|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 4, 2009 21:18:09 GMT
Could the ghastly corruption, sleight of hand and suborning of science to ideology that characterises the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia have happened if this unit had been located in Cambridge or Oxford Universities?
Is there something about this desperate-for-cash jumped-up offspring of the "white heat of the technological revolution" that was just an accident waiting to happen?
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Norwich, have lately spent two lovely holidays there and first explored it as a child of 11, but why did Thatcher choose THIS place with its Climatic Research Unit and a staff of third raters, as the home for her version of "Environmentalism" and throw money at it? She was engaged in a war against the miners at the time, remember, and was promoting nuclear technology, too.
I wondered recently on worralorra if the debacle of the IPCC's hijacking of climatology in the late twentieth century could have happened if the giants of early 20th century science - Einstein, Rutherford, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Feynman and so on were still on the scene?
Could they have tolerated for one minute what has happened to the world acting on this corrupted "science" or would it have been laughed out of court or better still nipped in the bud before it ever got out of the seminar room?
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Dec 4, 2009 23:43:30 GMT
it is only some peoples view that it is corrupt science but it is science
University of East Anglia is a well respected academic institution it is disingenuous to state otherwise
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 5, 2009 1:42:07 GMT
Not any more it ain't.
The "CRU crew" has joined the "hockey team" as an object of derision. Science does not benefit from cliques any more than message boards do , but I know that is falling on deaf ears.
Politically correct science?
It sounds like Lysenko all over again.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 5, 2009 14:23:56 GMT
Seems the whole University of East Anglia is a cottage industry of climate changers. December 2, 2009 Jobs for the Boys The University of East Anglia today announces "The world's first MBA course aimed at preparing the next generation of business leaders and managers for a low-carbon economy". 12 standard modules will be delivered in compact format over four days. Managers on the course will acquire a comprehensive knowledge about the science and impacts of climate change, low-carbon technologies and solutions, the economics of the low-carbon environment, corporate climate change management and carbon-trading - as well as the normal knowledge expected from an MBA. www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/carbonmbalondon
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 6, 2009 18:25:53 GMT
And anti AGW people cast pros as mind-controlling communists - another pantomime villian, yes?
I'd still like to see the emails that the deniers have been writing to each other.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2009 18:27:05 GMT
Naturally when paradigms change there is heated debate but the people you have mentioned were conducting REAL science and experiments and advancing knowledge.
Climatechangism is about divvying up a few facts in support of a cranky politically motivated hypothesis.
We are now in the era of instant communication which has changed everything. You can't keep secrets any more and "peer review" is conducted on a thousand blogs all over cyberspace. This is the real lesson of Climategate.
It's great!!
I've just noticed specialperson's little bleat about UEA. Do you think he is an alumnus?
What I was meaning about if the CRU were located in Oxford or Cambridge would its output have been different, was could such absolute dross have come out a centre of academic excellence? I don't think so.
Peer review has been the achilles heel of climatechangeism. Long live blogs - giant brain-storming sessions that can iron out glitches in hypotheses in very short order. Blogs are a substitute, in a way, for a little local absence of academic excellence .
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Dec 10, 2009 12:52:30 GMT
The Aether theory was more complicated than this, and the reasons for its postulation have not gone away, and never did go away. All that happened was the Michelson-Morley experiment was widely and comically misinterpreted, and before any real debate on its significance got underway Einstein published Special Relativity and the whole matter became forgotten. There was no valid reason for this to happen - SR does not contradict the Aether theory. On the contrary, it fundamentally relies on the Lorentz Transformation - the exact same equation that would have predicted Michelson-Morley's results. So if M-M had been testing Lorentz's theory rather than looking for Aether-drift or inertia, the experiment would have been held up in support of the Aether rather than against it. Such is the power of the prevailing paradigm in both seeking and interpreting observational data.
SR also depends on an absolute matrix for Space-Time measurements, despite the still near-universal misinterpretation that it does the opposite. When it later became subsumed into General Relativity this inherent contradiction became concealed and with the sole exception of Herbert Dingle has yet to be examined. General Relativity of course fundamentally depends on a Universal tensor field - as Einstein was happy to acknowledge, this differs from the old "Aether" solely in terms of its name.
So, without the "Aether" - whose function was to provide an absolute Space-Time matrix to accommodate the conflict between the accepted equations of electromagnetism and the Galilean Principle of Relativity - SR doesn't make sense, and neither does GR. Feynman's modification of Maxwell's equations in QED also demand an "Aether" - or an extra-dimensional substratum to Space-Time to accommodate his "springs", which may as well be called the "Aether" as anything else. The principle cornerstones of modern physics all rely on a Universal field underlying but prior to Space-Time, therefore - this "mythical substance" has different elaborate technical names depending on which incompatible theory you look at, but it seems impossibly unlikely that it's not the one self-same thing.
And this is a very different matter. If it was a scientific controversy there would be no problem.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 10, 2009 13:30:29 GMT
Welcome back, Nick. We need a few more polymaths on board.
I've been doing my best to educate 'em, but.........
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 10, 2009 13:47:22 GMT
Thought of you when I was reading this this morning, Nick. Of course, I don't understand a word of it.
from WUWT
Valkyrie Ice (03:29:40) : Two things.
