"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.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
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.


Facts are not conclusions.

How can there be a consensus (and what is it?) when there are conflicting
conclusions?

My decisions do consider others conclusions. It's still my decision based
upon facts and reason, not majority.

Show me the consensus.

The consensus is obvious. You don't have to have 100 percent agreement to
have consensus. I suggest you look up the definition.

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

"Gilligan" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
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.


Facts are not conclusions.

How can there be a consensus (and what is it?) when there are conflicting
conclusions?

My decisions do consider others conclusions. It's still my decision based
upon facts and reason, not majority.

Show me the consensus.