• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .
dennislmay

The Junk Science of Climate Change

214 posts in this topic

...On what basis do you make the claim? Although the first batch of stuff you listed (see my post above) does qualify as accepted background, you went on in your second batch to include, as if they were statements on equal footing with the first batch, contentions which have been made as a basis for alarm and which require support. Dennis is saying, where is your evidence?

Exactly why I am asking the proponent to go back to the original research, find out what it does and does not include, what types of experiments were never done, and then we can discuss the evidence. Once you see what research has and has not been done then we can discuss the merit of conclusions in light of basic science and its verfication through experiment.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, it's you who are claiming that all the points you listed are "aspect or finding of Ozone chemistry," but that's just the rub. On what basis do you make the claim? Although the first batch of stuff you listed (see my post above) does qualify as accepted background, you went on in your second batch to include, as if they were statements on equal footing with the first batch, contentions which have been made as a basis for alarm and which require support. Dennis is saying, where is your evidence?

You come late to the opera, Ellen. The dance of the veils is indeed Dennis's, since I have attempted to pinpoint just where he claims hoax and fraud. I am doing a two-step (and with your help, a square-dance) with Dennis, asking him to put some flesh on the bones of his claims of fraud and hoax.

Thank you for the presentation of the list of contentions. It may be that I and only I must rove on in trying to find the 'falsifications' -- since Dennis (and you, now) tell me that this is my job. Like I say, I will come back in a week or so and see what material has been adduced by the Ozone Hole Fraud Squad.

But it also may be that Dennis (and you) do not actually have any bone to pick with the science of Ozone depletion. Perhaps, like many folks on both sides of the border and both sides of the issues, have a bone to pick with science-popularization, with science journalism, with the slack and befuddled science staff in various media. Maybe like me you tear your hair out at alarmism and sloppy reporting wherever it emerges -- whether in anti-vaccine hysteria or 'mystery illnesses' or 'theory of everything.'

Ultimately, I want some facts, If we have so far outlined some facts and facts possibly in dispute, I have done well so far.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, from my rhetorical knowledge and debate knowledge, what is the status quo position?

The burden would fall on the other side.

Adam, we're talking about scientific issues, which are (supposed to be) backed up by evidence not by "the status quo position." I'm well aware that that "little" requirement called evidence has gone by the wayside in much current dispute on the truth and falisity of claims made in the name of "science" -- and that appeals to "consensus" are dragged in as if they were appropriate or relevant. But proper scientific procedure is to present evidence FOR a truth claim made.

Ellen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, from my rhetorical knowledge and debate knowledge, what is the status quo position?

The burden would fall on the other side.

The static quo position from a political point of view has been settled in favor of the theory that chemicals "deemed harmful" to the Ozone Layer must be banned. It has entered into the new political catch phrase - "Settled Science". As a politically Settled Science no more experiments are required to verify the validity of previously reached conclusions - as such no govenment funding will be forthcoming to challenge those findings.

From the purely scientific point of view there is no such thing as a settled science and the burden rests on the proponent of a theory. This process was short-circuited.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, it's you who are claiming that all the points you listed are "aspect or finding of Ozone chemistry," but that's just the rub. On what basis do you make the claim? Although the first batch of stuff you listed (see my post above) does qualify as accepted background, you went on in your second batch to include, as if they were statements on equal footing with the first batch, contentions which have been made as a basis for alarm and which require support. Dennis is saying, where is your evidence?

You come late to the opera, Ellen. The dance of the veils is indeed Dennis's, since I have attempted to pinpoint just where he claims hoax and fraud. I am doing a two-step (and with your help, a square-dance) with Dennis, asking him to put some flesh on the bones of his claims of fraud and hoax.

Thank you for the presentation of the list of contentions. It may be that I and only I must rove on in trying to find the 'falsifications' -- since Dennis (and you, now) tell me that this is my job. Like I say, I will come back in a week or so and see what material has been adduced by the Ozone Hole Fraud Squad.

