Facts, beliefs, and identity: The seeds of science skepticism

January 22, 2017
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Psychological researchers are working to understand the cognitive processes, ideologies, cultural demands, and conspiracy beliefs that cause smart people to resist scientific messages. Using surveys, experiments, observational studies and meta-analyses, the researchers capture an emerging theoretical frontier with an eye to making science communication efforts smarter and more effective.

Protecting "Pet Beliefs"

One striking feature of people who hold science-skeptic views is that they are often just as educated, and just as interested in science, as the rest of us. The problem is not about whether they are exposed to information, but about whether the information is processed in a balanced way. It manifests itself in what Matthew Hornsey (University of Queensland) describes as "thinking like a lawyer," in that people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to "in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true."

"We find that people will take a flight from facts to protect all kinds of belief including their religious belief, their political beliefs, and even simple personal beliefs such as whether they are good at choosing a web browser," says Troy Campbell (University of Oregon).

Dan Kahan (Yale University) agrees, finding in their research that "the deposition is to construe evidence in identity-congruent rather than truth-congruent ways, a state of disorientation that is pretty symmetric across the political spectrum."

Changing Minds

Merely talking about "evidence" or "data" does not typically change a skeptic's mind about a particular topic, whether it is , , or vaccines. People use science and fact to support their particular opinion and will downplay what they don't agree with.

"Where there is conflict over societal risks - from climate change to nuclear-power safety to impacts of , both sides invoke the mantel of science," says Kahan.

"In our research, we find that people treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions," says Campbell. "When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant."

One approach to deal with science skepticism is to identify the underlying motivations or "attitude roots," as Hornsey describes in his recent research (American Psychologist, in Press).

"Rather than taking on people's surface attitudes directly, tailor the message so that it aligns with their motivation. So with climate skeptics, for example, you find out what they can agree on and then frame climate messages to align with these."

Kahan's recent research shows that a person's level of scientific curiosity could help promote more open-minded engagement. They found that who enjoyed surprising findings, even if it was counter to their political beliefs, were more open to the new information. As Kahan and his colleagues note, their findings are preliminary and require more research.

Hornsey, Campbell, Kahan and Robbie Sutton (University of Kent) will present their research at the symposium, Rejection of Science: Fresh Perspectives on the Anti-Enlightenment Movement. The talks take place on Saturday, January 21, 2017, at the SPSP Annual Convention. More than 3000 scientists are in attendance at the conference in San Antonio from January 19-21.

Explore further: How our brains are biologically tuned to be influenced by confident people

Related Stories

How we think about science can make a difference

October 4, 2016

If, as Barack Obama says, the greatest threat to future generations is climate change, then environmental policies to combat it need an outpouring of public support to be effective – and in places like America, that support ...

Recommended for you

How to cut your lawn for grasshoppers

November 22, 2017

Picture a grasshopper landing randomly on a lawn of fixed area. If it then jumps a certain distance in a random direction, what shape should the lawn be to maximise the chance that the grasshopper stays on the lawn after ...

Plague likely a Stone Age arrival to central Europe

November 22, 2017

A team of researchers led by scientists at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History has sequenced the first six European genomes of the plague-causing bacterium Yersinia pestis dating from the Late Neolithic ...

Ancient barley took high road to China

November 21, 2017

First domesticated 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, wheat and barley took vastly different routes to China, with barley switching from a winter to both a winter and summer crop during a thousand-year ...

184 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nilbud
4 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
Tailor the message for morons so you don't upset them. Bullshit.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2017
Research? They could have a bloody field day just spending a few hours on here! Enough material for a whole journal issue.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 22, 2017
No one is skeptical of Climate science, but Climate Change "science", aka AGWism is a cult and the furthest thing from science. As reality continues to defy the AGW Cult's desire for doom and gloom, in there desperation, you can expect the lies propagated by them to become even more preposterous.
Anonym
2 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2017
Pretty sure the Spanish Inquisition did this research 500 years ago, with thumbscrews and autos de fe, in order to understand how seemingly intelligent people could disagree with the 97% consensus of bishops and cardinals regarding Jesus' divinity. Why do it again?

dogbert
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2017
We get these "How to convert people to your beliefs" articles frequently. Note that the dialog is never about presenting facts and evidence effectively, it is about psychological methods to attempt to change opinion.

