CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

because I listened to them talking about their research and they say that it makes the greenhouse effect redundant. Either their research says this, or they are misrepresenting their own research, I’ll let you decide which of these is worse for your position


If you think you are qualified to assess such a fantastic claim (all rocky planets surface temps within 1c) based on ‘I studied similar topics years ago in undergraduate college’ then this justifies everything I have said

I have studied climate change in modules at degree level scientific courses but I would never dream of claiming this qualifies me to assess Such claims off the top of my head.

So your not qualified to asses scientific papers, (but it doesn't seem to stop you dismissing them out of hand) so you don't bother reading them, and no-one else should read them to try and understand them?

You are misrepresenting what Dr. Nikolov and Zeller said. There is a great explanation here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/09/02/does-the-nikolov-and-zeller-discovery-violate-energy-conservation/#more-43908

In this scheme, the pressure gradient in the system is the cause of the higher surface temperature. This doesn’t conflict with the mainstream observations of the levels of radiation occurring at various altitude. In fact, it gives an explanation for them the standard greenhouse theory can’t. Those radiation levels are what they are because of the temperatures the various surfaces and layers of the system reach due to the atmospheric pressure. They are the EFFECT, not the CAUSE of the temperatures. As I was always taught in my physics classes; Everything radiates according to its temperature.

As Ned has previously pointed out, the standard radiative greenhouse theory has no way to explain how 240W/m^2 of incoming Sunlight can be converted into 340W/m^2 of ‘back radiation’ in a freely convecting atmosphere. It is the standard theory which is breaking the energy conservation law, not Ned and Karl.

oriel36

Tuisceanch wrote: »

OK read your posts..found a book 'The Invention of Nature: The Adventures of Alexander von Humboldt, the Lost Hero of Science: .. ordered some LSD and will get back to you when I've finished talking to a tree I know.

This is for neutral observers rather than empirical academics and their cheerleaders, after all, where some see serious people firing graphs back and forth at each other, I see the streetlight principle in action -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

The people most likely to understand how Newton's 'Rule III' morphed into 'universal laws' and recently morphed again into the 'scientific method' are neutral observers rather than those deeply buried in the rut thinking of that 17th century icon.

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

The idea of universal attraction which ties the fall of an apple (experiment) to planetary orbital dynamics (universal qualities) is as exotic and indulgent as the idea that conditions in a common greenhouse (experiment) scale up to the Earth's atmosphere (universal quality). The last empirical modeling nightmare was the treatment of empire builders on what they considered subhuman/savage (experiment) applied to all biology with aggression at the centre of life (universal quality).


Academic pretense like any other pretense has never been a source of anything other than self-aggrandisement, the cheerleaders for 'climate change' may not know it but the neutral observer knows instinctively that proponent/skeptic within the 'scientific method' are just spinning their meaningless wheels at the expense of genuine climate research.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

because I listened to them talking about their research and they say that it makes the greenhouse effect redundant. Either their research says this, or they are misrepresenting their own research, I’ll let you decide which of these is worse for your position


If you think you are qualified to assess such a fantastic claim (all rocky planets surface temps within 1c) based on ‘I studied similar topics years ago in undergraduate college’ then this justifies everything I have said

I have studied climate change in modules at degree level scientific courses but I would never dream of claiming this qualifies me to assess Such claims off the top of my head.

And you don’t only choose the latest data. In the ice extent graph you discounted both a flat trend from 40 years ago and the flat trend from the recent period in order to reject the average decades trend of 12.8% ice loss over the full series

Off the top of your head. What does that mean? You think people stop learning/researching the minute they leave college? You seem to compare everyone's qualifications to your own. As I said, you have no idea of other people's level of knowledge so I'd quit now before you make a fool of yourself.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

But they HAVE been validated?
Peer reviewed and published 3 times?
Not a single physicist has found an issue with the science?

Their model might work perfectly well for the Data they used to fit that model. I understand they had to ‘recalculate’ some of the surface temperatures to get the model to work and if this is the case then it’s a massive hole in their claims to be able to predict temperatures to within 1c

They might have made a useful tool for approximating temperatures on exo planets where we have little data and that would be a worthy achievement if only they didn’t go on to argue that their model invalidates the known science surrounding the greenhouse effects of different atmospheric gasses

Akrasia

And to claim that there is nothing wrong with the physics is wrong
Here is Dr Roy Spencer showing how gas compression and Insolation alone cannot possibly be the sole explanation for a planetary bodies temperature

www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

Akrasia

You’re the one likely to make a fool of yourself by reading a paper that makes such outlandish claims and not being to see any glaring errors.

