On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:20:11AM -0700, Steven Schear wrote: > As I mentioned, cosmology is another field whose theories also can never be > conclusively proven and despite massive consensus will remain just that: > only opinion.
Well I for one am very s[ck]eptical about this particular assertion - the Talls might just drop in and make a -public- appearance, and provide a lot of data about neighbouring galaxies. I'm sure we'll --never-- travel faster than the speed of sound .. > Here Hawking et al fume at those opposing one of their > cherished theories and the unmitigated gaul to play the Scientific Method > "card". > > https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-and-32-top-physicists-just-signed-a-heated-letter-on-the-origin-of-the-universe > > Warrant Canary creator > > On May 13, 2017 7:46 AM, "Steven Schear" <schear.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Michael Crichton's famous lecture drops the mike on consensus vs. science > > and should be required reading for anyone with an open mind on this topic. > > > > > > http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Aliens_Cause_Global_Warming > > _by_Michael_Crichton.html > > > > > > Warrant Canary creator > > > > On May 13, 2017 4:51 AM, "Zenaan Harkness" <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 08:27:43PM +1000, James A. Donald wrote: > >> > If you have read the climategate files, you will know that the new > >> > scientific method, the method of official science, is to determine > >> > the truth by consensus, then look for evidence to support that > >> > official truth, while ignoring or suppressing any contrary > >> > evidence, and if evidence cannot be found to support official > >> > truth, to just make the evidence up. > >> > >> This last bit "make the evidence up" is done with "scientific" models > >> - often retrospective data curve fitting - and this is the problem > >> they (govt paid "Scientist"s) have at the moment, their nice hockey > >> stick curves (from the 1980s?) were modelled perfectly for the data, > >> to fit the desired "scientific" outcome, and now the new data doesn't > >> fit the desired hockey stick outcome, so ridiculous "scientific" > >> explanations are trotted out, from "a global pause in global warming" > >> to "important data points not previously included in the model" and > >> other hogwash pseudo-"science" designed to regenerate the hockey > >> stick. > >> > >> It's political bullshit, not science. They know it. We know. Anyone > >> self respecting adherent to the actual scientific method knows it. > >> But a lot of propaganda to the contrary of the scientific methods is > >> identifying religious nuts to the discerning, which from one view is > >> a public service - just not worth anywhere near the "public" > >> theft-money spent on such "science" propaganda. > >> > >