Much of what is presented as science is driven by political ideals, money, etc. When people are skeptical about something which claims to be science, it is usually because they see a bias in the presentation or they are presented an opinion which is not supported by facts and evidence.

Instead of training scientists to present findings clearly and concisely with evidence to support the conclusions, the authors spend their time training scientists how to convince skeptical people that their beliefs are desirable beliefs.
SiaoX
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
The Backfire Effect: Why Facts Don't Win Arguments From the studies on the backfire effect follows you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes BOTH OF YOU deeper into your original beliefs.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
How do you tailor the message for paid shills?
sfried01
Jan 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
4.8 / 5 (18) Jan 22, 2017
No one is skeptical of Climate science, but Climate Change "science", aka AGWism is a cult ....

antigoracle

There is no such cult and the kind of irrational delusional people this link is talking about includes you.
marco_science
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
The basis for this article is fundamentally unscientific.

It talks about science sceptics, as if this is a mental weakness, rather than lauding scepticism as being the only true primary scientific stance.

The climate change 97% consensus absolutely proves the point.
This apparent consensus has long been dismissed by the scientific community as an outragous misuse of data.
It included any scientist that agreed that man must have contributed to climatic conditions - the study should have stated 100% consensus.

A useful scientific 'study summary' should have stated how many scientist believe that 'man is solely responsible for climate change' & how many scientists believe that 'it is primarily due to natural events' ie. cyclical climate change.

If the summary was rewritten, the general public would understand that there is no consensus on this matter.
They then might be encouraged to investigate serious failings in the test methodology.

Stop dumbing down science!
julianpenrod
2.6 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
The Ptolemaic System, actually, was very reasonable and it had to be defying reason not to accept it. They placed earth at the center not out of arrogance, but because a tenet was, "All moving objects eventually stop and fall". They reasoned that where they fell had to be universal, the center. They felt all earthly matter behaved that way, so they said earth had to be at the center. The planets, meanwhile, followed paths that couldn't be predicted, which was also reasonable, too, since, they felt, they were made of substance that didn't fall. Often, the "reasonable" ideas are wrong. And, since every experiment has residuals that don't agree, but are unreported, all models seem wrong to an extent at least.
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2017

Scientists themselves must be skeptical.

They are generally skeptical of theories with flimsy evidence.
However, they shouldn't be and generally aren't skeptical of scientific facts.
Hypotheses and theories are not blindly accepted

Believing a scientifically proven theory is not blind acceptance.
Scientists generally don't accept clearly unproven hypotheses or theories.
Experimental evidence and proof must be offered.

It nearly always is in science whenever a testable theory is made.
Untestable theories are generally rejected as invalid by scientists.
And this evidence is reviewed and retested again and again.

Not really; Just one scientific peer review would normally do. Unless you have evidence of a mass global conspiracy of fabricating evidence?
Just exactly how many more people must independently look through telescopes again and again to confirm there exists moons around Jupiter after 10000 people have already done so?
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2017
Consider the "reasoning" of "science" devotees.
"A guy in a white lab coat said it, so it must be true. Scientists can't lie."
"Vaccines used to be made well so they worked, therefore, what they call 'vaccines' today can't be made any differently."
"They put things on a table and called them 'fossils', therefore, they must be real."
"They never mention the many, many cases where the theories don't work, therefore, they must not exist."
"Among other things, yes, a mutation small enough not to be fatal would be too small to provide a survival advantage, but Darwin said that's how 'evolution' works, therefore, that must be true."
"I never took my GPS apart to see if it really uses 'relativistic' equations to determine position, but they say it does, so it must be true."
Add those who embrace "science" because they hate God, because they want to feel superior, because they want to deny conspiracy theories.
humy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
The basis for this article is fundamentally unscientific.

