Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: For fear of being branded a card carrying republican, I hate to comment on > such topics. I believe the "global warming movement" is a false flag - > just another lie being broadcast as propaganda to achieve some government's > pet objective. >
Scientists often do rotten things. They can be political animals. Few people have as much direct experience of their shenanigans as I do, or greater contempt for them. But one thing they have never done, in the history of science, is what you describe here. They have NEVER organized a large scale conspiracy to fool the public. They are not capable of it. Three reasons: that violates the rules of science; scientists are inept at communicating or convincing the public of anything (look at the cold fusion researchers for proof of that); and their social skills are so undeveloped they could not conspire their way out of a paper bag. Furthermore, as I said before, one of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that experts are usually right, and you should not listen to strange people from outside the scientific establishment. The mainstream researchers who confirmed cold fusion are right. If experts in climatology say there is global warming induced by humans, you can be sure they mean it, and you can be pretty sure they are right. People outside the field of climatology -- including you -- do not know the details and your critiques are probably wrong. I have seen many critiques of cold fusion written by scientists outside the field, including distinguished experts in physics and plasma physics. These critiques had no merit. They had glaring errors, omissions and misunderstandings in them. Some are outrageous nonsense, such as some the DoE panel comments: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEusdepartme.pdf Critiques by scientists who have not done their homework or have no knowledge of calorimetry are wrong. Even when they are supportive of cold fusion, they usually miss the point. Needless to say, critiques written by Wikipedia-style amateurs are beyond the pale. Years ago when I reviewed the Wikipedia article I could not find a single accurate substantive assertion about cold fusion. Not one! Everything from tritium to reproducibility was nonsense. I cannot judge climatology, but I can see that it is complicated science. It seems likely to me that all of the outside critiques are as bad as the Wikipedia-style critiques of cold fusion. Science works. In the end it gets things right, or mostly right. No one should disagree with this. It is self evident. No one would dispute that engineering works. Airplanes do not fall out of the sky; bridges do not collapse; your computer CPU does a billion operations a second without a single failure for months on end. Science and engineering are closely allied and closely comparable to one another. They both work, for similar reasons. Weather forecasting is different from long term climatology in some ways, yet closely related in others. They both use data from satellites and earth station observations. They use the same basic physical models. They deal with an enormous number of variables and gigantic databases. Weather forecasting is astoundingly accurate and reliable compared to how it was 20 or 50 years ago. It is undeniable that great progress has been made in it. It is foolish to imagine that similar progress has not been made in long term climatology. - Jed
