<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Anti-Scientific&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe nahhas</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-4112</link>
		<dc:creator>joe nahhas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:52:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-4112</guid>
		<description>scientists are at least 51% fraud
Einstein&#039;s Nemesis: DI Her Eclipsing Binary Stars Solution
The problem that the 100,000 PHD Physicists  could not solve  

This is the solution to the &quot;Quarter of a century&quot; Smithsonian-NASA Posted motion puzzle that Einstein and the 100,000 space-time physicists including 109 years of Nobel prize winner physics and physicists and 400 years of astronomy and Astrophysicists could not solve and solved here and dedicated to Drs Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney      
Of Villanova University Pennsylvania who posted this motion puzzle and started the search collections of stars with motion that can not be explained by any published physics   
For 350 years Physicists Astrophysicists and Mathematicians and all others including Newton and Kepler themselves missed the time-dependent Newton&#039;s equation and time dependent Kepler&#039;s equation that accounts for Quantum - relativistic effects and it explains these effects as visual effects. Here it is  

Universal- Mechanics

All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location 
r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product 

S = m r; State = mass x location

P = d S/d t = m (d r/dt) + (dm/dt) r = Total moment 

  = change of location + change of mass

  = m v + m&#039; r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m&#039; = mass change rate

F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Force = m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r

   = m γ + 2m&#039;v +m&quot;r; γ = acceleration; m&#039;&#039; = mass acceleration rate

In polar coordinates system

r = r r(1) ;v = r&#039; r(1)  + r θ&#039; θ(1) ; γ = (r&quot; - rθ&#039;²)r(1) + (2r&#039;θ&#039; + rθ&quot;)θ(1)

F = m[(r&quot;-rθ&#039;²)r(1) + (2r&#039;θ&#039; + rθ&quot;)θ(1)] + 2m&#039;[r&#039;r(1) + rθ&#039;θ(1)] + (m&quot;r) r(1)
  
F = [d²(m r)/dt² - (m r)θ&#039;²]r(1) + (1/mr)[d(m²r²θ&#039;)/d t]θ(1) = [-GmM/r²]r(1)

d² (m r)/dt² - (m r) θ&#039;² = -GmM/r²; d (m²r²θ&#039;)/d t = 0

Let m =constant: M=constant

d²r/dt² -  r θ&#039;²=-GM/r²  ------ I

 d(r²θ&#039;)/d t = 0   -----------------II

r²θ&#039;=h = constant -------------- II     
                                                 r = 1/u; r&#039; = -u&#039;/u² = - r²u&#039; = - r²θ&#039;(d u/d θ) = -h (d u/d θ)                                 
d (r²θ&#039;)/d t = 2rr&#039;θ&#039; + r²θ&quot; = 0        r&quot; = - h d/d t (du/d θ) = - h θ&#039;(d²u/d θ²) = - (h²/r²)(d²u/dθ²)
                                                                  [- (h²/r²) (d²u/dθ²)] - r [(h/r²)²] = -GM/r²              
2(r&#039;/r) = - (θ&quot;/θ&#039;) = 2[λ + ỉ ω (t)]                              - h²u² (d²u/dθ²) - h²u³ = -GMu²
                                                                                                d²u/dθ² + u = GM/h²             
 r(θ, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ + ỉ ω (t)]    u(θ,0) = GM/h² + Acosθ; r (θ, 0) = 1/(GM/h² + Acosθ)        
                                                         r ( θ, 0) = h²/GM/[1 + (Ah²/Gm)cosθ]      
r(θ,0) = a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)               ; h²/GM = a(1-ε²); ε = Ah²/GM                

 r(0,t)= Exp[λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)]t; Exp = Exponential

r = r(θ , t)=r(θ,0)r(0,t)=[a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[λ(r) + ì ω(r)]t} Nahhas&#039; Solution

If λ(r) ≈ 0; then:    

r (θ, t) = [(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[ỉ ω(r)t]

θ&#039;(r,  t) = θ&#039;[r(θ,0), 0]  Exp{-2ỉ[ω(r)t]} 

h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
h = 2πa²√ (1-ε²); r (0, 0) = a (1-ε)

θ&#039; (0,0) = h/r²(0,0) =  2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²   
θ&#039; (0,t) = θ&#039;(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²} Exp (-2iwt)
 
