it is also unbelievable that educated people repeat the consesus fairy tale against cold fusion, despite huge evidences agains, and no valid refutation to support their cause... anyway they did because they were the consenus, because opposing mean you were the blacksheep of the lab, ...
note also that many climate skeptics use bad arguments... we should only consider the serious arguments, like those pushed by judith curry and alike... she even worked for IPCC and realizsed she was hiding data to defend "the cause".climategate and wwhat she read as an insider make her understand that what she did was the rule and not a local trick. some say she is a lukewarmer.... serious skeptics agree on some warming, but question the cause, because it have been warming since much longer tha global warming and pausing few times without credible information. the exgaggeration, the public myth are recognized even by IPCC and orthodox even chlarate fear is extremeliy improbable, as extreme weather is not caused by AGW... model are recoignized as not working, sung is getting recognized, climate sensibility start to be lowered note also that experts are useful and often competent, but they can fall in groupthink as a whole profession. see the alexander gordon de aberdee, semmeweils, then pasteur tragedy... in each time the theory was broke, data were ignored, and the solution came from people out of the domain, but competent wor unexpected reason. clmim 2014-08-25 20:19 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > I wrote: > > >> Do you think these are all errors? >>> >> >> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully >> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how >> instruments work. >> > > I say that because it seems extremely unlikely to me that experts have > spent decades working with these instruments and yet they make mistakes as > obvious as the ones you describe. This resembles the notion that Martin > Fleischmann never heard of recombination. > > Experts simply do not make the kind of idiotic errors you describe here. > If you think you have discovered such errors, I am certain you are mistaken > and you suffer from hubris. No amateur can page through the literature in a > short time -- as you claimed you have done -- to find that many obvious > mistakes. I suppose that list came from some misinformed amateur. I have > seen many similar lists regarding cold fusion in places like Wikipedia. > > - Jed > >