To anyone who does not know who Joshua Storrs Hall is, I recommend you look him up. He is the head of Foresight.org and one of the premiere names in Nanotechnology. He is the creator of the concept of Programmable matter, AKA Utility Fog, and one of the most creative minds working on Molecular Nanotechnology and Molecular Engineering. When it comes to Drexlarian Nanotechnology, not the redefined materials science dealing with nanoscale materials but actual Mechanosynthesis, there are few who can top him for knowledge.
The second thing is I recommend anyone who is concerned about bad science look up the Electrical Universe, which discusses how Modern Astrophysics has ignored any and all evidence that the universe is primarily ruled by Electromagnetic forces, not Gravity. Over any distance EM is 37 orders of magnitude stronger than Gravity, and falls off on a linear scale instead of a logarithmic scale like gravity. The electrical interactions between the Sun and our electromagnetic fields greatly effect weather.
Also, if you look into EU theory, you will also find that there is substantial evidence that our solar system underwent severe changes at the end of our last ice age. As ridiculous as it may sound, our ancestors insisted in numerous ancient documents that Saturn used to be much closer to Earth, and that a too close brush with Jupiter, once much closer to the sun, resulted in Saturn being removed from it’s previous prominence, and it and several other planets such as Mars and Venus also were sent into erratic orbits.
As planets act as anodes in a vaccum to the Sun’s cathode, the electrical forces seeking equilibrium brought all the planets into their current orbits, but not without several thousand years of eccentricity. It is recorded in some ancient texts that Mars and Venus both had close encounters with the Earth, resulting in massive electrical discharges between planets as they sought to equalize potentials.
The interesting thing is that if this theory is correct, which will require much more evidence to confirm, then our periods of warming and cooling would seem to correspond to the possible major changes in orbits among the planets. In theory, the Earth was originally a planet around Saturn, which was a small star, which intersected the current solar system, went through a long period of eccentric orbits before finally settling in a long period orbit which eventually intersected that of Jupiter. That would make the sudden end of the last ice age a product of assuming our own independent orbit around the sun, and the various spikes due to planetary interactions as the planets equalized charges and stabilized their orbits to what we see today.
I can’t say I’m convinced, but it is interesting to contemplate.
However, the story of how EU theory is being suppressed by the mainstream Astrophysics community is very similar to that of the chicanery seen here by the AGW crowd. While I can’t say I agree with the Saturn Theory, the evidence for electrical phenomena in space is readily apparent if you know anything about electrical forces. I highly recommend anyone who is interested to check out EU theory and see how the electrical interactions between Earth and the Sun can influence our weather.
10 12 2009
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Dec 10, 2009 16:34:50 GMT
Hello again Marchesa, nice to see you again too. I'm afraid I'm very far from being a polymath, though this just does happen to be my subject of specialist interest. However, I haven't read the book under review.
It's certainly true that proponents of plasma physics being far more important in astrophysics than gravitational/inertial interactions have had a hard time of it over the decades. The opposition of the scientific community has been fierce and wholly reprehensible, and broadly parallels the treatment of AGW-deniers these days. The fact that this argument is more or less over now is entirely due to one man, Hans Alfven, who despite being denied publication in scientific journals, ostracised at conferences, denied grants, being the subject of scurrilous personal villification - all the tactics of an entrenched "standard" scientific community that we now see operating in the AGW debate - nevertheless managed to win through thanks to vindicating observations and tenacious superior argument.
The electrical interaction between the Sun and our geomagnetic field certainly does greatly affect weather. I've been closely watching the effects of the Saturn-Pluto square over the past few weeks, and greatly reminded of the Grand Conjunction (when there were seven planets in the same place) of 20 years ago, when the Berlin Wall came down, and you could watch major storms rage around the world every week like clockwork whenever the Moon moved round into electromagnetically disruptive aspect to it. This is, I have very little doubt, the most significant causative factor in Global Warming - entirely predictable, entirely natural, entirely ephemeral. This does not deny the physical effects of Greenhouse gases, of course - just pointing out that it's far more influential, and has until very recently been entirely ignored by the IPCC.
The "Saturn Theory" strikes me as being rather fanciful. Obviously, there's clear evidence of major disruptions in the solar system in its history - the asteroid belt, for one. I'm satisfied from my own analysis that the planets have formed where they are for reasons of em interaction - the harmonically resonant relationships are crystal-clear (I say that to please Joe). There has been some but fairly minor disruptions of these musical relationships. That is - it's highly unlikely the Earth was ever in orbit around Saturn. If we were, then another planet-sized object would definitely be where we are now.
This is more or less correct - the current interactions between Io and Jupiter prove it beyond doubt. The rest of it is...highly speculative and slightly batty, to say the least.
Yes, this is right.
Unfortunately, Joe doesn't. Unless he's been furiously genning-up on it since last we spoke, when he was cocksure enough to deny there was such a subject as magnetohydrodynamics.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 10, 2009 16:55:22 GMT
I agree about Saturn, Nick. Fanciful. I too was reading along quite happily until that point.
I think the IPCC climatology clique are just environmentalists playing at being "scientists". The convictions come first, the science is just to fill in the gaps. Introduce them to a real astrophysicist and I think they would faint. I'm not saying this is true for all "climatologists" but the most convincing "climatologists" I come across call themselves mathematicians, meteorologists, geologists, engineers, physicists, oceanographers and solar physicists etc.
What's in a name? A lot, actually.
|
|