Wegner was shunned and ridiculed by the consensus. His work wasn’t accepted until 50+ years after he died.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Latest From Michael Mann
- Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Game Over For The Climate
- Another Ice Age?
- Historic Heatwave
- Historic Heatwave
- Science-Free Journalism
- Why Is Venus So Hot?
- Color Or Monochrome?
- AI Doublespeak
- AI Doublespeak
- Net Zero Intelligence
- “The Green Party dropped nearly 9 per cent”
- Fake Record Heat In India
- RFK Jr’s Plan For $12 Gas
- Hockey Match
- Hockey Match
- Giving Proper Credit
- Conspiracy Theory!
- “No One Is Above The Law”
- CNN Experts Discuss Medicine
- Looking For Their Lost Keys
- Rapid Climate Change
- CBS News 1982 : One Fourth Of Florida To Drown
- Affordable Transportation
Recent Comments
- arn on Latest From Michael Mann
- czechlist on Latest From Michael Mann
- Disillusioned on Latest From Michael Mann
- Gordon Vigurs on Latest From Michael Mann
- Jack the Insider on Latest From Michael Mann
- Conrad Ziefle on Latest From Michael Mann
- arn on Latest From Michael Mann
- scott allen on Latest From Michael Mann
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
- Mike on Maldives Refuse To Drown
Hope Lindzen doesn’t have to wait that long…
John Muir’s theory of Yosemite’s origin was not accepted by mainstream geologists until 15 years after his death.
“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
-Max Planck
Darn it I just put up that same quote with a bit extra on an older thread:
Abiogenesis was a ‘law’ for 2k years until Pasteur proved that life from dead matter was a really stupid concept……so much for fraudulent consensus
The list of ridiculed scientists is long. Theories by J.T. Pardee and J. Harlan Bretz about the channeled scablands of eastern Washington being caused by Lake Missoula floods was (per Wikipedia) “…met with vehement opposition from geologists.” “…(their) theories were accepted only after decades of painstaking work and fierce scientific debate.”
Perhaps Wiki can keep that description handy for future use in articles on some current efforts that are met with vehement opposition.
Sorry matayaya, but the primary incentive at work here is to make a living (grant money) via a successful career (getting published and being recognized and quoted by various media). And this means toeing the line on the standard global warming narrative, and especially producing believable arguments to mislead the uninformed.
Acting to the contrary means being uninvited to conferences and projects, losing grant opportunities, and coming under personal attack by the orthodoxy.
“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society,”
– President Barack Obama
“I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior,”
– Interior Secretary Sally Jewell
Yes, our government really wants to hear alternative ideas, and would gladly fund anti AGW research.
Off topic, I have a bridge for sale.
It seems science advancements are for the dead not the living.
Galileo did not fare very well when he challenged the prevailing dogma of his time. If anyone believes that it is any different now, they are totally deluding themselves.
I think this has been posted in other threads on this site, but is worth repeating here. Instead of citing Wegner, Mooney should have cited is Dr. Barry Marshall, who proposed the H.pylori bacteria caused ulcers. He was also ridiculed until he infected himself with the bacteria, caused himself to get an ulcer, and cured himself to prove his theory.
And the established Medical community still gave him a hard time.
I should mention I have a horse with an ulcer and the vet is NOT prescribing an antibiotic to kill the bacteria. The horse has been ‘treated’ with the proscribed medication (antacid) for two months and is now a rack of bones. I can count her ribs from the window, GRRRrrrrr. I am probably going to have to put the animal down because I can not get her to eat.
The medication is Cimetidine the same thing as tagamet for reducing stomach acid in humans..
Veterinarians, like doctors, make their money with treatments. Not cures. Thus, they have little financial interest in curing the sick.
Time to insist the vet try something else as the present treatment seems to be as effective as the Liar-in-Cheif.
Me, I’d have found a new Vet after a couple weeks of no progress.
she got better for a little while then relapsed. We do have a second vet I use when the regular vet screws up but he is two hours away instead of 1/2 hour.
Let’s up the ante.
Thomas Young was ridiculed for proposing the wave theory of light (“This work is totally without merit” was one response to his famous memoir). Fresnel, the greatest exponent of the theory, had difficulty getting published.
After publishing his great work on electricity, Georg Ohm spent 20-25 years as a high school teacher before acclaim from abroad resulted in his being given a university position. (He died 1-2 years later.)
R. A. Fisher at one time had difficulty getting some of his fundamental papers in statistics published, as I recall because he ran afoul of Karl Pearson.
Really, the sheer cheek of these postmodern scientists is enough to take one’s breath away.
Here’s another one.
Robert Mayer first enunciated the conservation of energy law in the early 1840’s. He had to wait over 20 years before his achievement was recognized. At one point the lack of recognition and general derision drove him to consider suicide.
Andy DC said – “Galileo did not fare very well when he challenged the prevailing dogma of his time. If anyone believes that it is any different now, they are totally deluding themselves.”
