David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Jed, I can not force you to look into the data yourself. That is your > decision. >
I have looked at the paper you referenced. I do not understand it well enough to comment. I never offer an opinion on a scientific paper I cannot understand in depth. > You sound much like the established Physics community in assuming that > LENR is not real because most physicists believe that. On the surface I may sound like that, but when you peel away a few layers of what I am saying, you will see it is just the opposite. The so-called established Physics community that makes assumptions about LENR are people who have read nothing, know nothing, and who have no right to any opinion. Just as I have no right to an opinion about the Akasofu paper you reference. In my case I say only "I doubt it because the weight of expert opinion is against it." That means "I don't know but it seems unlikely." The established Physics community nitwits (EPCN), on the other hand, are certain they are right, based on nothing at all. No evidence, no knowledge. It is impossible to judge the weight of expert opinion until you first establish who the experts are. You have to know whether self-appointed experts have actually read the literature or not, and whether they have basis for what they claim. I can do that in the case of cold fusion because I have read the literature. It is clear to me that the EPCN, the people at Scientific American and the people at Wikipedia have read nothing. They make elementary mistakes about the research. They have no idea what instruments are used, or what claims are made. Mainly, they have no idea what it is they do now know. It is classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect I cannot make any such judgement regarding climatology, so I am forced to defer to experts. I hope they really are experts. Since most of them work in the labs with data from thermometers and satellites, it seems likely to me they are experts. Everyone I know who works in the lab with actual cold fusion data knows about hundred times more than the EPCN. I know for a fact that any electrochemist knows about a thousand times more about electrochemistry than, say, Robert Park does, or the people at Kamiokande did. > Have you actually taken the time to look at how that 97% figure was > determined? If you did, you would have seen that it was proven false and > that the university for which the scientist worked could not be forced to > release the procedure used to reach that figure. A hacker finally obtained > the data! > I am sure that is bullshit. When a university researcher or public opinion pollster does not release data, no one ever believes him. He loses all credibility. Besides, no one would believe a 97% figure that from a single study in social science or any other field. You need other sources of evidence pointing to the same thing. Such as the weight of published papers, statements by professional organizations and so on. > It is amazing that you attack what I am merely reporting without doing any > research on your own. Google the phrase "Global Warming Hoax" and read > plenty of articles by reputable scientists from NASA, etc. Google "cold fusion hoax" and you will find just as many. It is all bullshit. Academic science have many faults, but it not possible for anyone to create or maintain a hoax in it. Heck, scientists can barely express a plain truth! It seems they can't even convince Bill Gates that cold fusion is real given a full day to present the evidence. I cannot imagine why anyone thinks scientists are capable of lying when they cannot even tell the truth. I have been working with them for a long time and believe me they they would make the worst liars imaginable. It reminds me of the notion that Rossi is a con man (confidence man). As I have often said, he inspires no confidence in anyone. > It shouldn't take too long for you to realize that the science is quite > flawed. Cold fusion is quite flawed. There is a world of difference between a hoax and flawed science. > Of course, if you believe that the science is settled, then you do not > need to research further. > As Martin Fleischmann said, "whenever anyone says the science is settled you can be sure it isn't." > > Can I assume that you are really going to review a few of those articles? > If not, then please refrain from calling that 97% figure accurate until you > prove it is. > I have great faith in modern public opinion research and polls. My late mother was an expert on that subject and taught me a lot about it. Those people made many mistakes in the past but by the 1980s it was down to a science. Furthermore, it is easy to take a poll of climatologists. You know where to find them, and the response rate is probably high. > Also, no one is suggesting that the earth is not warming up. It is mainly > a natural cycle with the contribution of man hidden within the noise. > Not according to most experts. - Jed
