If this is global warming...

Page 8 of 16  
J. Clarke, Robatoy, et.al.,
I need some help here. (although some would say I'm beyond help) I'm coming across a new, at least new to me, conversational response to statements.
For example: If person A says it is raining outside and person B challenges the statement because they disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical; then logically, who has the burden of proof of the statement?
In my example above, must person A prove their 'claim' that it is raining outside or must person B prove it is not raining?
I bought a burfl from Tinker Bell for $100.00 dollars. When I state that burfls are expensive, I might be challenged to provide documentation showing what I paid. But, if you know you can buy a burfl for $19.95, should you challenge my price statement or should you present the documentation to support your position.
It would seem to me that effective dialog consists of presenting different points of view with a bit of hope that one might sell one's view based on facts.
Instead of this new confrontational response, I would rather see an orderly presentation of facts and logic that supports one's position rather than attacking another's position.
I don't pretend to be an expert in climate, weather or even woodworking. But, I am always trying to learn.
As I said in an earlier post, I didn't buy into the coming ice age, the global starvation, the running out of oil in six years. I am a still a first class skeptic on global warming because the facts seem to be distorted, over-hyped, AlGored, conveniently ignored or just plain wrong.
I will continue to search for effective dialog.
John Flatley Jacksonville, Florida
--
One consolation about memory loss in old age is that
you also forget a lot of things you didn't intend to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:04:30 -0500, "John Flatley"

Person A must defend his assertion that it is raining. The burden of proof is on the person making the initial assertion, it is not on those challenging his assertion to disprove it.

I suggest that you enroll in a paleoclimatology program somewhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: | | > | >For example: If person A says it is raining outside | >and person B challenges the statement because they | >disagree, they are doubtful or they are skeptical; then | >logically, who has the burden of proof of the | >statement? | > | > | > text deleted | > | | Person A must defend his assertion that it is raining. The burden of | proof is on the person making the initial assertion, it is not on | those challenging his assertion to disprove it. | Thanks for your response. I understand your point and I almost agree with it. Almost but not quite.
When one asks for supporting data, inference suggests that the asker would/could analyze that data. A few points here. If the person requesting the data can analyze that data, he probably has some prior subject knowledge. If that person has some prior subject knowledge he has probably found a problem with the original presentation. If he has found a problem with the original presentation then he is disingenous to ask for supporting data. Rather, he should respectively challenge the original presentation with confliciting data. The confrontational "give me your data' is a valid approach if you want to count coup or you collect gotchas.
It is difficult enough to draw conclusions when all parties have access to the same data. It is meaningless if not impossible when the sides don't have the same data. (Just the facts, ma'am, justr the facts.) | > | > | >Instead of this new confrontational response, I would | >rather see an orderly presentation of facts and logic | >that supports one's position rather than attacking | >another's position. | > | > Since my original post on this, I have talked to a friend who is a union member and he says this confrontational "show me your data" is a relatively new union talking points response when answering minimum wage questions, or political contribution questions, etc. Challenge the speaker rather than providing contrary data. (I did not ask him for supporting documentation on his statement. He did not provide bibliographical references.) | > | > | | I suggest that you enroll in a paleoclimatology program somewhere. | > | > Thank you for your suggestion on enrolling in a paleoclimatolgy program. However, I must make the choice to spend my time in my new shop. I guess I will remain a skeptic. (Randi where are you on this one?)
To paraphrase that famous libertarian Dennis Miller: "That's my opinion, I could be wrong."
Right now I wish global warming would hurry and hit the local climate and warm the average local temperature. It is 44 degrees now with a forecasted overnight low of 37 degrees. On average, my shop is cold tonight.
John Flatley Jacksonville, Florida
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When somebody makes a claim in order to support their position, it is only prudent to try to establish the validity of those claims.
When I read stuff like this:

...I have reason to doubt the validity of the calculations unless corroborated.
This isn't A says rain, yadda, yadda. This is me, exposing Clarke for what he is. Period.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not to mention all the toxins venting from carpets, furniture, dry cleaned clothing, etc, etc. Sealed airtight it can be your coffin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote: | On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:22:47 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| || J. Clarke wrote: ||| On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:41:10 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
||| |||| J. Clarke wrote: || ||||| Huh? How does one build a solar house that is cheaper than a ||||| conventional house? |||| |||| By careful design and selection of appropriate materials, of |||| course. ||| ||| That "careful design and selection of appropriate materials" would ||| result in a conventional house being less expensive too though. || || True - although one might take the viewpoint that until the design || and materials became the norm for homebuilding, the resulting home || could hardly be called "conventional". || ||| All else being equal a solar house needs collecting area and ||| thermal mass, and in an area where they have real winters it also ||| has to have backup heat. || || Almost correct. A solar house does need collecting area - but || beyond that it need only retain sufficient heat for comfort. || Thermal mass provides storage for replacement heat to compensate || for losses. When the losses become sufficiently small, the need || for thermal mass shrinks to near nil. | | No, it doesn't. The chair I'm sitting in is "thermal mass". The | plaster on the walls is "thermal mass". The floor joists are | "thermal mass", everything in the house is "thermal mass". In a | relatively warm climate it might be possible to provide sufficient | thermal mass entirely from structure, but not in a cold one, not | unless you have some active means of insulating or isolating the | collector at night and at that point you no longer have a passive | design.
Ok. All of the furnishings in a house do constitute "thermal mass", but they're not normally considered part of the structure we call a "house" (at least not for the purposes of calculations).
It's possible to build truly passive solar collectors that function as "thermal diodes". At one point I made an attempt to catagorize passive air-heating collectors and posted drawings on a web page at http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/SC_Types.html . The "Type 3" collector _passively_ locks up (without moving parts) and functions as an insulator at night.
| As for "when the losses become sufficiently small", now you've got a | nearly airtight box to minimize the infiltration loss, which means | that you need an effective scrubber to take out bathroom and cooking | odors (no simple vent to the outside) or you need an effective heat | exchanger to allow ventilation, and you need exceedingly heavy | insulation to minimize the conduction through the walls. So you've | traded one set of construction costs for another.
The house in the photo I posted to ABPW is insulated to R-40 in all walls, roof, and floor and had, according to the builder, a construction cost on the close order of $55K.
Ventilation is indeed necessary, and the easiest and least expensive solution is to provide sufficient heating that some heat can be "thrown away" on a controlled basis. There is a temptation to label this "excess capacity", but there's nothing "excess" or "wasteful" about it. A heat exchanger is needed only if there's no thermal budget for the venting.
|||| I |||| have a photo that I'll post to ABPW for you of one for which I've |||| been asked to quote heating panels. The house was built by a |||| contractor who wanted a test case for some non-conventional |||| methods and materials. The house shown has no heating plant and |||| is in an area where winter night time temperatures drop to 20F. ||| ||| Which is what I used to see in Florida. That far south it might ||| be possible to build a relatively inexpensive solar house. I ||| doubt it would work here though, where single-degree temperatures ||| for days at a time and occasional excursions below zero combined ||| with significant snowfall are the norm. || || You might be surprised. I erected a solar-heated concrete block || shop in Minnesota and underestimated the output of its collector || panels. | | And was it cheaper to build that one than one from the same | materials with conventional heat?
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking - but given that a major portion of the south-facing wall consisted of a pair of 6'x12' solar panels which would not have been present in the same structure intended for conventional heating - yes, the solar version of the building was somewhat less expensive to build and very much less expensive to operate.
|| There were days when the outside temperature was -30F and windspeed || was in the 30-40 MPH range when I had to prop the doors ajar and || work in a T-shirt. That building, BTW, had uninsulated walls. | | That's fine for _days_. How was it at 4 AM? And how much did those | collectors cost? Note that if they were free or inexpensive due to | efficient scrounging on your part then you're not describing | something that someone building houses commercially can count on | doing.
At 4am (an hour at which I can't recall ever having been in /any/ workshop) in the winter the shop was anywhere from cool to chilly - but never cold enough to freeze water or coffee left out. The panels were built with wood, aluminum, twinwall polycarbonate solar glazing, and a tube of gasket compound - all purchased at retail from the local (rural community) lumber yard and hardware store for (I think) about $500 total. The panels were built in place so as to be an integral part of the wall.
I guess that if you wanted to use the workshop at 4am, you'd probably want to insulate the walls. I didn't.
|| Probably a good idea to do a bit of research into new materials and || construction methods since you last looked at those texts, as well. || Energy cost increases have motivated a considerable amount of || innovation. | | What are these "new materials"? Are you saying that there is some | kind of new insulation that is cheaper than fiberglass? If so why | is not every builder jumping on it?
Excellent questions! [1] I only know some of the answers so would suggest asking in alt.solar.thermal and alt.architecture.* newsgroups where you can get expert answers. [2] Yes I am, but only in the context of a complete structure. [3] My WAG would be that many/most builders avoid the unfamiliar.
BTW, if fiberglass is your performance baseline, then you would do well to investigate the characteristic behavior of that insulation at low temperatures. You may be in for a not-pleasant surprise. If I recall the discussion on alt.solar.thermal correctly, the R-factor begins dropping off significantly somewhere around 20F.
||| Funny thing, when there was a tax break for solar every house in ||| my neighborhood sprouted solar collectors. There's one set left ||| now. ||| ||| But retrofitting solar heat raises the price of the house. || || Perhaps - but it may also say as much about your neighbors as it || does about the products purchased. It would seem reasonable to || make that kind of purchase only with a reasonable certainty that || the panels would actually be worth having. | | So with them paid for why would they not be "worth having"?
According to your comment, only one set appears to have been judged by only one of your neighbors to be "worth having". At every other household they've been discarded. Do you draw a different conclusion?
Seems to me like a good question, but one which would be better directed to your neighbors. My guess is that the panels performed poorly or weren't well constructed. If you do ask your neighbors, I would be very interested in their answers.
||||| Coming from someone who thinks that fusion could have been ||||| commercialized in 1976 for a couple of billion dollars, that's ||||| actually humorous. |||| |||| Re-read for comprehension. ||| ||| Maybe you meant something other than what you said. If so you ||| should write what you mean. || || I did. I related something I was told some thirty years ago and you || presented it as current belief in an attempt to ridicule. | | So you are denying that you said "Eh? They should be online _now_! | We just have more "important" things to spend the money on. "
I'm of the opinion, based on comments made by actual participants, that if we could develop a whole collection of new technologies, tools, and methods in ten years to send people to the moon and bring them back, then we should be able to accomplish this project in a comparable short time frame.
The cost guesstimate, with which you seem really hung up, was given to me on an off-the-cuff basis and isn't something I feel obliged to defend. If you have a Perted schedule with a closely-coupled budget, I'd probably be willing to give it as much credence (perhaps more or perhaps less) as I did my original input.
| So since you seem to be admitting that your 2 billion in 1976 would | have done it, how much would have and spent when?
Do you really expect me to defend someone else's 30-year old WAG?
Since you have been strongly inferring that you have superior knowledge on the matter, why don't you stop playing silly word games, establish your credentials as a holder of verifiable information, and inform the group? If you don't have anything of substance to offer, then let's get back to woodworking.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snipperoo]