But it also may be that Dennis (and you) do not actually have any bone to pick with the science of Ozone depletion. Perhaps, like many folks on both sides of the border and both sides of the issues, have a bone to pick with science-popularization, with science journalism, with the slack and befuddled science staff in various media. Maybe like me you tear your hair out at alarmism and sloppy reporting wherever it emerges -- whether in anti-vaccine hysteria or 'mystery illnesses' or 'theory of everything.'

Ultimately, I want some facts, If we have so far outlined some facts and facts possibly in dispute, I have done well so far.

Ellen and I have danced on many issues for a decade and I believe we are both on the same page when it comes to understanding the basic requirements of science. We are now at the stage of requiring the basic reasearch and data to be explored. Discussing conclusions is getting the cart before the horse. I already looked into the basic research I am asking the proponent to do the same so we are both on the same page in understanding what the proponent is asking us to believe. I am not interested in the consensus conclusions but the science which has or has not been done to support their conclusions.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But proper scientific procedure is to present evidence FOR a truth claim made.

Hurrah!

Seriously, and more pointedly, a question for Ellen. I appreciate what she may be trying to do -- that each of us is trying to do -- ID particular points of contention and give them a workover. I am game. Dennis has done it all before and considers it settled, so he is probably not game at all.

So, you, dear lady, are you in this game, or merely keeping score and scolding? Will you be putting forward any argument about Ozone depletion yourself? Are you on a particular side here, or part of the Neutral Observer mission?

Ellen and I have danced on many issues for a decade and I believe we are both on the same page when it comes to understanding the basic requirements of science.

Yes, I think most of us here would get on the same page that A Claim Needs Evidence to support it.

As I remarked above, and as Ellen has magnificently listed, there are some issues that lay between you and acceptance. I understand that. I understand that you yourself will be no help in pinpointing those issues. I hope I use my week well. I shall be concentrating on that which most interests me, the unremarkable observation that "Some 'critics' have charged Hoax and Fraud with regard to Ozone Depletion." I will report back on this.

But, again, just to say it one more time: Dennis, you charged fraud and hoax. Adam and I are asking: who should be coming up with evidence of fraud and hoax in Ozone depletion? You, me, him, Ellen, Santa? This question you do not answer ....

Edited by william.scherk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But proper scientific procedure is to present evidence FOR a truth claim made.

Hurrah!

Ellen and I have danced on many issues for a decade and I believe we are both on the same page when it comes to understanding the basic requirements of science.

Yes, I think most of us here would get on the same page that A Claim Needs Evidence to support it.

As I remarked above, and as Ellen has magnificently listed, there are some issues that lay between you and acceptance. I understand that. I understand that you yourself will be no help in pinpointing those issues. I hope I use my week well.

But, again, just to say it one more time: Dennis, you charged fraud and hoax. Adam and I are asking: who should be coming up with evidence of fraud and hoax in Ozone depletion? You, me, him, Ellen, Santa? This question you will not answer ....

After we have digested the basic experimental evidence and can agree on what it includes and does not include we will be in a position to discuss the validity of various conclusions. Again we cannot get the cart before the horse on basic science.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

I am not interested in the consensus conclusions but {what} the science has or has not been done to support their conclusions.

end quote

When Dennis is “published,” I hope he will be given VIP Status. I don’t have the math skills, but “Deterministic Quantum Mechanics” is the correct path. There have been many hoaxes in Scientific History, like Cold Fusion, The Cardiff Giant, The Perpetual Motion Machine, The Piltdown Man, and Lamarckian Inheritance. Man made Ozone Depletion? Man made global warming? The truth will out.

Heil, General Maximus May, gladiator. May you claim your rightful place.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After we have digested the basic experimental evidence and can agree on what it includes and does not include we will be in a position to discuss the validity of various conclusions. Again we cannot get the cart before the horse on basic science.