Absolute proof Andy DC is correct in his assertion –
In the1980s the eventual Nobel prize-winners postulate that H pylori is primarily responsible for duodenal ulcers.
I remember them being pilloried by the establishment – one “consensus” was stress was the prime cause of duodenal ulcers. I remember my own GP in the 90s describing their claims as rubbish.
Decades later –
“The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2005 jointly to Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren for their discovery of “the bacterium Helicobacter pylori and its role in gastritis and peptic ulcer disease”.
This is but one example of thousands where the blind unthinking “consensus” was shown to be completely wrong.
Banting and insulin is another modern example – the “consensus” wanted Banting struck off for his “heresy”.
97 % of people who blindly accept a falsehood as reality without question or testing the hypothesis is completely meaningless !
Of course the vast number of climate scientists will react positively to a scientific paper which causes them to lose their well paid government jobs, as the government cuts their enormous and now unnecessary global warming budget.
Climate scientists are so selfless that they would obviously welcome a chance to become poor, and lose their houses to foreclosure.
Why, I tip my hat to these remarkable people who are prepared to sacrifice themselves and their families for the truth.
/sarc^3
Agreed.
“There is therefore a huge incentive for a scientist or group of scientists to upset everything we thought we knew about climate change”
A “climate scientist” who proposes that CAGW is a hoax, that all of his colleagues are stealing their paychecks, would end “climate science” as we know it. Good luck getting that published.
What 97% consensus on climate science? The one (based on a very flawed paper by Cook that merely claims to show a consensus that man’s activity contributes a non-zero amount to global warming?
There once was a revolutionary idea that a market price for carbon would save the world. The peer reviewed market consensus says that idea is well and truly dead. 50% commission on Eff all is still Eff all. Carbon credit boosters are in financial dire straits, poor little shysters! They desperately want to rescucitate it. CLEAR!!
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n12/fig_tab/nclimate2052_F3.html
I postulate that the phenomenal increases in European starling and brown-headed cowbird populations are responsible for Glow Bull Warming. Correlation equals causation, according to the Warmistas, so anyone who disagrees with my theory is a Denier.
Thank you, Steven, for your insight into techniques used to control information and methods to slip information, from one generation to the next, past the official gatekeepers of knowledge.
My research mentor left this hint in his autobiography [1] of physicists’ misunderstanding of Francis William Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction” on 13 June 1936 – four before my birth :
“I am reasonably certain, however, that I went as far as Chapter VIII, Method of Precision,
where on page 82 Aston explains the definition of “packing fraction”, because when the
lecture ended, the first question someone from the audience asked Dr. Aston was “What
is meant by packing fraction?” The person who asked the question appeared to be a
physicist in his 30’s and I felt sorry for him, but also for Dr. Aston, who had to again
explain the meaning of this important concept.” [reference 1, page 7]
Aston defined the “nuclear packing fraction” ( f ) of any atom of atomic number Z and mass number A in terms of its “mass defect” (?):
A. Mass defect, ? = M(A,Z) – A
B. Nuclear Packing Fraction, f = ?/A = [M(A,Z)/A] -1
For this work, Aston received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1922.
If you read carefully information in Encyclopedia Britannica on mass defect [2], you will see that nuclear physicists did not accept Aston’s concept of mass defect, but redefined it for physicists:
C. Mass defect (Physics) = Z(M-proton + M-electron) + (A-Z)(M-neutron) – M(A,Z)
D. von Weizsacker’s seriously flawed “average nuclear binding energy per nucleon” is based on the physics definition of mass defect.
E. Educators are indoctrinated with misleading graphs and statements, e.g., “Iron-56 has the most binding energy per nucleon” [3] that are falsified by experimental data [4].
References:
1. Paul Kazuo Kuroda, “My Early Days at the Imperial University of Tokyo” (1992) 69 pages
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/PKKAutobiography.pdf
2. Encyclopedia Britannica gives chemistry & physics definition of mass defect
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/368191/mass-defect
3. “Nuclear Binding Energy and Mass Defect,” in Boundless Textbooks for Educators
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/nuclear-chemistry/nuclear-reactions/nuclear-binding-energy-and-mass-defect/
4. Oliver K. Manuel, “A Journey to the Core of the Sun,” Chapter 2 – Acceptance of Reality https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Another example? George LeMaitre (somebody most haven’t heard of). He’s the guy who initially proposed the expanding universe as an explanation for red-shifted galaxies (a couple of years before Hubbel observed it) and proposed what became mockingly called “The Big Bang” by Fred Hoyle and other members of the clique and LeMaitre was derided until about 1965 – 38 years after he proposed the theory.
That’s the problem when you have some priest thinking he can talk cosmology and propose some moment of creation.
Talk about irony.
The most dangerous people are the ones that don’t know and don’t know they don’t know.