Let's!
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not just the furnishings. The structure itself is thermal mass.

An insulator no better than a triple-glazed window, which is OK for a window but pretty poor in the greater scheme of things.

R-40 may be fine for a locale that only goes down to 20 degrees. I suspect that it's not going to be very comfortable at 4 AM when it's -30 out.

Which is nice in a warm climate with lots of insolation year round. Move north and the days get progressively shorter and the nights longer and "provide sufficient heating" becomes a problem.

So you're saying that you were able to get this shop uncomfortably hot with two 6'x12' panels at -30? Are you sure it wasn't the tools heating it? I'm sorry, but I've been in too many houses with far more collector area than that that weren't warm at noon, let alone at 4 AM, in a warmer climate than that.

If it's not warm enough to take a crap at 4 AM without freezing my butt off then it's not acceptable. I don't want my house "above freezing", I want it _comfortable_.

Sounds like you may be able to heat a workshop during the day, but apparently don't understand that keeping a house comfortable is a different proposition.

So you know of this mystery material but won't tell us what it is?

Fiberglass is not the "performance baseline", it is the "cost effectiveness baseline". There are many more efficient forms of insulation but they all cost more for the same effectiveness.

I repeat my question. They were there. They were paid for. Removing them involved some cost.
If they were conferring _any_ benefit whatsoever or were just taking up space then one would not expect the owners to be willing to pay the cost of removal. Thus one must conclude that having them not only was not conferring benefit but was worse than not having them.

Sorry, but none of my current neighbors were in those houses when the panels were removed.