θ&#039;(0,t) = θ&#039;(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ&#039;(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)] 
θ&#039;(0,t) = θ&#039;(0,t)(x) + θ&#039;(0,t)(y); θ&#039;(0,t)(x) = θ&#039;(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]  
θ&#039;(0,t)(x) – θ&#039;(0,0) = - 2θ&#039;(0,0)sine²(wt) = - 2θ&#039;(0,0)(v/c)²  v/c=sine wt; c=light speed

Δ θ&#039; = [θ&#039;(0, t) - θ&#039;(0, 0)] = -4π {[√ (1-ε) ²]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²} radians/second
{(180/π=degrees) x (36526=century) 

Δ θ&#039; = [-720x36526/ T (days)] {[√ (1-ε) ²]/ (1-ε) ²}(v/c) = 1.04°/century

This is the T-Rex equation that is going to demolished Einstein&#039;s space-jail of time
  
The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 - ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²---) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
 v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m&lt;&lt;M; Solar system    

 v = v (center of mass); v is the sum of orbital/rotational velocities = v(cm) for DI Her
Let m = mass of primary; M = mass of secondary

v (m) = primary speed; v(M) = secondary speed = √[Gm²/(m+M)a(1-ε²/4)]
v (cm) = [m v(m) + M v(M)]/(m + M)   All rights reserved. joenahhas1958@yahoo.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>scientists are at least 51% fraud<br />
Einstein&#8217;s Nemesis: DI Her Eclipsing Binary Stars Solution<br />
The problem that the 100,000 PHD Physicists  could not solve  </p>
<p>This is the solution to the &#8220;Quarter of a century&#8221; Smithsonian-NASA Posted motion puzzle that Einstein and the 100,000 space-time physicists including 109 years of Nobel prize winner physics and physicists and 400 years of astronomy and Astrophysicists could not solve and solved here and dedicated to Drs Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney<br />
Of Villanova University Pennsylvania who posted this motion puzzle and started the search collections of stars with motion that can not be explained by any published physics<br />
For 350 years Physicists Astrophysicists and Mathematicians and all others including Newton and Kepler themselves missed the time-dependent Newton&#8217;s equation and time dependent Kepler&#8217;s equation that accounts for Quantum &#8211; relativistic effects and it explains these effects as visual effects. Here it is  </p>
<p>Universal- Mechanics</p>
<p>All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location<br />
r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product </p>
<p>S = m r; State = mass x location</p>
<p>P = d S/d t = m (d r/dt) + (dm/dt) r = Total moment </p>
<p>  = change of location + change of mass</p>
<p>  = m v + m&#8217; r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m&#8217; = mass change rate</p>
<p>F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Force = m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r</p>
<p>   = m γ + 2m&#8217;v +m&#8221;r; γ = acceleration; m&#8221; = mass acceleration rate</p>
<p>In polar coordinates system</p>
<p>r = r r(1) ;v = r&#8217; r(1)  + r θ&#8217; θ(1) ; γ = (r&#8221; &#8211; rθ&#8217;²)r(1) + (2r&#8217;θ&#8217; + rθ&#8221;)θ(1)</p>
<p>F = m[(r"-rθ'²)r(1) + (2r'θ' + rθ")θ(1)] + 2m&#8217;[r'r(1) + rθ'θ(1)] + (m&#8221;r) r(1)</p>
<p>F = [d²(m r)/dt² - (m r)θ'²]r(1) + (1/mr)[d(m²r²θ')/d t]θ(1) = [-GmM/r²]r(1)</p>
<p>d² (m r)/dt² &#8211; (m r) θ&#8217;² = -GmM/r²; d (m²r²θ&#8217;)/d t = 0</p>
<p>Let m =constant: M=constant</p>
<p>d²r/dt² &#8211;  r θ&#8217;²=-GM/r²  &#8212;&#8212; I</p>
<p> d(r²θ&#8217;)/d t = 0   &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;II</p>
<p>r²θ&#8217;=h = constant &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; II<br />
                                                 r = 1/u; r&#8217; = -u&#8217;/u² = &#8211; r²u&#8217; = &#8211; r²θ&#8217;(d u/d θ) = -h (d u/d θ)<br />
d (r²θ&#8217;)/d t = 2rr&#8217;θ&#8217; + r²θ&#8221; = 0        r&#8221; = &#8211; h d/d t (du/d θ) = &#8211; h θ&#8217;(d²u/d θ²) = &#8211; (h²/r²)(d²u/dθ²)<br />
