In 1915, Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity. The 97% consensus soundly rejected it – like they do with almost all significant progress in science.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Climate Engineering
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Climate Engineering
- Ivan G Wainwright on Climate Engineering
- Russell Cook on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Bruce of Newcastle on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Conrad Ziefle on The World’s Worst Scientists
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Francis Barnett on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Steve Cooksey on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- spren on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
Of course Richard Tol and others have soundly shredded the absurd nature of the 97% junk.
In fact he had 10 out of 22 of his paper which entirely judged incorrectly.
I do believe though that a distinct majority of scientists consider there to be significant AGW.
However, in communication with them, most have no idea whatsoever of the science involved in what is referred to as the greenhouse effect. If we did not have it, the earth would be a miserable place to live.
But as several scientists at different institutions have told me, when applying for a grant one simply has to say Climate change, go past go, and collect $200,000.
… Even if the grant is to determine whether more women will go into prostitution or whether children under the age of 6 will get less sleep at night.
NOW, you may think I am being disingenuous , but I am being quite sincere. .
As an example, much less than 10% of the contributors to the IPCC, including lead authors, really know nothing of Climate science. They just appeal to authority like everyone else
BTW, Dr. Judith Curry will be speaking to the U.S. house regarding the plans of Obama on Climate things. She will be doing that on April 15th (A taxing job 🙂 ) We have discussed the nature of her work here before.
And Einstein was smart enough to know that consensus was not science, he welcomed challenges to his work
Another example that comes to mind is the Alvarez Theory (massive meteor impact causing dinosaur extinction). Back in the 80s, most scientists dismissed Luis Alvarez as a kook. Seems like they’ve changed their minds: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1214.abstract
It seems to me that Einstein was a pure theorist. Did he do experiments? Did he spend hours upon hours at a telescope? No, he took the information others had gathered about the observable universe and sat down and did, and sometimes actually created, the math to explain it. It seems to me that in a way Einstein was such a genius that he turned the scientific method on it’s head and got away with it. Am I wrong? I’d like someone to explain to me why, if I am.
No your not wrong, but he also did not object when people tested his ideas. He also published all the data and math he had/did. One last thing it was not peered reviewed.
Exactly. The whole peer review thingy has nothing to do with the validity of the science in a paper. It’s a CYA method for journal editors.
Einstein also did not appeal to authority or consensus. When the 100 Authors Against Einstein pamphlet was published he said something like:
“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
Unlike the climate shamans, Einstein understood and respected the scientific method’s principle of null hypothesis and falsification.
It also bothered him greatly that in 1917 he introduced lambda, the cosmological constant, into his equations, to account for a static, non-expanding universe (as it was believed to be then). He called it his “biggest blunder”.
Time will tell if it was but it’s clear to me that Einstein was humble and honest about his science.
97% of those given grants to promote more spending on global warming say there is global warming. Very surprising!
Another one is polio: the orthodoxy said you can’t make a vaccine from live virus.