Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
A Minority against developing scientific consensus on Climate Change/100 Authors against Einstein
Bloggers and Novel Writers like Michael Crichton who are arguing against the phrase scientific consensus are NOT scientists putting forth a new scientific theory, they are deniers of a new theory that has built a new consensus -- backed up by scientific data. Framing the debate over climate science as one over the use of a phrase such as scientific consensus is specious at best
very funny posts: some guy on a blog, name of Gordon, writes: "People concerned about global warming like to point to the question of consensus. I tend to think that in the area of forecasting 100 year trends, in climate or otherwise, it is not something of more than marginal significance."
Bloggers and Novel Writers like Michael Crichton who are arguing against the phrase scientific consensus are NOT scientists putting forth a new scientific theory, they are deniers of a new theory that has built a new consensus -- backed up by scientific data. Framing the debate over climate science as one over the use of a phrase such as scientific consensus is specious at best
"100 Authors against Einstein". His response was "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
It is amusing to see deniers use this out of context and misread what exactly it was all about. There was a building consensus around Einstein's ideas.
very funny posts: some guy on a blog, name of Gordon, writes: "People concerned about global warming like to point to the question of consensus. I tend to think that in the area of forecasting 100 year trends, in climate or otherwise, it is not something of more than marginal significance."
martin shields replies...
Hello Gordon, I just stumbled across this, and it is wrong on so many level. The "100 authors" document was basically Nazi propaganda designed to discredit Jewish scientists and, of course, Einstein was a major target. Einstein had already received widespread recognition for his work before this was published (he received the 1921 Nobel Prize). By the 1920s Einstein's fame was growing.
So what we have in the 1931 document is a minority arguing against the developing scientific consensus on Einstein's work for quite unscientific reasons. If we're going to draw parallels, I think you have things the wrong way around here!
-------
Gordon Cheng replies...
I acknowledge what you say about the context, Martin, which I indicate in my post by noting the year in which the tract was published. The quote applies to the climate change debate, in my opinion, but for different reasons. And the analogy to the speed of light issue works, surely. Before Einstein, there was a settled consensus that was subsequently overturned by the appearance of new theories that better explained the observed data, which in any case was less complete than it was after the solar eclipse that proved Einstein's theories.
Perhaps quoting quotes is a practice more honoured in the breach than the observance ;-)
(to quote another quote that has burst the bounds of its original context)
28 July 2007 at 08:10
Gordon Cheng s blog Scientific consensus and Einstein
I would agree that the consensus itself in the area of forecasting 100 year trends on global warming may be of marginal significance, but this doesn't in any way refute the science behind the consensus. After all it was the original Global Warming scientists who were the outliers who like Einstein took a decade or two to build the NEW consensus.Hello Gordon, I just stumbled across this, and it is wrong on so many level. The "100 authors" document was basically Nazi propaganda designed to discredit Jewish scientists and, of course, Einstein was a major target. Einstein had already received widespread recognition for his work before this was published (he received the 1921 Nobel Prize). By the 1920s Einstein's fame was growing.
So what we have in the 1931 document is a minority arguing against the developing scientific consensus on Einstein's work for quite unscientific reasons. If we're going to draw parallels, I think you have things the wrong way around here!
-------
Gordon Cheng replies...
I acknowledge what you say about the context, Martin, which I indicate in my post by noting the year in which the tract was published. The quote applies to the climate change debate, in my opinion, but for different reasons. And the analogy to the speed of light issue works, surely. Before Einstein, there was a settled consensus that was subsequently overturned by the appearance of new theories that better explained the observed data, which in any case was less complete than it was after the solar eclipse that proved Einstein's theories.
Perhaps quoting quotes is a practice more honoured in the breach than the observance ;-)
(to quote another quote that has burst the bounds of its original context)
28 July 2007 at 08:10
Gordon Cheng s blog Scientific consensus and Einstein