It talks about science sceptics, as if this is a mental weakness, rather than lauding scepticism as being the only true primary scientific stance.

That is All False; It is unscientific to be skeptical of the proven scientific theory. Skepticism is only scientific where and when there is scientific reason, such as lack of evidence or suspect interpretation of it or an equally good or better alternative theory, to rationally doubt the claimed theory.
humy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
Consider the "reasoning" of "science" devotees....
...
"They put things on a table and called them 'fossils', therefore, they must be real."
...
"Among other things, yes, a mutation small enough not to be fatal would be too small to provide a survival advantage, but Darwin said that's how 'evolution' works, therefore, that must be true."
"I never took my GPS apart to see if it really uses 'relativistic' equations to determine position, but they say it does, so it must be true."
Add those who embrace "science" because they hate God, because they want to feel superior, because they want to deny conspiracy theories.

you are totally delusional and way out of it. Science is NOT about 'hating God'. Many theists were/are scientists; how do you reconcile that with science being all about 'hating God just because science disproves YOUR particular God?
zz5555
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
The Ptolemaic System, actually, was very reasonable and it had to be defying reason not to accept it. They placed earth at the center not out of arrogance, but because a tenet was, "All moving objects eventually stop and fall".

My understanding of the Ptolemaic system is that it corrected obvious errors in Aristotle's system by moving the center of rotation off the earth (not by much, however). I would think that believing the earth to be the center of the universe would be arrogant since Venus and Mars so clearly violate that principle.
all models seem wrong to an extent at least.

I think you can replace "seem" with "are". As the saying goes, "All models are wrong, some are useful."
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2017
This article reveals a set of very serious oversights which will come to haunt the scientific community:

(1) They see no wisdom in the crowd.

(2) They don't believe that any worldviews other than the consensus expert worldview are legitimate.

(3) If scientists believe it, they consider it a fact.

(4) Their focus is plainly on manipulating people into aligning with their beliefs, rather than systematically mapping those debates out; all of the surprise that may occur pertains to laypeople -- not scientists themselves.

What these oversights indicate is that the person who will eventually build the system which demonstrates the wisdom of the crowd will not be an academic.

The future of innovation in the sciences will belong to an outsider, because the mainstream's philosophy blinds them to the changes which are happening in the sciences today.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2017
@Reeve,
Utter bobbins, as usual.

They see no wisdom in the crowd.

What crap. What, do you think this is like the Top 40? A popularity contest? Grow up.

They don't believe that any worldviews other than blah, blah.

Who gives a toss about your worldview? It's not worth crap if you can't back it up with a scientifically legitimate, falsifiable hypothesis.

If scientists believe it, they consider it a fact.

Crap. A theory is never taken as 'truth'. It is always there to be altered, refined or even completely thrown out. Not, however, by unscientific rubbish such as you believe in.

Their focus is plainly on manipulating people into aligning with their beliefs,......blah, blah, blah

More crap. Most scientists couldn't give a stuff what you believe (health matters are somewhat different), only what can be demonstrated as the most likely explanation. Based on scientific hypotheses, evidence and observation.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2017
@julianpenrod,

"I never took my GPS apart to see if it really uses 'relativistic' equations to determine position, but they say it does, so it must be true."


And that demonstrates your lack of knowledge of just one particular area. The first GPS satellites were sent up with a 'patch' to correct for relativity effects, if needed. They could operate without the 'patch'. Some people (probably engineers!) still didn't think it would be necessary. Guess what? Observation showed that it was needed, and it was precisely what was predicted by SR/GR.
Dumb argument.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
@Reeve,

What these oversights indicate is that the person who will eventually build the system which demonstrates the wisdom of the crowd will not be an academic.

The future of innovation in the sciences will belong to an outsider, because the mainstream's philosophy blinds them to the changes which are happening in the sciences today.


More complete tosh. You mean idiots like Thornhill & Talbott? Don't make me laugh. Neither could think their way out of a wet paper bag. And the 'science' is wrong and totally laughable.
Or did you have someone else in mind?

snoosebaum
not rated yet Jan 22, 2017
might help if ''they' ' stopped lying about politics
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "Or did you have someone else in mind?"

