Craig, this reminds me of how Marshall Booth would challenge anyone to demonstrate evidence from a repeatable experiment, when they claimed to know how to improve on what the MB engineers had wrought. Example: installing a K&N air filter on a 240D. Marshall's response: time several 0 to 60 runs with the factory air filter, remove it and retest the 0 to 60 run, and report back on how much faster the car performed without the factory air filter. I don't recall that anyone was able to improve performance.
Max Dillon Charleston SC Dec 28, 2019 3:06:56 PM Craig via Mercedes <mercedes@okiebenz.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, December 27, 2019, 4:07:15 PM EST, Andrew Strasfogel > > > > > via Mercedes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sounds like complete and utter BS/propaganda. Provide a peer > > > > > reviewed article to that effect please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if there is a peer-reviewed article which addresses the > point at which solar electric installations require more CO2 generation > than they elimate, but there are many peer-reviewd articles which say > CO2 is not a problem: > > 1) Thru 2014 > http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html > = 1350± > 2) 2015 https://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/ = 280± > 3) 2016 https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/ = 500± > 4) 2017 > <https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/ > > = 485± > 5) 2018 > <https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/ > > = 500± > 6) 2019 > https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/17/consensus-200-new-2019-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarmism/ > (thru June) = 200± > > TOTAL of AGW skeptical peer-reviewed papers ~ 3300! > > As the fellow who set up my other email list said (with a few edits to > remove the name of the one person to whom it was directed), > > The sad thing about such compilations is that quantity makes no > difference whatsoever. When Albert Einstein's critics published > a book titled "One Hundred Against Einstein," he famously replied > "Why one hundred? One man can prove me wrong!" > > Just as "Peer-Review" provides no more than an evaluation by two > or three colleagues that a paper may be worthy of publication, so > a collection of papers provides a compendium of guesses that more > likely than not support a prevailing paradigm. > > On the other hand, a paper that breaks new ground may not find any > supporters, even if it is brilliant work. Such was the case with > one of my professors at the University of Chicago who submitted a > paper to the Astrophysical Journal in the 1950s, hypothesizing a > "solar wind". All referees rejected it. (We called them "referees" > in those days, because their job was merely to advise the editor of > the journal and not to certify correctness, as those who insist on > peer review believe.) Fortunately the editor, Subrahmanyan > Chandrasekhar, recognized the value of Eugene Parker's work and > published his paper. By the mindset of those who insist on peer > review, the paper was rubbish, because it had no support among > Parker's peers. > > That paper was, however, one of the triumphs of solar system physics, > spelling out the existence and characteristics of the now well known > supersonic plasma called the solar wind. But how do we know that > Professor Parker was correct? Did we count the number of subsequent > "peer-reviewed" papers that agreed with Parker and compare those with > the number that disagreed? Heavens no! We built space probes to get > beyond the Earth's magnetosphere and look for the solar wind and the > spiral solar magnetic field carried by it. The probes found a solar > wind that was precisely what Parker had predicted. > > That should tell those who insist on peer review as the criterion for > validity that logic and evidence form the basis of real science, not > consensus thinking, disguised as "Peer-Review". > > Parker went on to become a distinguished professor at the University > of Chicago, as did Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. At age 92, Parker is > still alive and recently witnessed the NASA launch of the "Parker > Probe" to study the origins of the solar wind near the surface of the > Sun. Chandra won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983 but is now long > gone. Both men had offices a few doors from mine at the Laboratory > for Astrophysics and Space Research. > > The days of such hugely competent science are obviously long gone. > Science has become a political and economic exercise that chases > massive government largesse, attacks any who criticize, and cares > very little to nothing about the truth. > > > Also, > > Dear John, > > Yes, it is often worthwhile to try to show those who are headed > down the wrong path where it will lead them. But those who are > members of the Climate Cult are part of a larger political/religious > movement that considers ALL arguments as one way streets. They > never allow them to be reversed against them. > > They are involved in a logic that sounds strange to us, because it > starts with the premise that they are correct and refers all > counter-arguments to point number one: they are right. And what is > remarkable is that they see absolutely nothing wrong with that! > This was certainly the mindset prior to the Age of Enlightenment, > the Age of Reason, and the Age of Science. Today's "intellectuals" > have reverted to an earlier era where politics and religion > determined everything. Period. > > They are perfectly happy as members of the Inquisition. When they > are combating us, they are combating heresy. > > > Something which is worthwhile for everyone on this Mercedes List to view > is the comments by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on the scientific > method. > > If you go to http://www.richardfeynman.com/, "The Official Site of Richard > Feynman", you will be asked to download "Feynman on Scientific Method.mp4" > (at least it works that way on my antiquated browser). > > Download it and view it. > > One of Feynman's quotes is, > > The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, > and you are the easiest person to fool. > > > Craig > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
