So many turkeys in scientific history!!!

[skookerasbil]

All the science in the 19th century that caused a stir and so much of it was later debunked as total BS..............

Scientific History and the Lessons for Today's Emerging Ideas - Technology Review


Whats next???


Of course, most people, like the environmental radicals in here, AUTOMATICALLY trusted the theories..............of course...........they were SCIENTISTS.!!!!!!


Begs the question about which science is being slammed down our throats in 2012 that like so much science in the past, has turned out to be junk science!!!

 

[onecut39]

All the science in the 19th century that caused a stir and so much of it was later debunked as total BS..............

Scientific History and the Lessons for Today's Emerging Ideas - Technology Review


Whats next???


Of course, most people, like the environmental radicals in here, AUTOMATICALLY trusted the theories..............of course...........they were SCIENTISTS.!!!!!!


Begs the question about which science is being slammed down our throats in 2012 that like so much science in the past, has turned out to be junk science!!!

You are taking greatest strength of real science and trying to use it as an anti science tool.

Science does the best it can with what it has. As it acquires more information the the science is changed. What was "slammed down your throat" was simply the best information we had at the time. The best science is self correcting and constantly looking to see what it might have gotten wrong, that leads to new paths of knowledge. From your link I'd say they are doing a pretty fair job.

It is like saying that since Einstien's theory didn't really explain everything it should have been ignored. Right. It did not explain everything and some of it is wrong but is was and is a huge steppingstone to gaining more complete knowledge and without it that knowledge might never be found.

I like this guy's comment to your link.

arXivlover
arXivlover

Actually, the author hits and misses the point at the same time. Few can argue that 1880-1940 was one of the great times in physics. What made it great was there were many things that were starting to not make sense. The rules of Newton, Maxwell and thermodynamics were being challenged by new finding and and new findings created yet more findings which made things even more of a mess.

In the mess, many ideas were advanced. Many of those ideas became embedded with the personalities of the people and groups of the time. Science worked reasonably well in the fact that we ended up with theories that have repeatedly been successful in describing facts not known at the time of the theory.

The fact that there are many ideas that will be discarded is a good and natural thing. Anything less would reflect stagnation. It's even more fun to look at all the ideas for how species develop prior to evolution putting down something that has stood the test of time and new data. Some of these were far more fantastic than the physics the author looks at.

I now work in complex biological systems, and it is even more vibrant. How do soils develop resistance to pathogens that are harmful to specific planted crops only after the crop has been impacted by the pathogen? It's not the plant that develops the resistance, it's the soil flora/fauna itself. We have no idea and it is going to be great finding out. I expect and look forward to many theories on the trash heap and hope that the time to finding theories of the strength of things like evolution, QM and relativity is not too long.

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve, do you not see the irony of posting on the internet about the false starts and dead ends in scientific research? Without the will to think out of the box, without the willingness to challenge existing Theories, there would be no progress. Vitrually all that we have in this modern world is the result of scientists working hard and challenging the status quo. From vacines to computers, to the crops that we grow today, all have been developed by scientists.

You may not like the conclusions that the scientists derive from their investigations, but to ignore them is folly.

 

[skookerasbil]

Steve, do you not see the irony of posting on the internet about the false starts and dead ends in scientific research? Without the will to think out of the box, without the willingness to challenge existing Theories, there would be no progress. Vitrually all that we have in this modern world is the result of scientists working hard and challenging the status quo. From vacines to computers, to the crops that we grow today, all have been developed by scientists.

You may not like the conclusions that the scientists derive from their investigations, but to ignore them is folly.

As is very obvious from the nature of my posts Ray, all I do is think out of the box. Indeed, it is the AGW crusaders who refuse to accept any information that is oppossed to their preconceptions. Id have a hell of alot more respect for the alarmist creedo if Al Gore would debate somebody publically and if these climate summits would allow the presentation of data that doesnt exactly match that of the closed sociiety. The fact that it never happens only decimates their own cause in the eyes of the public, which should really raise the eyebrows of those with even a little bit of foresight. But it doesnt.........these people........

It is obvious that they insist on stacking the deck with the hail mary pass, bomb throwing predictions........but its not getting them anywhere in terms of universal acceptance, without which, makes the efforts futile. This is not even debatable.


But really, the point is, and as stated by most scientists, no conclusions about climate change being man-made can be made here in 2012. As the article astutely points out, sometimes, science doesnt turn out to be science at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

Balancing intuition, logic, knowledge, faith and skepticism is a tough job.

It's a tougher job to deal with prima donnas, authoritarian sponsors, mangled press releases, MicroSoft Works and expense reports..

LOL...

 

[hortysir]

6%

 

[flacaltenn]

6%

You don't know how angry that makes me...

There -- all better now..

 

[whitehall]

19th century? "Scientists" predicted another ice age in the 1960's and 70's. The current trend of grants-for-propaganda will get you any data you can afford.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ever try not to lie, Whitey?

What 1970s science said about global cooling

new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

 

[hortysir]

Ever try not to lie, Whitey?

What 1970s science said about global cooling

new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

And 30 years from now, somebody's going to submit a report citing how crazy we were for predicting global warming.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ever try not to lie, Whitey?

What 1970s science said about global cooling

new paper exposing the myth of 70s global cooling
Over time, William Connelly has been steadily documenting 70s research predicting global cooling. It's a rich resource but as he admits, could be more accessible. Now he has collaborated with Thomas Peterson and John Fleck to publish The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, due to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

And 30 years from now, somebody's going to submit a report citing how crazy we were for predicting global warming.

Been saying that for over 10 years............gonna turn out to be a fad of the 21st century AND quite possibly the greatest hoax ever perpetuated upon the American public. I'll likely be dead by then but who cares........for now, Im wininng handily.