Uh, there was no new physics involved in going to the moon. That was all engineering.
Fusion isn't a matter of developing "a whole collection of new technologies, tools, and methods", it's a matter of developing a sufficient understanding of the physics involved to allow the development technologies, tools, and methods, and that doesn't happen on a crash basis.
Apollo worked because von Braun already knew how to go to the Moon, he just needed to build the pieces to get there. People had been building liquid fuel rockets that worked for 35 years when Kennedy ordered Project Apollo and it still took almost ten more years of development.

What is a "Perted schedule"? Do you mean a PERT chart?

You're the one arguing that fusion should have been accomplished 20 years ago and the reason that it wasn't was that the government didn't want to cough up the money. Since you seem to think that you know this, it would be helpful to know just how much money they didn't cough up.

You should have thought of that before you went off on this tangent.
As far as being a "holder of verifiable information", now you're playing the "cant attack the argument so I'll attack the arguer" game.
What I've said about the mechanisms of fusion anyone who has taken a sophomore "modern physics" course should have learned. What I've said about the state of the art 30 years ago was common knowledge to anybody enrolled in a physics program at the time. What I've said about the current state of the art comes from the ITER Web site <http://www.iter.org/a/index_nav_1.htm .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure.. but meanwhile I'm digging up stuff about solar heating.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The capital cost is astronomical and considering that there are so many unanswered questions in regards to operating costs (assuming we can keep one lit) a ROI is so far into the future, that in comparison, current proven fission technology will reign for a very long time. For fusion to be a net producer, the scale of the undertaking is so enormous that it boggles the mind. The energy required to produce the parts, to contain the plasma, and the uncertainty of its service- ability and maintainability make this nothing more than an experiment. The fusion proponents are trying to lift a 500,000 pound sledgehammer to kill a gnat.

Keep dangling the carrots of 'free' energy and keep those research grants coming folks. We need to develop what we know. The billions allotted for experimental research in fusion is terribly misplaced, IMHO. Fusion is pie-in-the-sky. That does not mean that I don't believe we can make it work... I do believe that the 'free' fuel won't enter into the spreadsheet as a cost-savings for a long, long time... if ever. The costs involved to re-face the interior of an abraded tokamak is estimated to be a billion... and we don't know how long it takes for a thermonuclear plasma to take the skin off the inside of the toroid...could be a matter of a few minutes....we have no idea. The sun-in-a-can...ya right. Keep taxing the peasants so that the guys in the white coats can promise the king ultimate control. (There may have been a little extra cynicism in my cereal this morning.)
The real sun is here...free...now. Hanging outside my window. Every day. The comparative pittance we need to make it usable for all of us, is within reach. Let's spend a few bucks thinking about ways to store energy as well.
...and how about those small nuclear powerpacks we use to run some satellites? Can't we build one to power a subdivision? The size of a trailer? How about smaller ones for each home? Or would that mean that the 'power' is going to get away from the controlling robber-baron's interests?
Stay tuned. Film at 11.
I hope you're enjoying the show, I'l be here all week, try the veal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

[Restoring the context that you oh-so-conveniently removed] ..Bruce Barnett wrote

Sorry, but you're wrong there. The central tenet of GW is that human industrial activity is causing the planet to get warmer -- and that's not capable of being proven or disproven; not within a human lifetime, at any rate.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

So what are you asserting here?
By the way, "facts can't be proven" and "facts haven't been proven" are two different things. It is not necessary to prove facts in order to publish in a peer reviewed journal. All that is necessary is to provide a means by which one's viewpoint can be tested.
As to "scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions", perhaps they do but peer-reviewed journals are not the place in which they do it except in the rare case that the "popular misconception" has never before been tested.
As to "loving to be first with groundbreaking research", perhaps they are, but what is at issue is not "groundbreaking research", what is at issue is the policies of journals.
Perhaps there is simply _no_ scientist who disagrees with the notion of global warming or with the notion that it has a human cause. Considering that there are scientists who disagree with such well established models as General Relativity, and that they have little difficulty getting published, if there are in fact no published papers critical of the global warming hypothesis, which is far less well established and based on atmospheric modelling, an area of physics which is still evolving rapidly, this is _highly_ suspicious.
Either the global warming advocates are lying about there being no published contrarian view or there is systematic bias in the journals. To assert that no credible scientist can present an argument against t is simply not believable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. There have been many misconceptions in the published journals. And some papers were groundbreaking in that they disproved these conceptions. I know of some examples in the field of networking and computer models.