Academia proceeds by completely ignoring the growing body of critique directed their way.

If asked, these researchers would not even be able to list out the most common criticisms of modern science.

If asked, most scientists could not even tell you what textbook claims have been challenged.

There is no observable effort to map out the debates of science.

What a huge and obvious mistake.

The entire community proceeds in lockstep, glaring distrustfully downwards at all those who dare to disagree.

These regular pronouncements about manipulating public opinion are an awkward admission that the academic community lacks the proper epistemology to even properly document the controversies of science.

This work will be done for them.

These debates will be documented for them.

They will then rely upon the outsiders who will build these systems.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2017
The basis for this article is fundamentally unscientific.

It talks about science sceptics, as if this is a mental weakness, rather than lauding scepticism as being the only true primary scientific stance.

That is All False; It is unscientific to be skeptical of the proven scientific theory. Skepticism is only scientific where and when there is scientific reason, such as lack of evidence or suspect interpretation of it or an equally good or better alternative theory, to rationally doubt the claimed theory.

I cannot stress enough my advice to you to grow a brain.
A proven scientific theory is no longer a theory but a fact. Skepticism of theories is what moves science foward so that they can become fact.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
@Reeve the repetitive,
More unsubstantiated drivel. Please, do give us some examples. Perhaps you could run through the huge body of evidence to support your 'outsiders' opinions? Otherwise, it's just the usual fact free prose we've come to expect from you lot.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
I've already documented around 60 ongoing scientific controversies.

I can at this point see a full 100 ongoing controversies.

I suspect that my current exposure is only around 10%. A full accounting will probably be around 500 - 1,000 ongoing scientific controversies.

We'll take the investigation out of scientific controversies.

Future funding agencies will then use these resources to specifically fund challenges to textbook theory.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
@Reeve,
Who gives a toss what you have documented? Who are you, and what are your qualifications to understand the science that is supposedly being challenged, or the veracity of those who are challenging it?
Please, tell me where this list is, with the scientific references to these challenges.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
Academics have taken for granted the lack of order which they have imposed upon these challenges to textbook theory.

Once order is brought to this area, the situation will drastically change.

So much effort goes into pretending that there are no legitimate controversies.

That works up to a point.

But, with such an approach - eventually - the experts simply stop being the experts.

The mistake is in thinking that an expert can be an ideologue.

Experts have to make a choice to become experts.

You don't become an expert in something just because you agree with the consensus worldview.

You become an expert in something by cultivating a broad understanding of a topic which cuts across ideologies.

Once the controversies of science are fully documented, academics will finally realize the limited scope of their own understanding.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2017
^^^^^ More pointless prose. Not worth the waste of pixels.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "Who are you, and what are your qualifications to understand the science that is supposedly being challenged, or the veracity of those who are challenging it?"

You're still not getting the problem: The critique of modern science does not originate with any single person. The challenges come from all of the domains of science.

What nobody has done yet is to bring all of these challenges into one single location.

Remove the upfront cost in time required to learn about ongoing scientific controversies, and many things can suddenly change ...

... the science journalists can no longer pretend that there are no controversies.

... the specialists will themselves come to rely upon these tools.

... graduate students will use the resource to identify promising dissertations.

If the Americans choose to ignore it, other cultures will leap ahead of them.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
^^^^^ More pointless prose. Not worth the waste of pixels. Again. What effing controversies. List please.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
The fact that you have to ask should embarrass you.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
The fact that you have to ask should embarrass you.


And the fact that you keep avoiding the question shows that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Hardly surprising, given the rubbish you believe in.
thisisminesothere
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
The fact that you have to ask should embarrass you.


Im just as interested. Wheres the list? Why is it so hard to just post a link or some text outlining these so called controversies?

Ill never understand why people want to dance around an issue instead of face it head on if they are so firm in their own belief that they are correct.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
The fact that you have to ask should embarrass you.


