Unthreaded
Anyone interested in shale-gas production in the US might want to take a look at this talk by Arthur Berman http://tinyurl.com/88s96q9
He suggests that the price of shale gas must rise as many producers are supplying gas at below its cost of production.
BitBucket
Your further thought is beyond me I'm afraid - I'm a lawyer and no scientist. But, yes, it seems to me that CERN does science as science should be done. The "inevitable headlines" are hardly its fault - as I know to my cost.
Robin Guenier
Robin, a further thought,
I am interested in looking at the problem the other way round - trying to find a theory to fit unexplained empirical data. If we take Dirac's stuff at face value, and Einstein's SR (but not GR), how can we explain the Casimir effect, the Pioneer Anomaly and the anomalous rotation of galaxies?
But we are now well into the "lager zone".......
Roger Longstaff
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!).
Roger 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.
Roger Longstaff
Matthu
Thanks for that, the context definitely helps!!
Skiphil
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)
Skiphil
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.
Robin 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 ...?
matthu
Jul 4, 2012 at 10:58 PM BitBucket
You are quite right to raise this issue; false markets always collapse but sadly only after providing the unscrupulous with their ill gotten gains usually at the expense of those least able to pay.
And the largest false market in the whole wide world is? The wonderful, gorgeous, government backed and guaranteed world of “subsidy farming”
Just how do they get away with it without the use of chloroform?