What do you think of Roy Spencer’s analysis in that link I just gave?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You’re the one likely to make a fool of yourself by reading a paper that makes such outlandish claims and not being to see any glaring errors.

What do you think of Roy Spencer’s analysis in that link I just gave?

I got Error404.

You haven't identified any glaring errors yourself so off you go and read it.

SeaBreezes

Akrasia wrote: »

And to claim that there is nothing wrong with the physics is wrong
Here is Dr Roy Spencer showing how gas compression and Insolation alone cannot possibly be the sole explanation for a planetary bodies temperature

www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

And here is where Dr Nikolov corrects Dr Spencer's blog.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-to-dr-roy-spencers-blog-article/

He also invited Dr Spencer to further debate but Dr Spencer declined..

Excerpt:
In his blog, Dr. Spencer demonstrated several misconceptions about our work that could be due to either not having read/understood our papers or perhaps an incomplete grasp of thermodynamics. The fact that Dr. Spencer cites a newspaper article about our research instead of the actual published paper may indicate a lack of familiarity with the technical details of our study. These are some key misrepresentations that I spotted in his article:

Tuisceanch

SeaBreezes wrote: »

And here is where Dr Nikolov corrects Dr Spencer's blog.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-to-dr-roy-spencers-blog-article/

He also invited Dr Spencer to further debate but Dr Spencer declined..

Excerpt:
In his blog, Dr. Spencer demonstrated several misconceptions about our work that could be due to either not having read/understood our papers or perhaps an incomplete grasp of thermodynamics. The fact that Dr. Spencer cites a newspaper article about our research instead of the actual published paper may indicate a lack of familiarity with the technical details of our study. These are some key misrepresentations that I spotted in his article:

That correction you mentioned is in relation to the blog post 'A Reply to Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog Article “Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach”' which is not the same as the one mentioned in the post you are relying to.

SeaBreezes

Tuisceanch wrote: »

That correction you mentioned is in relation to the blog post 'A Reply to Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog Article “Giving Credit to Willis Eschenbach”' which is not the same as the one mentioned in the post you are relying to.

Are you Arkasia?
How do you know which one Arkasia is referring to?
The rest of us just get Error 404 when we click the link.

Surprised Arkasia gives Dr Spencer the time of day, he's another 'skeptic' that says warming is natural not human

Tuisceanch

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Are you Arkasia?
How do you know which one Arkasia is referring to?
The rest of us just get Error 404 when we click the link.

No of course I'm not Arkasia.

The link is here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

I didn't have any problems accessing that link when it was posted. However I was already aware of that article as I'd already come across it myself. In the link you posted it is stated that:

Dr. Spencer did not consider the role of adiabatic processes in atmospheric dynamics that are complimentary to the well-understood diabatic heating by solar radiation.

However if you read the link that was posted by Arkasia you can see that, in fact, he had previously addressed that point.

In the blog post that Nikolov is rebutting,Dr Spencer says:

The non-greenhouse theory of Nikolov (and now Zeller-Nikolov) continues to live on, most recently in this article I’ve been asked about on social media.

In short, it is the theory that there really isn’t a so-called “greenhouse effect”, and that the excess planetary surface temperatures on Earth, Venus, and other planets above the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) temperature calculated from the rate of absorbed solar radiation is due to compressional heating by the atmosphere.

This is a popular alternative explanation that I am often asked about. Of course, if there is no “greenhouse effect”, we don’t have to worry about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and all of the global warmmongers can go home.

I have posted on this blog many times over the years all of the evidences I can think of to show there really is a greenhouse effect, but it is never enough to change the minds of those who have already convinced themselves that planetary surface temperatures are only a function of (1) absorbed sunlight and (2) atmospheric pressure, as Zeller and Nikolov claim.

SeaBreezes

Tuisceanch wrote: »

No of course I'm not Arkasia.

The link is here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

I didn't have any problems accessing that link when it was posted. However I was already aware of that article as I'd already come across it myself. In the link you posted it is stated that:


However if you read the link that was posted by Arkasia you can see that, in fact, he had previously addressed that point.

In the blog post that Nikolov is rebutting,Dr Spencer says:

Funny that, you being the only one who could access it.

Tuisceanch

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Funny that, you being the only one who could access it.

