So what? Are you telling me that everytime there is consensus that it is wrong? Goofy. Consensus is part of the scientfic process. Come up with a theory, then gather facts until the theory is shown to be correct or wrong. If wrong, you adjust the theory.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Madigan" <[email protected]> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 Actually there are plenty of examples of consensus being wrong * the theory of continental drift proposed by Alfred Wegener and supported by Alexander Du Toit and Arthur Holmes but soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection. * the theory of symbiogenesis presented by Lynn Margulis and initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted. * the theory of punctuated equilibria proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge which is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory. * the theory of prions -proteinaceous infectious particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases- proposed by Stanley B. Prusiner and at first rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence. * the theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers. This theory was first postulated in 1982 by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren however it was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach. Marshall demonstrated his findings by drinking a brew of the bacteria and consequently developing ulcers, subsequently curing himself with antibiotic medication. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus --- On Tue, 2/16/10, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 6:02 PM > Hey. For once I agree with Ricardo. > Good comment. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ricardo Aráoz" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 3:01 PM > Subject: Re: [OT] No global warming since 1995 > > > > Stephen Russell wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Michael Madigan > <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Scientific consensus in 1492 was that the > world was flat. > >>> > >>> Scientific consensus in the 1800s was that the > gorilla didn't exist > >>> > >>> Scientific consensus in the 1930s was that the > Coelacanth was extinct > >>> for millions of years. > >>> > >>> > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> 2011 Idiots finally REALIZE that the worlds temp > is in flux and goes > >> up and down. The overall trend of this flux > can be graphed in an > >> increasing slope. > >> > >> > > > > Reaaaaally nice piece of thought. Because scientific > consensus was wrong > > in 3 (Three!!!) isolated points (against billions of > correct > > conclusions) then we should ditch scientific consensus > and instead rely > > on ....... a consensus table with three seats : > MadAgain, Minimus, and > > Petgay. We could add a couple of preachers, GWB, > Shwarzenegger, and > > Ronald Reagan's ghost. > > > > > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > > multipart/alternative > > text/plain (text body -- kept) > > text/html > > --- > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/9f41325580864cdc804805aa0894e...@dual ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