I will be blogging my findings during my week away. Beyond blathering about meta-argument and blowing off the burden of proof, you are just not very interesting to discuss with at times, rather bluntly do you disregard my concerns. So I will discuss my findings with myself and see where I get to, off the main rink ... having slayed the dragon here, you may continue declaiming and expostulating without fear of contradiction.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

I am not interested in the consensus conclusions but {what} the science has or has not been done to support their conclusions.

end quote

When Dennis is “published,” I hope he will be given VIP Status. I don’t have the math skills, but “Deterministic Quantum Mechanics” is the correct path. There have been many hoaxes in Scientific History, like Cold Fusion, The Cardiff Giant, The Perpetual Motion Machine, The Piltdown Man, and Lamarckian Inheritance. Man made Ozone Depletion? Man made global warming? The truth will out.

Heil, General Maximus May, gladiator. May you claim your rightful place.

Peter Taylor

Well you got me to laugh out loud on that one.

It is a sad day when there are millions of scientists out there, an Internet full of information, but the application

of elementary scientific method seems to elude so many.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After we have digested the basic experimental evidence and can agree on what it includes and does not include we will be in a position to discuss the validity of various conclusions. Again we cannot get the cart before the horse on basic science.

I will be blogging my findings during my week away. Beyond blathering about meta-argument and blowing off the burden of proof, you are just not very interesting to discuss with at times, rather bluntly do you disregard my concerns. So I will discuss my findings with myself and see where I get to, off the main rink ... having slayed the dragon here, you may continue declaiming and expostulating without fear of contradiction.

I never claimed to be interesting. There is a basic procedure to science and jumping to and arguing about conclusions will not be productive until we can agree on what data is out there, what experiments have and have not been done then the discussion of conclusions can begin. Far too many argument involve disagreements about conclusions having never discussed the basis for the conclusions first.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis May wrote:

Well you got me to laugh out loud on that one.

end quote

I was hoping for, as a result, greater productivity 8 -) Laughs are good too.

Dennis wrote:

I never claimed to be interesting.

end quote

Speak for yourself. 8 -)

This ozone issue is an old, minor skirmish. Yet, your input is appreciated.

Shot any bald eagles lately? I see that the diminishing of finch populations is due to bacterial mutation.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] a question for Ellen. I appreciate what she may be trying to do -- that each of us is trying to do -- ID particular points of contention and give them a workover. I am game. Dennis has done it all before and considers it settled, so he is probably not game at all.

So, you, dear lady, are you in this game, or merely keeping score and scolding? Will you be putting forward any argument about Ozone depletion yourself? Are you on a particular side here, or part of the Neutral Observer mission?

I haven't looked into the ozone-depletion claims to the extent to which I have looked into the AGW-alarmism claims. However, to the extent I've looked into the former, the scare seems to me to be forerunner to and mounted on the same sort of shoddy basis as the latter. So I wouldn't say I'm a "Neutral Observer." I'd be surprised if you could come up with actually solid evidence for the scare.

Something you said in an earlier post clicked a realization into place for me. You wrote:

But it also may be that Dennis (and you) do not actually have any bone to pick with the science of Ozone depletion. Perhaps, like many folks on both sides of the border and both sides of the issues, have a bone to pick with science-popularization, with science journalism, with the slack and befuddled science staff in various media. Maybe like me you tear your hair out at alarmism and sloppy reporting wherever it emerges -- whether in anti-vaccine hysteria or 'mystery illnesses' or 'theory of everything.'

Note that you say "the science of Ozone depletion," but what's being disputed by Dennis is that there is science behind the claims on the basis of which various chemicals were banned. Your mentioning "anti-vaccine hysteria or 'mystery illnesses' or 'theory of everything'" is what occasioned the "click."

There are two different sources of alarmist claims made. Some are scares which arouse in the general populace, like the anti-vaccine hysteria, and against which scientists try to calm the fears. Another example is the scare about cell phones causing cancer. On the other hand, there are scares which well-publicized and heavily funded portions of the scientific community itself push.

Seems to me that you -- and a lot of other scientifically inclined people, too; I'm not singling you out -- readily accept the second category while questioning the former category. But why is that? The prestige of science? The belief that scientists wouldn't lie to us? One of the impediments against countering the global-warming fears is the slowness of many in the scientific community to believe that their colleagues would be lying to them.