Not really. I just click on the left button of my mouse and viola. I imagine that if any other poster now clicks on the link and accesses it they must also be Arkasia. So now instead of discussing what the science says in the paper you linked we will now have to all prove that we're not Arkasia. The title of the blog post is

'Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth'

Hopefully Google will work on your computer.

P.S. I should have written Akrasia. Funny how I managed to get my apparent other user name wrong twice and you didn't spot it.

Tuisceanch

Akrasia wrote: »

And to claim that there is nothing wrong with the physics is wrong
Here is Dr Roy Spencer showing how gas compression and Insolation alone cannot possibly be the sole explanation for a planetary bodies temperature

www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

Sorry for spelling your or mine!? user name incorrectly!!

oriel36

The neutrals here have to come to understand that academics, whether proponents or opponents of 'climate change' within the umbrella 'scientific method' don't do reason, compromise or anything else. The reasonable neutral would therefore have to look elsewhere knowing that higher reasoning always destroys the playthings of the imagination as Leibniz once described mathematical modelers.

"These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning" Leibniz

Pascal adopted a more balanced approach that ignores those who cannot be helped but rather neutrals who are outside a mathematical/empirical subculture where the means are more important than the conclusions.

"When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others." Pascal

It is fine to be concerned about restricting atmospheric and oceanic pollution and this is true, however, the notion of controlling planetary temperatures is false and even at face value entirely absurd. It is not an opinion but a technical impossibility arising from planetary orbital dynamics of all planets let alone the Earth.

Gaoth Laidir

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Not really. I just click on the left button of my mouse and viola. I imagine that if any other poster now clicks on the link and accesses it they must also be Arkasia. So now instead of discussing what the science says in the paper you linked we will now have to all prove that we're not Arkasia. The title of the blog post is

'Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth'

Hopefully Google will work on your computer.

P.S. I should have written Akrasia. Funny how I managed to get my apparent other user name wrong twice and you didn't spot it.

I've clicked it yet again now on my phone and still got 404.

Tuisceanch

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I've clicked it yet again now on my phone and still got 404.

IT Support Helpline

How to fix the error '404 Not Found'
A 404 error is rarely a reason to celebrate. At the end of the day, the website’s visitors have not found the content that they were looking for. However the appearance of a 404 page does not necessarily mean that the desired information is not available at all. In many cases, the solution to the original error is easily found and the visitor can be quickly directed to the web page that they were originally looking for. So how exactly can you go about achieving a 404 error fix? Our advice would be to try out these potential solutions (in the order that they are listed):

• Reload the page: It might be that the error 404 has appeared for the simple reason that the page did not load properly. This can be checked quite easily by clicking on the ‘Refresh’ button in your browser or also by pressing the F5 button.

• Check the URL: Regardless of whether you have entered the URL address manually or been directed via a link, could be that a mistake has been made. For this reason you should check the specified path of the website. It could be that either you, or the person who entered the link, has mistyped something. Apart from spelling mistakes, it could also be that forward slashes have been left out or misplaced. But bear in mind that this can only really be checked with ‘clean’ URLs, as they contain unreadable words instead of incomprehensible abbreviations, letters, numbers, and symbols.

• Go back through the directory levels: For example, if a URL of the following structure example.com/Directory1/Directory2/Directory3 causes a 404 error page, then you can always go back to the previous directory level (in this example: example.com/Directory1/Directory2) in order to check whether the desired page is linked there. All you need to do is clear the last directory in the URL. The link for the page you are looking for should be visible on the previous page. If it is not to be found on that page then you can also go back to the previous page and look for the correct link there. But if it so happens that this method is also successful and you eventually end up back on the homepage, then move onto the next tip.

• Use the website’s search function: Many websites offer a search function as part of their homepage. By entering one or several keywords, it can help you find the specific page that you are looking for.

• Use a search engine: You also have the possibility of using the website of your choice to find a website. As long as the desired site exists, you should be able to find it by entering the website domain and/or a keyword transcription of the subject matter.

• Delete the browser cache and cookies: If you can access the website from another device, and the HTTP 404 error only seems to appear on a certain computer, then the problem could lie with your browser. Therefore you should delete the browser cache as well as all cookies for this site, and this may then finally allow you to access the page.

• Contact the website: If none of the abovementioned tips have been successful then the only remaining option may be to get in touch with the person/people responsible for the website. Contact information can usually be found in the website’s masthead or else on a specific ‘Contact Us’ page. The operators of the website should be able to provide information as to whether the page you are looking for actually exists. It might be the case that the page in question has been moved to a new URL, and in this scenario you will be doing the website operator a big favor. They can then carry out a 404 error fix by introducing a domain redirect, which will automatically direct users from the old web page to the current one.

