On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

You would think so wouldn't you?

Guess what - it's not.

Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science
and a story that deserves to be told.

And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how
viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer
reviewed.

http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v


Yeah, but that's weather, AKA GW.
Everybody knows weather isn't science.
Scientists might talk about it, but since everybody knows the
weatherman can't predict jack beyond a day out, it can't be considered
"science."
BTW, one of my fav SF short stories had meteorologists navigating
in the sun to tweak the weather.
They were on a special mission to honor the dying founder of the
service, who was laying on a chaise on a tropical beach for his last
breaths.
They were successful. It snowed on him and only him as he kicked off.
Don't remember title or author.
Leave that to old alien jarheads.

--Vic