At this point, however, seems to me that there's so much evidence of widespread fraudulence regarding AGW alarmism, it's time to start looking with suspicion on any scare pushed by scientists, it's time for the default postion to be, "There's probably nothing to it." Sad -- I hate beyond anything I could tell you what I see of the loss of scientific honor as standard operating procedure -- but, I think, realistic.

Ellen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis May wrote:

Well you got me to laugh out loud on that one.

end quote

I was hoping for, as a result, greater productivity 8 -) Laughs are good too.

Dennis wrote:

I never claimed to be interesting.

end quote

Speak for yourself. 8 -)

This ozone issue is an old, minor skirmish. Yet, your input is appreciated.

Shot any bald eagles lately? I see that the diminishing of finch populations is due to bacterial mutation.

Peter Taylor

I've never shot any bald eagles but I nearly ran over one about 15 years ago. It was eating a dead rabbit in the middle of the road and I popped over the hill and barely missed it. I caught one eating my brother's pet duck about 10 years ago. It flew off when I pulled up.

I hope to be more productive in the physics arena - I have one I am going to put on Objectivist Living adressing wave-particle duality [duality being a mistaken view]. I agree that the Ozone Hole is old news but as Ellen said in another post the same problems are present in Climate Change and originated the same way. It is a mistake to allow the Ozone Hole to be claimed as a victory. That would only encourage more of the same.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Sad -- I hate beyond anything I could tell you what I see of the loss of scientific honor as standard operating procedure -- but, I think, realistic.

Unlike many people I became aware of national authority figures lying at a very early age - 6th grade to be precise. I became aware of national science figures lying at age 17 - in person up close. Early immunization.

It occured to me a while ago that William may be laboring under the mistaken conclusion that I believe that fraudulent results were presented on individual chemical experiments in support of the Ozone Hole theory. That is not the case at all. Once he looks into the original experiments we can have a discussion of what experiments are appropriate when doing science and the conclusions that can be drawn from what was done and what was omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omitted-variable_bias

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote. “That would only encourage more of the same.”

Well said. So it was a duck? I told your years old eagle story to my vet recently, saying it was a puppy, (spaying, at a group rate, $125.00 plus rabies shots) and she started taking mental notes. She is definitely do-able. I hope the Parks Service won’t be knocking at your door, after descending from silenced, black, stealth helicopters. “Loose lips sink ships.” I won't say anything further.

Peter

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, however, seems to me that there's so much evidence of widespread fraudulence regarding AGW alarmism, it's time to start looking with suspicion on any scare pushed by scientists, it's time for the default postion to be, "There's probably nothing to it." Sad -- I hate beyond anything I could tell you what I see of the loss of scientific honor as standard operating procedure -- but, I think, realistic.

I believe the lack of challenge during previous political successes made researchers playing these games both bold and sloppy. In the long run the science will have to be redone on several scares. Some of the older ones have already been overturned but the public is largely unaware of it and for the most part policy based on those mistakes remains in place.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote. “That would only encourage more of the same.”

Well said. So it was a duck? I told your years old eagle story to my vet recently, saying it was a puppy, (spaying, at a group rate, $125.00 plus rabies shots) and she started taking mental notes. She is definitely do-able. I hope the Parks Service won’t be knocking at your door, after descending from silenced, black, stealth helicopters. “Loose lips sink ships.” I won't say anything further.

Peter

My old boss did have a great horned owl take a full grown house cat right out of this garage while he was standing there. An old girlfriend of mine had several house cats killed by a panther. That is the first step when they stake out a territory - eat all the pets.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

. . . scares . . .

end quote

Do you mean scores?

Don’t worry I am not following you. About to go to bed. Just won or too more posts.

Dennis wrote:

That is the first step when they stake out a territory - eat all the pets.

end quote

I have a ‘small’ cat door on my shed, but my wife saw a largish tom cat going through it yesterday. He will be dealt with. Little, tame ones only, allowed.

Pewter

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

. . . scares . . .

end quote

Do you mean scores?

I mean science "scares" - hysteria being stirred up for political gain.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that Ozone is one of those causes about which the enviromentalists now claim victory. They got their legislation through, and now the problem has gone away. Never mind that there never was a problem.