                                                                  [- (h²/r²) (d²u/dθ²)] &#8211; r [(h/r²)²] = -GM/r²<br />
2(r&#8217;/r) = &#8211; (θ&#8221;/θ&#8217;) = 2[λ + ỉ ω (t)]                              &#8211; h²u² (d²u/dθ²) &#8211; h²u³ = -GMu²<br />
                                                                                                d²u/dθ² + u = GM/h²<br />
 r(θ, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ + ỉ ω (t)]    u(θ,0) = GM/h² + Acosθ; r (θ, 0) = 1/(GM/h² + Acosθ)<br />
                                                         r ( θ, 0) = h²/GM/[1 + (Ah²/Gm)cosθ]<br />
r(θ,0) = a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)               ; h²/GM = a(1-ε²); ε = Ah²/GM                </p>
<p> r(0,t)= Exp[λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)]t; Exp = Exponential</p>
<p>r = r(θ , t)=r(θ,0)r(0,t)=[a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[λ(r) + ì ω(r)]t} Nahhas&#8217; Solution</p>
<p>If λ(r) ≈ 0; then:    </p>
<p>r (θ, t) = [(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[ỉ ω(r)t]</p>
<p>θ&#8217;(r,  t) = θ&#8217;[r(θ,0), 0]  Exp{-2ỉ[ω(r)t]} </p>
<p>h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity<br />
h = 2πa²√ (1-ε²); r (0, 0) = a (1-ε)</p>
<p>θ&#8217; (0,0) = h/r²(0,0) =  2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²<br />
θ&#8217; (0,t) = θ&#8217;(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²} Exp (-2iwt)</p>
<p>θ&#8217;(0,t) = θ&#8217;(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ&#8217;(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]<br />
θ&#8217;(0,t) = θ&#8217;(0,t)(x) + θ&#8217;(0,t)(y); θ&#8217;(0,t)(x) = θ&#8217;(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]<br />
θ&#8217;(0,t)(x) – θ&#8217;(0,0) = &#8211; 2θ&#8217;(0,0)sine²(wt) = &#8211; 2θ&#8217;(0,0)(v/c)²  v/c=sine wt; c=light speed</p>
<p>Δ θ&#8217; = [θ'(0, t) - θ'(0, 0)] = -4π {[√ (1-ε) ²]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²} radians/second<br />
{(180/π=degrees) x (36526=century) </p>
<p>Δ θ&#8217; = [-720x36526/ T (days)] {[√ (1-ε) ²]/ (1-ε) ²}(v/c) = 1.04°/century</p>
<p>This is the T-Rex equation that is going to demolished Einstein&#8217;s space-jail of time</p>
<p>The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 &#8211; ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²&#8212;) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)<br />
 v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m&lt;&lt;M; Solar system    </p>
<p> v = v (center of mass); v is the sum of orbital/rotational velocities = v(cm) for DI Her<br />
Let m = mass of primary; M = mass of secondary</p>
<p>v (m) = primary speed; v(M) = secondary speed = √[Gm²/(m+M)a(1-ε²/4)]<br />
v (cm) = [m v(m) + M v(M)]/(m + M)   All rights reserved. <a href="mailto:joenahhas1958@yahoo.com">joenahhas1958@yahoo.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tarpon</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3962</link>
		<dc:creator>tarpon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3962</guid>
		<description>Surely the most unscientific statement must be: “the science is settled, there is no need for debate.”

dittos ... Romm great posting.

And isn&#039;t that the problem the alarmists have had from the beginning? &#039;no need for debate&#039; ... They say -- We have to pass all those crippling taxes before it&#039;s too late, now that it&#039;s getting really cold, really late is here already.

Another good one &#039;the North Pole will be ice free in 2008&#039; -- And what happened in 2008, only the Arctic sea ice grew at an unprecedented rate never seen before. If  Al Gore starts a crusade to change the tilt of the earth&#039;s axis then he may be able to cause the Arctic to become ice free, but it sure isn&#039;t going to happen because of excess atmospheric CO2 -- The very stuff of life for carbon lifeforms. You wonder if people know what photosynthesis  and cellular respiration is anymore.

