Yeah, I guess the same can be said of the theory of evolution. When the
preponderance of scientists come to consensus, we should definitely ignore
them.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable experiments
reduced to the fundamentals.

11th order unstable computer models are for mystics.

The brain - man's second most favorite organ - is a wonderful thing. Make
the choice to use it. Frequently!

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new
roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but
they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the
vision unborrowed, and the response they recieved-hatred. The great
creators-the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood
alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed.
Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered
foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was
considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of
unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid.
But they won." Ayn Rand

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I guess the same can be said of the theory of evolution. When the
preponderance of scientists come to consensus, we should definitely ignore
them.

Think for yourself is what I said. I didn't say discount anything because it
is a consensus. Judge things on the evidence, not opinion.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable
experiments reduced to the fundamentals.

11th order unstable computer models are for mystics.

The brain - man's second most favorite organ - is a wonderful thing. Make
the choice to use it. Frequently!

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new
roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but
they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the
vision unborrowed, and the response they recieved-hatred. The great
creators-the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood
alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed.
Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered
foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was
considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of
unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid.
But they won." Ayn Rand

This is what you said: "People who rely on consensus - other people's
opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves."

So, in fact, you did discount relying on the consensus of others.

How do you propose getting the facts of a huge issue such as GW or evolution
without relying on the consensus of scientists????

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I guess the same can be said of the theory of evolution. When the
preponderance of scientists come to consensus, we should definitely
ignore them.

Think for yourself is what I said. I didn't say discount anything because
it is a consensus. Judge things on the evidence, not opinion.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

Where was the consensus?

People who rely on consensus - other people's opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves.

Instead rely on basic physical laws and measurable, repeatable
experiments reduced to the fundamentals.

11th order unstable computer models are for mystics.

The brain - man's second most favorite organ - is a wonderful thing.
Make the choice to use it. Frequently!

"Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new
roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but
they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the
vision unborrowed, and the response they recieved-hatred. The great
creators-the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors-stood
alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was
opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was
considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power
loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the
men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they
paid. But they won." Ayn Rand

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
This is what you said: "People who rely on consensus - other people's
opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves."

So, in fact, you did discount relying on the consensus of others.

How do you propose getting the facts of a huge issue such as GW or
evolution without relying on the consensus of scientists????


The same way those scientists get the facts. Someone has to get facts and do
analysis. Admittedly I do not get many of the facts first hand, I read
published studies. I have a good liberal education that emphasized critical
thinking skills. It appears you are treating these issues as a religion -
you accept things on faith and when facts don't add up you regurgitate the
dogma.

The current dogma is that global warming will trigger an ice age. How is
adding heat to a system going to cool it down? How does smokling cause
global warming? How did global warming occur before man existed, or do you
believe the earth is only 2,000 years old? Look at it, there isn't much
difference between a right wing wacko religious nut and an eco-nut.

Sorry, but you've just supported my argument. You said that you read
published papers. Thus you are relying on the papers to form your opinions.
Yet, you claim that one shouldn't use consensus for technical issues. So,
when you read 10 published papers from respected scientists and find one
that doesn't agree do you take the minority opinion as act of faith?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
This is what you said: "People who rely on consensus - other people's
opinions - usually cannot
think for themselves."

So, in fact, you did discount relying on the consensus of others.

How do you propose getting the facts of a huge issue such as GW or
evolution without relying on the consensus of scientists????


The same way those scientists get the facts. Someone has to get facts and
do analysis. Admittedly I do not get many of the facts first hand, I read
published studies. I have a good liberal education that emphasized
critical thinking skills. It appears you are treating these issues as a
religion - you accept things on faith and when facts don't add up you
regurgitate the dogma.

The current dogma is that global warming will trigger an ice age. How is
adding heat to a system going to cool it down? How does smokling cause
global warming? How did global warming occur before man existed, or do you
believe the earth is only 2,000 years old? Look at it, there isn't much
difference between a right wing wacko religious nut and an eco-nut.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but you've just supported my argument. You said that you read
published papers. Thus you are relying on the papers to form your
opinions. Yet, you claim that one shouldn't use consensus for technical
issues. So, when you read 10 published papers from respected scientists
and find one that doesn't agree do you take the minority opinion as act of
faith?