That's the rub, innit, though? Which is the "problem">? If the problem is, as I alluded to, pure hoax or fraud, I want it out, I want it punished, I want it expunged. That is what you do with a problem like hoaxing or fraud.

If the "problem" was a grievously misinformed media during the first public notice and concern about Ozone depletion, we have to look. If publicly financed bodies (NASA) alerted media to a scientific 'alarm' bell, then we should not only look to media depictions but also the actions and statements of those bodies. Any special-pleading or foot-on-gas/brake testimony in political arenas and policy-making deliberative bodies should be examined and acknowledged. If some heretofore responsible scientists made a big noise about Ozone depletion, and coerced national governments to commit to the Montreal Protocol -- while knowing that their prognostications were based on error/fudged stats/whimsy/fraud -- then I want to know their names also.

The problems grow larger if we do conclude, tentatively, that humankind cannot effect climate or the atmosphere in a destructive way. If it is not scientifically possible for humans to pump catalytic agents into the atmosphere that will degrade Ozone, then something fishy indeed is going on.

I think this is the null, the default, the Objectivish anti-environmental activism starting point. The problem.

The problem that never was, then, is the problem remaining.

Was there a problem in reality? Was there a danger in CFCs and other banned substances? Do measurements tell us anything about the course of Ozone levels over our recent history?

oz-time2.jpg

Now, in an exchange on Atlantis II, Michael DeVault wrote argued with our Dennis May. He said, "Ozone depletion wasn't a scientific fraud." And our Dennis said, "not all of it. Graphing fraud [...]"

So, does anyone see fraud in the graph presented above, or these graphs below (click through to source)?

oz_hole_area.jpg

atmos_so_figa_ozone.gif

Average October ozone levels at the Halley station (in Antarctica) between 1955 and 2006. The thick line represents October values; dots represent the seasonal variation of ozone concentration for the months from August to April

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that Ozone is one of those causes about which the enviromentalists now claim victory. They got their legislation through, and now the problem has gone away. Never mind that there never was a problem.
That's the rub, innit, though? Which is the "problem">? If the problem is, as I alluded to, pure hoax or fraud, I want it out, I want it punished, I want it expunged. That is what you do with a problem like hoaxing or fraud. If the "problem" was a grievously misinformed media during the first public notice and concern about Ozone depletion, we have to look. If publicly financed bodies (NASA) alerted media to a scientific 'alarm' bell, then we should not only look to media depictions but also the actions and statements of those bodies. Any special-pleading or foot-on-gas/brake testimony in political arenas and policy-making deliberative bodies should be examined and acknowledged. If some heretofore responsible scientists made a big noise about Ozone depletion, and coerced national governments to commit to the Montreal Protocol -- while knowing that their prognostications were based on error/fudged stats/whimsy/fraud -- then I want to know their names also. The problems grow larger if we do conclude, tentatively, that humankind cannot effect climate or the atmosphere in a destructive way. If it is not scientifically possible for humans to pump catalytic agents into the atmosphere that will degrade Ozone, then something fishy indeed is going on. I think this is the null, the default, the Objectivish anti-environmental activism starting point. The problem. The problem that never was, then, is the problem remaining. Was there a problem in reality? Was there a danger in CFCs and other banned substances? Do measurements tell us anything about the course of Ozone levels over our recent history? oz-time2.jpg Now, in an exchange on Atlantis II, Michael DeVault wrote argued with our Dennis May. He said, "Ozone depletion wasn't a scientific fraud." And our Dennis said, "not all of it. Graphing fraud [...]" So, does anyone see fraud in the graph presented above, or these graphs below (click through to source)? oz_hole_area.jpg atmos_so_figa_ozone.gif Average October ozone levels at the Halley station (in Antarctica) between 1955 and 2006. The thick line represents October values; dots represent the seasonal variation of ozone concentration for the months from August to April

Still need to go back and find the original lab experiments, then what experiments were done, what experiments have never been done, then we can discuss what passes for science.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still need to go back and find the original lab experiments, then what experiments were done, what experiments have never been done, then we can discuss what passes for science.

