[LINK] NASA Solar Storm Warning

Frank O'Connor foconnor at ozemail.com.au
Sun Jan 10 19:08:54 AEDT 2010


At its best science is institutionalized skepticism.

At its best science tries to prove the Null Hypothesis, and not the Hypothesis

At its best there are no Laws of Science or Nature ... there are only 
Theories which are deemed more or less likely based on experimental 
results and observations. Sometimes predictions are made to validate 
theories (e.g. Relativity, and light bending around the sun and other 
gravitation wells) ... but in the main its the boring experiments and 
observations that represent good science.

Theories are never proven. The scientific method only allows for the 
disproving of Theories. Theories NEVER become Laws. (The press and 
politicians can never get their heads around this one - for some 
reason they require absolute certainty in all things. Hence 
scientific theories are regarded as flimsy ... because they are not 
laws ... even if the experimental results have been repeated and 
validated thousands of times over.)

Having a crackpot theory unsupported by experimental verifiable data 
or observation, or developing one that is contrary to existing 
verifiable and repeatable results and observations, tends to rank up 
there with shamanism, religion and fairies at the bottom of the 

Finally, the simplest Theory that supports the experimental results, 
or observations, tends to be the best.

Which is why we go with evolution, relativity (special and general), 
and all the other scientific theories on which our technological 
civilisation relies. Engineers of course don't give a damn about the 
science ... they just go with what works.      :)

Just my 2 cents worth ...

At 4:57 PM +1100 10/1/10, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>>>  [Stephen Wilson:] Why shouldn't Greg and Phil be comfortable in being
>>>  able to dismiss nonsense like the idea that the movement in the
>>>  Milky Way might contribute to short (very very very short) scale
>>>  climate change?
>>  Why be so quick to dismiss?
>For all sorts of reasons:
>(1) because good science involves filters
>(2) because if you don't dismiss the extreme and crackpot theories you
>will waste so much time you won't make progress
>(3) because climate change action is imperiled by the nay-sayers who
>latch onto all the fringe theories as "evidence" that the scientific
>consense is flimsy.
>>  [A solar maximum] has been building since 1958. Does science assert
>>  climate systems are completely un-affected by solar storms, and by
>>  associated sun spots and a build up of them? 
>As far as I know, no climate scientist says climate is unaffected by
>such factors. But the strong scientific consensus -- as revealed by the
>IPCC reports, and by for example editorials in New Scientist and
>Scientific American I have read on the topic since the 1980s -- is that
>there is indeed one major causative factor, namely the liberation of
>carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human activity.
>>  I guess NASA uses the term 'Storm' with reason?
>Err yes, solar magnetic storms represent extreme fluctuations in the
>solar "wind" of charged particles that constantly bombard the earth. 
>The word "storm" here is a metaphor and not a meteorological technicality.
>See also George Bush's "Dessert Storm", or the Melbourne "Storm".
>>  Anyway, i say again, let's await additional scientific information, but
>>  also act on what we do presently know anyway. Or is this just 'bullshit'?
>>  Cheers,
>>  Stephen
>Nobody objects to ongoing climate research, and nobody says the climate
>changes for just one reason.  What many scientists object to is the
>(usually political) perversion of scientific process by those who insist
>on equal time being given to crackpot theories.
>And what I was specifically objecting to was Stephen's suggestion that
>Greg and Phil were being somehow complacent in their casual dismissal of
>the Milky Way idea.
>Stephen Wilson.
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au

More information about the Link mailing list