bootylicious.
I agree they are completly different.
My point is to illustrate how some sacred dogmas are held protected.
Every unified field theorist is always subject to disbelieving peer review.
I once read an article about the "Utah effect"
discoveries are anounced in the media before publication.
Subsequent tests do not repeat the findings.
But, in the meantime there is time and money invested in the "discovery".
Peer review is suppossed to be stubborn by design.
It is just complicated by personal investments of ego and funding.
There's quite a bit of evidence that the Earth was warming before the Carter administration. But more importantly, there's nothing in what you say that indicates intentional deception.
#2 since the 1960's antartica has had the most stable and accurate measurements taken over a continent (very little human activity) the mean temperature has DROPPED! This cannot- statistically happen if there is global warming.
What climate model are you basing that statistical claim on? It's not in the least obvious to me; the Earth's atmosphere is not a thermos bottle. Furthermore, if you are claiming that some of the data are faked and can't be trusted, why do you trust those data?
--For good measure take a look at Nasa and how they have "recalculated" their data of orbiting weather satellites----there is a political/economic agenda being waged by the Marxists to damage the U.S.
Do you know how many people would have to be in on such a deception? It's like the O.J. defense claims times ten thousand.
There is an agenda lurking behind much of the global warming talk, but it's overwhelmingly subconscious, and all of it has to do not with the data themselves, but with the interpretation of the data. The data do indicate that the Earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago, but whether that can be attributed to human action depends chiefly on where your sympathies lie. The opinions of many of the scientists involved may suck carbon monoxide, but that has nothing to do with any sort of fraud.
There's more like that. The professor who interviewed UFO contactees. That stuff isn't science. If we can't use our expertise acquired through years and years of time spent learning mathematics, it isn't science.
This astonishing statement is followed by paragraph after paragraph of (now) known fraudulent submissions by "revered" scientists over a 100 year period.
Holy friggin' CRAP. I only got two.
Well it's fairly trivial to get your John Henry on any number of papers. Whether you sat down and did the research and analysis and composition yourself, that's another story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.