Tuisceanch

Well I'm still trying to get my head around the Nikolov & Zeller papers but one question that kept popping in to my head was to what they attributed current climate change. In the following blog post by the authors they state:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=112160745

A proposed key new driver of climate is the variation of total atmospheric mass and surface pressure over geological time scales (i.e. tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of years). According to our new theory, the climate change over the past 100-300 years is due to variations of global cloud albedo that are not related to GHE/ATE. This is principally different from the present GH concept, which attempts to explain climate changes over a broad range of time scales (i.e. from decades to tens of millions of years) with the same forcing attributed to variations in atmospheric CO2 and other heat-absorbing trace gases (e.g. Lacis et al. 2010).

Earth’s climate is currently in one of the warmest periods of the Holocene (past 10K years). It is unlikely that the Planet will become any warmer over the next 100 years, because the cloud cover appears to have reached a minimum for the present levels of solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure, and the solar magnetic activity began declining, which may lead to more clouds and a higher planetary albedo. At this point, only a sizable increase of the total atmospheric mass can bring about a significant and sustained warming. However, human-induced gaseous emissions are extremely unlikely to produce such a mass increase.

I wonder if this is still their current hypothesis?

Gaoth Laidir

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Not really. I just click on the left button of my mouse and viola. I imagine that if any other poster now clicks on the link and accesses it they must also be Arkasia. So now instead of discussing what the science says in the paper you linked we will now have to all prove that we're not Arkasia. The title of the blog post is

'Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth'

Hopefully Google will work on your computer.

P.S. I should have written Akrasia. Funny how I managed to get my apparent other user name wrong twice and you didn't spot it.

I clicked on the link that you posted and was surprised to find that the date is December 2011, 3 years before the first 'Volokin' 2014 paper that I linked to above and on which the latest paper is based. Strange how he can comment on a paper that never existed yet.

I've only read the 'Volokin' 2014 paper so far so can not comment on the latest one yet. It contains what appears to be sound scientific, referenced arguments and does not discount the greenhouse effect. In fact, it says that the 33 degrees may be a conservative number in reality.

Tuisceanch

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I clicked on the link that you posted and was surprised to find that the date is December 2011, 3 years before the first 'Volokin' 2014 paper that I linked to above and on which the latest paper is based. Strange how he can comment on a paper that never existed yet.

I've only read the 'Volokin' 2014 paper so far so can not comment on the latest one yet. It contains what appears to be sound scientific, referenced arguments and does not discount the greenhouse effect. In fact, it says that the 33 degrees may be a conservative number in reality.

He's commenting on the https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/

That's the link I just posted.

thecretinhop

climate change skeptic had to be changed to climate change denier. hmm i wonder what other sentence goes with denier. wizardry of words/pr is part of this guff.
rolled out regularly on media...

SeaBreezes

From an article Dr. Nikolov links to from his twitter account where they explain the paper and science in layman terms:

https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/

"One major implication of our recently published study is that there is indeed a fundamental problem with the physics of current radiative greenhouse concept," he told WND, highlighting the origin of the "inaccurate" theory in two 19th century papers.

"The foundation of the greenhouse theory was born of an assumption, it was never shown experimentally, and our results show this is completely wrong," Nikolov said. "Our study blows the greenhouse theory completely out of the water. There is nothing left."

"This is what the data shows," he said. "We didn't start with a theory, we started with the data, which is the opposite of how the greenhouse theory came about."

The greenhouse theory, Nikolov explained, is based on the assumption that a free convective atmosphere – an atmosphere with no "lid" on it – can trap heat.

"This was an assumption born out of a misinterpretation of experiments involving glass boxes in the early 19th century by Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician," he said.

"Glass boxes get warmer inside when exposed to the sun not because they trap long-wave radiation, as thought by Fourier, but because they hamper the exchange of air between the inside of a box and the outside environment," he added.

Next came Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, who assumed Fourier was correct and in 1896 created an equation to calculate the Earth's temperature based on CO2 in the atmosphere.

"This equation is both mathematically and physically wrong," argued Nikolov. "Yet, this paper is still cited as 'evidence' that the physics of the greenhouse effect have been well-known for over 100 years.

oriel36

SeaBreezes wrote: »

The greenhouse theory, Nikolov explained, is based on the assumption that a free convective atmosphere – an atmosphere with no "lid" on it – can trap heat.

