Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Thanks Skiphil,

I particularly liked Stephen's explanation in the link. If I study this further perhaps I shall become less sceptical (but I have had my fingers burned too many times before!).

Jul 4, 2012 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

Robin,

I agree with what you say. However, the neutrino business set alarm bells ringing. Also, I have a problem with the standard model.....

But at least, even with the neutrino bisiness, CERN presensented the data and said that they could not understand it. That is the way that science should be done (even if the inevitable headlines blew things up out of all proportion). I await the formal publications with interest.

Jul 4, 2012 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

Matthu

Thanks for that, the context definitely helps!!

Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Roger
I am not in physics (or any science field) but I have seen a lot to suggest that the CERN teams are immensely thorough, rigorous, and conscientious in ways that (some of) the climatologists cannot even begin to fathom. Anyway, my understanding is that there was a very demanding kind of "peer review" before this announcement... these twin CERN teams are operating with many levels of caution and review. Don't know if you've seen the first WUWT thread on the topic but there are some detailed comments from a couple of (apparent) particle physicists which at least try to address some remarks similar to yours:

first WUWT thread on CERN announcement

(you might look for another Roger and also Stephen toward the end of the thread if you don't want to read the whole thread)

Jul 4, 2012 at 8:31 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Roger:

It's nearly always wise to be sceptical. But there's a vast difference between climate "scientists" and particle physicists. The former believe that, because their computer models appear to validate their hypothesis, there's no need for empirical evidence. Likewise, the latter have models indicating that the Higgs bosun must exist. But that's not enough: at massive expense, they set up an experiment to determine whether or not the empirical evidence supports the hypothesis.

Jul 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

Skiphil - re. the final nail in the coffin

Actually, it was not I who gave that statement the honour of being the final nail. I was actually responding to someone (who shall remain nameless and whose post has since been removed) who described it as such - but the final nail in the coffin of the "deniers" if you will.

I hope that provides sufficient context ...?

Jul 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

Interesting contrasting papers quoted today by Anthony Watts and by P Gosselin – NoTricksZone.
Gosselin showing a paper predicting a new solar maximum in 2013 and Watts showing two sources stating that the cycles have actually shut down altogether ---> solar minimum soon ^.^

Jul 4, 2012 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Is anybody else sceptical about the Higgs Boson discovery announced by CERN?

When I first encountered CAGW I was sceptical - I later became a hard-line "denier".

When I heard about CERN's announcement of superluminal neutrinos I intuitively knew it was nonsense. Once bitten, twice shy.

I have never liked the standard model - I find other alternatives much more plausible (eg. MOND).

I am probably just a grumpy old man, but I have come to distrust this meeja science.

Jul 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Longstaff

“Milton Keynes Council faces legal fees threat over wind turbine ruling”

“A PEOPLE power policy to protect residents from the noise of wind turbines could end up costing Milton Keynes Council hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees.

For energy giants RWE npower are this week threatening to sue the council over its minimum distance ruling.

Milton Keynes is one of the first councils in the country to impose a ban on massive turbines being built less than 1.2 kilometres away from housing.”

RWE bosses, who want to put 17 wind turbines on two different local sites, claim the ban is unlawful and contrary to the Government’s national policy to produce green energy whenever possible.

The company’s lawyers have written to the council saying the 1.2 kilometre rule has ‘no rational basis’ and should be ‘accorded no weight’.

In a barely veiled threat, they state the council would risk a ‘considerable burden to the public purse’ in legal fees if it did not take back its decision.

The letter has infuriated city MP Mark Lancaster, who voted in favour of the Localism Act because it empowered local authorities to make their own decisions.

“I am deeply concerned and opposed to a large multinational business trying to undermine the wishes of residents by threatening the council with legal action.””

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/milton-keynes-council-faces-legal-fees-threat-over-wind-turbine-ruling-1-4014721

Jul 4, 2012 at 7:18 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9376229/US-politician-accidentally-legalises-fracking.html

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Jul 4, 2012 at 7:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>