Im just as interested. Wheres the list? Why is it so hard to just post a link or some text outlining these so called controversies?

Ill never understand why people want to dance around an issue instead of face it head on if they are so firm in their own belief that they are correct.


Likely because they are only controversies in his own mind. Given the type of neo-Velikovskian nonsense that he believes in, he's probably too embarrassed to go into it.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "these so called controversies"

Pure comedy.

Either you actually looked, or they don't exist. Can they not exist even though you didn't actually look?

Does that somehow make sense to you?

What has happened is that you have copied the pretense that they do not exist.

You never actually looked for them.

Then, you went online to convince others to also not look.

It only works if everybody continues to pretend.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2017
^^^^^ Give up you idiot. Looked at what??????? How can I look at something that only exists in your own mind? Give us a clue. WHAT CONTROVERSIES?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
For starters ...

(H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, and V. E. Suomi, "Net Thermal Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus," _Icarus_ 61, p521-538 (1985))

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of co2."

That's science-speak for: We adjusted the dataset to reflect our assumption that Venus' heat comes from a runaway greenhouse effect.

The funny part is that the Venus Pioneer mission was not even the only mission which observed Venus' heat coming from its surface. The Russian Venera mission also produced the same observations that Venus is not in thermal equilibrium ...

... meaning that Venus' heat does not come from a greenhouse effect.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2017
^^^^^ That's 30 years old, FFS! Do you not think that there have been hundreds of papers published since then? That we might have had a mission in close proximity since then? You want me to look at one paper from 3 decades ago?
Give it a rest. You are the one that's not looking.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2017
"The mystery of Venus' internal heat", Nov. 13 1980 issue of _New Scientist_

"Two years' surveillance by the Pioneer Venus Orbiter seems to show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives from the Sun. If this surprising result is confirmed, it means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than the Earth does.

F.W. Taylor, of the Clarendon Laboratory at Oxford, presented these measurements at the Royal Society meeting last week. Venus's surface temperature is higher than any other in the solar system, at 480 C. The generally accepted theory is that sunlight is absorbed at Venus's surface, and re-radiated as infrared. The latter is absorbed in the atmosphere, which thus acts as a blanket keeping the planet hot. It is similar to the way a greenhouse keeps warm.

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide (and the tiny proportion of water vapour) needed to make the greenhouse effect work -- just. If this is the whole story, the total amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey up through the atmospheric blanket, must be exactly equal to that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature would be continuously changing).

But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 per cent more energy than it receives. To keep the surface temperature constant, Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.

All the inner planets, including the Earth, produce internal heat from radioactive elements in their rocks.

(cont'd)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
So, I did look. And this is a controversy how, exactly?

The suggested latitudinal variation of IR cooling is consistent with descending motions at high latitudes, and it is speculated that it could provide an important additional drive for the general circulation.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

But Taylor's observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing almost 10,000 times more heat than the Earth -- and it is inconceivable, according to present theories of planetary formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of the radioactive elements than the Earth does. At last week's meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with scepticism -- not to say sheer disbelief -- from other planetary scientists.

Taylor himself has no explanation for his result. He simply points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply experimental error -- but with more precise measurement it refused to go away. More measurements are needed before astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists are obviously expecting -- and hoping -- that the embarrassing extra heat will disappear on further investigation."
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
"The mystery of Venus' internal heat", Nov. 13 1980 issue of _New Scientist_


Which predates the paper I looked at, which says there is no problem. Also, in case it escaped your attention, 1980 was 36 years ago, and they say "if confirmed." It wasn't.
It may also have escaped your attention that there have been many, many papers based on the 2006 Venus Express mission. What do those say?
marco_science
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
The basis for this article is fundamentally unscientific
It talks about science sceptics, as if this is a mental weakness, rather than lauding scepticism as being the only true primary scientific stance

That is All False; It is unscientific to be skeptical of the proven scientific theory. Skepticism is only scientific where and when there is scientific reason, such as lack of evidence or suspect interpretation of it or an equally good or better alternative theory, to rationally doubt the claimed theory


Only that mann-made climate change is absolutely not proven as a testable fact, AND all scientific reason suggests we MUST be sceptical
All climate change models failed to predict the temperature change stagnation/cooling that we are currently experiencing (man made CO2 levels continue to rise)

The climate temp may have peaked, or the rise may have paused... but don't look to the current models to inform you.