And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by thousands of other articles.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:03:27 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

Yes, there have, but most of them were not "popular misconceptions".

Such as?

Care to identify one "popular misconception" from that field?

And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper.
In any case, global warming is the new coolness. Generally papers that report on the status quo are not "groundbreaking".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is why debunking such a misconception is groundbreaking.

The seminal work of LeLand, Taqqu, Willinger and Wilson
On the Self-Similar Nature of Ethernet Traffic (1993)

The use of the Poisson distribution for estimating the delays between packets in a network.

No. It's those that reference the paper.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:33:10 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

So you're saying that the groundbreaking first paper to ever "debunk" a "popular misconception" has yet to be published? Do tell.

I was not aware that there were any popular conceptions of any kind with regard to Ethernet traffic in 1993.

Nothing involving a Poisson distribution can be considered to be a "popular misconception". Most people can't even tell you what a Poisson distribution _is_.
You seem to be confusing matters which are quite esoteric with "popular misconceptions".

And the editor has a TARDIS so that he can go into the future and find out who will reference the paper?
I'm sorry, but "those that reference the paper" don't decide what gets published.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Try reading what I write. I also suggest reading what you wrote as well.

Obviously. There were many. That's why Boogs wrote "Measured capacity of an Ethernet: myths and reality" in 1988.

You apparently forget what you wrote. We WERE talking about peer-reviewed journals and scientists "systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint" Let me quote you.

Peer-reviewed journals. Scientists. Sigh. Let me quote you:

You claim that scientists are systematically rejecting a minority viewpoint. You have not given ANY evidence that this is fantasy.
I, on the other had said that your knowledge of scientists is wrong, and gave a counter-example. You didn't believe me. I listed at least one example. There are others.
You have not yet given ANY EVIDENCE for your far-fetched theory. It's just something that came to you from the sky. I'd like to see some hard evidence that your theory is true.
------------paste--------- Me>And if a groundbreaking paper is published, the journal is highly Me>regarded, The editors would LOVE their journal to be referenced by Me>thousands of other articles.Jim> And of course the editor can tell what will be a groundbreaking paper. ------------end paste---------
Me>No. It's those that reference the paper.Jim> And the editor has a TARDIS so that he can go into the future and find Jim> out who will reference the paper? Jim> Jim> I'm sorry, but "those that reference the paper" don't decide what gets Jim> published.
Sigh. It's like talking to a brick wall. I had to paste back the comments you deliberately deleted.
Why on earth would time travel be needed to reference a paper that occured in the past? you DO know what a reference is, right?
WHat's the point.
You are deliberately distorting the debate to support a fantasy theory. You show great ignorance in a process that you criticize, and refuse to learn how the process operates. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You can't even remember what you wrote yourself, even when it's quoted in the document.
I don't see any point in arguing with a troll.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

I think you need to acquaint yourself with the common definition of "popular misconception". It would be something along the lines of "a mistaken notion held by people in general". It's not the sort of thing that gets dispelled by an obscure scientific paper from 1988.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This article makes a interesting read Rod
http://www.opinionjournal.com:80/columnists/pdupont/?id 0009693
Plus a (Climate) Change The Earth was warming before global warming was cool.
BY PETE DU PONT Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sigh. I think you need to re-read the thread. Let me quote AGAIN:
OP>>I never said one scientist has received millions of dollars. And OP>>the deniers are not given credence in scientific journals.Jim> If they aren't then that alone is an indication that the journals are Jim> biased. I'm sorry, but when scientific journals are systematically Jim> rejecting a minority viewpoint there is something very, very badly Jim> wrong.Me>I doubt that's happening. Scientists love to debunk popular misconceptions. Me>They also love to be first with groundbreaking research.
Clearly in this case we are talking about a minority opinion in scientific journals, and not in the National Enquirer.
Heaven knows that the public has thousands of popular misconceptions, and scientists really don't consider taking a position that differs from the common misconceptions on alien abduction, reincarnation, ghosts, ESP, flat earth, etc. to be "groundbreaking." Do you really consider a "UFO's don't exist" paper to be groundbreaking? Hardly.
It is, however, groundbreaking to provide strong evidence that assumptions the majority of scientists hold is wrong. And as I said - scientists LOVE to be able to do this. But the science has to hold up. Otherwise you end up with Cold Fusion.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.