And one thing that is clear, the next ice age will be here long before the Earth heats up from CO2 warming. Any good Paleoclimatologist can set you straight on that. Has anybody checked what might be going on with the sun that might be causing it to get cold on Earth?

It&#039;s even funnier to go back in time and dig out the original global warming pronouncements of the UN IPCC -- It&#039;s good for endless laughs. If you wanted to test the computer models, this should be all the test you need.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely the most unscientific statement must be: “the science is settled, there is no need for debate.”</p>
<p>dittos &#8230; Romm great posting.</p>
<p>And isn&#8217;t that the problem the alarmists have had from the beginning? &#8216;no need for debate&#8217; &#8230; They say &#8212; We have to pass all those crippling taxes before it&#8217;s too late, now that it&#8217;s getting really cold, really late is here already.</p>
<p>Another good one &#8216;the North Pole will be ice free in 2008&#8242; &#8212; And what happened in 2008, only the Arctic sea ice grew at an unprecedented rate never seen before. If  Al Gore starts a crusade to change the tilt of the earth&#8217;s axis then he may be able to cause the Arctic to become ice free, but it sure isn&#8217;t going to happen because of excess atmospheric CO2 &#8212; The very stuff of life for carbon lifeforms. You wonder if people know what photosynthesis  and cellular respiration is anymore.</p>
<p>And one thing that is clear, the next ice age will be here long before the Earth heats up from CO2 warming. Any good Paleoclimatologist can set you straight on that. Has anybody checked what might be going on with the sun that might be causing it to get cold on Earth?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s even funnier to go back in time and dig out the original global warming pronouncements of the UN IPCC &#8212; It&#8217;s good for endless laughs. If you wanted to test the computer models, this should be all the test you need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maurizio Morabito</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3915</link>
		<dc:creator>Maurizio Morabito</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:49:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3915</guid>
		<description>Romm is sadly turning into a caricature. At the current rate, by the end of 2010 he will denounce as anti-science even his own blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Romm is sadly turning into a caricature. At the current rate, by the end of 2010 he will denounce as anti-science even his own blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joshv</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3901</link>
		<dc:creator>joshv</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3901</guid>
		<description>There is no &quot;unassailable&quot; evidence in science.  &quot;Unassailable&quot; is a fundamentally anti-scientific term - its a term of politics.