This is so we can later discuss conclusions and what is relevant within the framework of science from a common context.

Jumping to discussing conclusions or data taken in support of conclusions bypasses the requirement of a common context and understanding of the basics of what is actually being discussed. Arguing the cart before the horse will achieve nothing.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still need to go back and find the original lab experiments, then what experiments were done, what experiments have never been done, then we can discuss what passes for science.

Dennis

You have several times put your finger on the problem. We do NOT have Climate Science. What we have are climate models and highly adjustable models at that. Climate is the result of weather over an extended period of time. The underlying process is chaotic dynamics for which our best mathematical techniques are not fully adequate. We have not found to this day a fully sufficient mode of determining whether a Navier Stokes equation has even a numerical solution. Only in a few cases do we know the numerical solutions actually converge to a genuine solution of the equation. And that is just the start of our problems.

There are many drivers to weather and climate. Among which are secondary and tertiary cosmic rays shows which influence cloud formation. Clouds are nature's window shades. The clouds have a central role in temperature control on the ground. I am not yet convinced that even the honest climatologists he eliminated purely natural drivers as the cause of the current warm era.

Yes I believe we are in a warm era, just as the world was before the Little Ice Age 1300- 1750. The world gets hot (sometimes) and it cools off (sometimes) and in the past, humans had little or nothing to do with it.

Having said all that, I am no fan of excess CO2. I want to see North America paved over with breeder reactors from coast to coast from from the Yukon to the Rio Grande. Preferably thorium breeders (which we know how to build) that will not produce nasty by-products such as plutonium. I want to see us generate so much electricity by nuclear fission that we no longer have to burn oil and coal. Oil is a rich chemical feed stock for useful polymers and we have enough oil for that use to last us until Kingdom Come. Also we can put those fucking Muslim bastards out of business by not buying oil and showing the Europeans and Japanese they need not burn oil. Imagine that., Starving Islam to death instead of firing guns and dropping bombs. What a lovely thought that is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still need to go back and find the original lab experiments, then what experiments were done, what experiments have never been done, then we can discuss what passes for science.

Dennis

You have several times put your finger on the problem. We do NOT have Climate Science. What we have are climate models and highly adjustable models at that. Climate is the result of weather over an extended period of time. The underlying process is chaotic dynamics for which our best mathematical techniques are not fully adequate. We have not found to this day a fully sufficient mode of determining whether a Navier Stokes equation has even a numerical solution. Only in a few cases do we know the numerical solutions actually converge to a genuine solution of the equation. And that is just the start of our problems.

There are many drivers to weather and climate. Among which are secondary and tertiary cosmic rays shows which influence cloud formation. Clouds are nature's window shades. The clouds have a central role in temperature control on the ground. I am not yet convinced that even the honest climatologists he eliminated purely natural drivers as the cause of the current warm era.

Yes I believe we are in a warm era, just as the world was before the Little Ice Age 1300- 1750. The world gets hot (sometimes) and it cools off (sometimes) and in the past, humans had little or nothing to do with it.

Having said all that, I am no fan of excess CO2. I want to see North America paved over with breeder reactors from coast to coast from from the Yukon to the Rio Grande. Preferably thorium breeders (which we know how to build) that will not produce nasty by-products such as plutonium. I want to see us generate so much electricity by nuclear fission that we no longer have to burn oil and coal. Oil is a rich chemical feed stock for useful polymers and we have enough oil for that use to last us until Kingdom Come. Also we can put those fucking Muslim bastards out of business by not buying oil and showing the Europeans and Japanese they need not burn oil. Imagine that., Starving Islam to death instead of firing guns and dropping bombs. What a lovely thought that is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

All exactly right. I worked in hydrocode modeling Age 22-24, then non-linear electrical modeling in materials Age 25-30. No mystery that there can be no science like they are claiming. The chaotic and non-linear nature of the problem precludes modeling beyond a short time period and they don't have the data or models to support even that. It isn't even the beginning of a science yet much less a "settled science". The APS needs to have Nuremberg Trials for tenture and funding.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now