"This was an assumption born out of a misinterpretation of experiments involving glass boxes in the early 19th century by Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician," he said.

You are innocent in the way all perpetual students are, after all, the notion of 'climate change' is a testament to the 'scientific method' therefore no academic is ever going to challenge the core principle that conditions found in a common greenhouse (experiment) scale up to the Earth's atmosphere (universal quality) -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

Surely you don't believe that academics are going to give up their pensions and reputations by admitting the Rule III/Scientific method is an overreaching opinion passed off as a method. Of course you are not a neutral therefore you are hardly able to inspect the whole 'scientific method' issue rather than being stuck with the symptom of that empire doctrine, in this case 'climate change'.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I got Error404.

You haven't identified any glaring errors yourself so off you go and read it.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/

Akrasia

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Sorry for spelling your or mine!? user name incorrectly!!

Don’t worry about it me

Nabber

Here is the official UNESCO magazine from summer 1973, (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000074891) which explains that they were in the middle of the LONGEST COOLING PERIOD ON RECORD, since 1945, and that this cooling trend, despite rapidly rising CO2 levels, disproved the CO2 warming hypothesis.

Akrasia

SeaBreezes wrote: »

From an article Dr. Nikolov links to from his twitter account where they explain the paper and science in layman terms:

https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/

"One major implication of our recently published study is that there is indeed a fundamental problem with the physics of current radiative greenhouse concept," he told WND, highlighting the origin of the "inaccurate" theory in two 19th century papers.

"The foundation of the greenhouse theory was born of an assumption, it was never shown experimentally, and our results show this is completely wrong," Nikolov said. "Our study blows the greenhouse theory completely out of the water. There is nothing left."

"This is what the data shows," he said. "We didn't start with a theory, we started with the data, which is the opposite of how the greenhouse theory came about."

The greenhouse theory, Nikolov explained, is based on the assumption that a free convective atmosphere – an atmosphere with no "lid" on it – can trap heat.

"This was an assumption born out of a misinterpretation of experiments involving glass boxes in the early 19th century by Joseph Fourier, a French mathematician," he said.

"Glass boxes get warmer inside when exposed to the sun not because they trap long-wave radiation, as thought by Fourier, but because they hamper the exchange of air between the inside of a box and the outside environment," he added.

Next came Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, who assumed Fourier was correct and in 1896 created an equation to calculate the Earth's temperature based on CO2 in the atmosphere.

"This equation is both mathematically and physically wrong," argued Nikolov. "Yet, this paper is still cited as 'evidence' that the physics of the greenhouse effect have been well-known for over 100 years.

This utterly ridiculous straw man summary of the experimental evidence for the greenhouse effect just goes to make him even less reliable

The fact that a glass box filled with CO2 traps more heat than a glass box filled with oxygen or Nitrogen does demonstrate the greenhouse effect of CO2 compared with other Gasses

This is extremely basic stuff

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You’re the one likely to make a fool of yourself by reading a paper that makes such outlandish claims and not being to see any glaring errors.

What do you think of Roy Spencer’s analysis in that link I just gave?

I haven't had a chance to read anything today but I will.

It's good to see that you've now dropped your contempt for Spencer after all the times you slated him in the past. Glad you seem to be coming around... :pac:

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I clicked on the link that you posted and was surprised to find that the date is December 2011, 3 years before the first 'Volokin' 2014 paper that I linked to above and on which the latest paper is based. Strange how he can comment on a paper that never existed yet.

I've only read the 'Volokin' 2014 paper so far so can not comment on the latest one yet. It contains what appears to be sound scientific, referenced arguments and does not discount the greenhouse effect. In fact, it says that the 33 degrees may be a conservative number in reality.

These papers are all based on the same fundamental idea that he was banging on about 10 years ago, and based on the nonsense that Steve Goddard had been banging on about before him. And the authors themselves say that their latest paper does disprove the greenhouse effect. Aren’t you a little bit concerned that a theory that (according to the lead author) overturns the greenhouse effect has been in the public domain and receiving plenty of media attention for a decade and hasn’t had an impact on the scientific literature?

Is it more likely that
a) the theory is not robust or plausible or
b) the theory is fundamentally flawed and/or the conclusions are not supported by the data, and any scientist who has seen it has decided that it’s not worthy of their time to pursue it further

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I haven't had a chance to read anything today but I will.

It's good to see that you've now dropped your contempt for Spencer after all the times you slated him in the past. Glad you seem to be coming around... :pac:

It’s more of a case that this theory is too wrong even for him