The papers present facts and conclusions supported by facts.

I draw my own conclusions. From reason and analysis of the data set and
experiment.

Here's a simple example from first year college physics. It is taught that
relative motion between magnet and a wire is necessary to produce electrical
current (Faraday's Law of Induction). That is a law.

Now go here and read on about unipolar or homopolar electrical generators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

Consider the case of the permanent magnetic rotating with the disc:

"If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator
works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates
with the disc. Before the discovery of the electron and the Lorentz force
law, the phenomenon was inexplicable and was known as the Faraday paradox."

The key here is the Faraday Paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox


Now, one proven simple physical law (Faraday's Law of Induction) cannot
explain the observed results and yet another simple law (Lorentz force
equation) can.

Laws work the same in all reference frames, regardless of the observer.

Figure out why Faradays Law of Induction does not work and what simple
modification or observation is necessary to make it work.

This is all simple physics, you do not have to invoke relativity, there is
no one elses opinion or consensus to help you. Figure it out on your own.

Again, this is a very simple physics problem, not a complex global warming
problem. After you tackle this, then tell me about global warming.

Now I know you will say, what is the relevance of this to global warming?
The earth is a unipolar generator of a large scale. The conductive
atmosphere and core is rotating with it's magnetic source. The resulting
electric field is a forcing function in the climate, weather and ionosphere.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/11/5/020

Which consensus includes the effects of the earth's magnetic field in their
global warming models?

Which global warming model has accurately predicted previous climatic trends
using data from the time? (This is a good way to test global warming models,
see if it works on old data).

If the earth cools over the next 20 years does global warming even exist?
Why don't the models predict a cooling?

Claiming consensus is an argument from ignorance and an appeal to authority.
Claiming consensus where none exists is ignorance.

So, basically what you're saying is that after you review all the findings
from those in a better position than you to know the facts, you base your
decision upon their conclusions. Like you said, you go with the consensus.

Thanks for clarifying.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Sorry, but you've just supported my argument. You said that you read
published papers. Thus you are relying on the papers to form your
opinions. Yet, you claim that one shouldn't use consensus for technical
issues. So, when you read 10 published papers from respected scientists
and find one that doesn't agree do you take the minority opinion as act
of faith?


The papers present facts and conclusions supported by facts.

I draw my own conclusions. From reason and analysis of the data set and
experiment.

Here's a simple example from first year college physics. It is taught that
relative motion between magnet and a wire is necessary to produce
electrical current (Faraday's Law of Induction). That is a law.

Now go here and read on about unipolar or homopolar electrical generators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

Consider the case of the permanent magnetic rotating with the disc:

"If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator
works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates
with the disc. Before the discovery of the electron and the Lorentz force
law, the phenomenon was inexplicable and was known as the Faraday
paradox."

The key here is the Faraday Paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox


Now, one proven simple physical law (Faraday's Law of Induction) cannot
explain the observed results and yet another simple law (Lorentz force
equation) can.

Laws work the same in all reference frames, regardless of the observer.

Figure out why Faradays Law of Induction does not work and what simple
modification or observation is necessary to make it work.

This is all simple physics, you do not have to invoke relativity, there is
no one elses opinion or consensus to help you. Figure it out on your own.

Again, this is a very simple physics problem, not a complex global warming
problem. After you tackle this, then tell me about global warming.

Now I know you will say, what is the relevance of this to global warming?
The earth is a unipolar generator of a large scale. The conductive
atmosphere and core is rotating with it's magnetic source. The resulting
electric field is a forcing function in the climate, weather and
ionosphere.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/11/5/020

Which consensus includes the effects of the earth's magnetic field in
their global warming models?

Which global warming model has accurately predicted previous climatic
trends using data from the time? (This is a good way to test global
warming models, see if it works on old data).

If the earth cools over the next 20 years does global warming even exist?
Why don't the models predict a cooling?

Claiming consensus is an argument from ignorance and an appeal to
authority. Claiming consensus where none exists is ignorance.