All scientific hypothesis should always be open to question and falsification.  Even in the realm of Relativity, a much less fuzzy discipline than virology, scientists are still testing Einstein&#039;s equations.  And you know what?  Finding that these equations don&#039;t hold in certain situations would be an infinitely more auspicious career event for the researchers than merely adding yet another confirmation report to the literature.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no &#8220;unassailable&#8221; evidence in science.  &#8220;Unassailable&#8221; is a fundamentally anti-scientific term &#8211; its a term of politics.</p>
<p>All scientific hypothesis should always be open to question and falsification.  Even in the realm of Relativity, a much less fuzzy discipline than virology, scientists are still testing Einstein&#8217;s equations.  And you know what?  Finding that these equations don&#8217;t hold in certain situations would be an infinitely more auspicious career event for the researchers than merely adding yet another confirmation report to the literature.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Nitschke</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3897</link>
		<dc:creator>Will Nitschke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:28:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3897</guid>
		<description>Listened to a podcast a few days ago and one of the scientists involved with the discovery of a possible new species of human - &quot;Homo floresiensis&quot; declared that his critics were &quot;deniers&quot; and therefore by implication &quot;anti-scientific&quot;. Of course, the criticism of homo floresiensis may or may not be good, but it seems a new trend is starting: If someone is critical of your scientific research, whatever it now is, declare they are anti-science. Interesting times.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Listened to a podcast a few days ago and one of the scientists involved with the discovery of a possible new species of human &#8211; &#8220;Homo floresiensis&#8221; declared that his critics were &#8220;deniers&#8221; and therefore by implication &#8220;anti-scientific&#8221;. Of course, the criticism of homo floresiensis may or may not be good, but it seems a new trend is starting: If someone is critical of your scientific research, whatever it now is, declare they are anti-science. Interesting times.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jawmo</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3893</link>
		<dc:creator>jawmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3893</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t pretend to know whether the globe is warming, cooling or staying more or less in a state or stasis. But any scientist who declares the issue is closed, and no further research warranted, should have his credentials stripped and along with his garments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t pretend to know whether the globe is warming, cooling or staying more or less in a state or stasis. But any scientist who declares the issue is closed, and no further research warranted, should have his credentials stripped and along with his garments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick S</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3885</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3885</guid>
		<description>In this case, the priests of the Church (Gore,Hansen et al) were upset that their monopoly to speak for Church doctrine (AGW) was being challenged. They challenged their opposition as being anti(AGW)religious, but what they were was actually against the established (AGW) Church, doctrine, and priesthood. You hit the nail on the head with the religious analogy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In this case, the priests of the Church (Gore,Hansen et al) were upset that their monopoly to speak for Church doctrine (AGW) was being challenged. They challenged their opposition as being anti(AGW)religious, but what they were was actually against the established (AGW) Church, doctrine, and priesthood. You hit the nail on the head with the religious analogy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stan</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3884</link>
		<dc:creator>stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3884</guid>
		<description>Hmmmm.  Is Jennifer trying to imply that we&#039;ll &quot;have a very hard time finding anyone from [science] who is prepared to debate&quot; AGW?  Surely not.  The list of prize-winning, published scientists who dispute AGW is incredibly long.  Even the list of such scientists who describe AGW as a &quot;scam&quot; or &quot;joke&quot;, etc. is getting long.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmmm.  Is Jennifer trying to imply that we&#8217;ll &#8220;have a very hard time finding anyone from [science] who is prepared to debate&#8221; AGW?  Surely not.  The list of prize-winning, published scientists who dispute AGW is incredibly long.  Even the list of such scientists who describe AGW as a &#8220;scam&#8221; or &#8220;joke&#8221;, etc. is getting long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raven</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3883</link>
		<dc:creator>Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:05:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3883</guid>
		<description>Jennifer (or Scientist or whatever your real name is).

There really would be no doubt about the effect of CO2 if we had millions of independent subjects which were &quot;exposed&quot; to CO2 and we observed out of control warming. In that situtation the statistical evidence for the CO2 would be quite compelling. However, we don&#039;t have millions of independent earths - we have one. 

The climate models which you are so fond of are really no better than medical tests on rats - i.e. they may provide some useful insight but no credible scientist would claim that tests on lab rats are accurate predictors of the effects on humans.

I curious whether you would be willing to take a drug that has never been tested on human subjects? If not then how could you possibly support a massive economic and social experiment based on the outputs of climate models?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jennifer (or Scientist or whatever your real name is).</p>
<p>There really would be no doubt about the effect of CO2 if we had millions of independent subjects which were &#8220;exposed&#8221; to CO2 and we observed out of control warming. In that situtation the statistical evidence for the CO2 would be quite compelling. However, we don&#8217;t have millions of independent earths &#8211; we have one. </p>
<p>The climate models which you are so fond of are really no better than medical tests on rats &#8211; i.e. they may provide some useful insight but no credible scientist would claim that tests on lab rats are accurate predictors of the effects on humans.</p>
<p>I curious whether you would be willing to take a drug that has never been tested on human subjects? If not then how could you possibly support a massive economic and social experiment based on the outputs of climate models?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/01/anti-scientific.html/comment-page-1#comment-3882</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=828#comment-3882</guid>
		<description>All established medical science tells us that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.  There is unassailable evidence to demonstrate cause and effect.  You can still find people who dispute the link, but you&#039;ll have a very hard time finding anyone from the medical profession who is prepared to debate them.  So which side is the one that is “anti-science” — the one that is happy to mix it up in open debate or the one that is trying to get its opposition silenced?

MikeC - you really typify the level of maturity that this blog aspires to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All established medical science tells us that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus.  There is unassailable evidence to demonstrate cause and effect.  You can still find people who dispute the link, but you&#8217;ll have a very hard time finding anyone from the medical profession who is prepared to debate them.  So which side is the one that is “anti-science” — the one that is happy to mix it up in open debate or the one that is trying to get its opposition silenced?</p>
<p>MikeC &#8211; you really typify the level of maturity that this blog aspires to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