Look to meterologists - their views differ.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
Venus is not in thermal equilibrium. If a greenhouse effect was the cause for the heat, the heat in would approximately equal the heat out.

There's a massive discrepancy of around 15-20% net energy EMISSION.

The scientists sent the Venus Pioneer mission in order to establish evidence for their runaway greenhouse effect.

The instruments all reported back that the planet's heat comes from its surface -- not its sky.

Climate change advocates are not even aware that the dataset was corrected.

You guys lie to yourselves about this history.

The original papers do not hide the fact that the datasets were corrected to reflect thermal equilibrium.

But they could not correct the Venera mission data -- which reported back the same thing.

Keep in mind that James Hansen started his career as a Venus researcher.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
You guys lie to yourselves about this history.


Complete crap, especially as it comes from someone who believes in the crap you believe in. There is no big problem with Venus' emission. As usual, you idiots are living in the past. Dredging up ancient 'anomalies' that have since been dealt with. Why would you go back to 1980, when we had a probe around Venus for 8 years from 2006, with far more modern equipment and capabilities?
Like I said, these controversies only exist in your own mind, coloured by the need to believe in crap, such as Venus used to be a comet, spat out by Jupiter in recent times. As per the fruitloop Velikovsky.
And you want science to take that seriously. Pull the other one.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
The point of the Venus Pioneer mission was to discredit Velikovsky's correct prediction that Venus should be hot.

He arrived at that successful prediction through an analysis of ancient documents.

When he made it, the scientific community assumed Venus' heat to be like Earth's.

When Taylor reported that Venus' heat was coming from its surface, the scientific community sent him back to the lab to figure out how the instruments MUST have failed.

After a full year of searching, they had only explained one of the three conjectured failures.

Once they had their conjectures in order, they corrected the datasets.

But, around this same time, Venera relayed the same findings back -- revealing that all of this effort to correct the dataset was all politics, no science.

Once the dataset was corrected, it was never publicly discussed again.

Why should they?

They cannot wish this away.

It's a huge scandal.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "Why would you go back to 1980, when we had a probe around Venus for 8 years from 2006, with far more modern equipment and capabilities?"

We go back to 1980 because this is when it was decided to correct the dataset. 2006 has nothing to do with that decision.

One of many scandals brewing right now in the scientific community.

By trying so hard to ignore them all, you lose control over the situation.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
It is not a scandal, you prat. It no longer exists as a problem. Read some up to date material, instead of the ancient stuff you keep dredging up. If it was a problem, then scientists would be looking at it. Why do you think people get stuff published in scientific journals on MOND, or entropic gravity? Because there is room for argument on that. However, because this 'scandal' affects the idiot Velikovsky, who you happen to believe, then it is suddenly a cover up! Do you honestly think you can force scientists to ignore data? It'd be like herding cats. Idiotic.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
Could not be any clearer ...

"most planetary scientists are obviously expecting -- and hoping -- that the embarrassing extra heat will disappear on further investigation."

You won't find such honest reporting on this subject these days.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "If it was a problem, then scientists would be looking at it."

But, why should anybody even know about it? Like you said, who reads the old Venus papers anymore?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
_Pioneering Venus: A Planet Unveiled_ at http://www.amazon...9RXS7S8/

"One main objective of the Multiprobe mission was to test the belief that the 'runaway greenhouse effect' caused the high surface temperature."

Richard A. Kerr, "Venus: Not Simple of Familiar, But Interesting," _Science_, Vol. 207 (1980), p. 289

"The question concerns how the sun's energy behaves once it penetrates the highest clouds. When Pioneer Venus's probes looked at the amount of radiant energy passing through the atmosphere, each one found more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight. At first blush, it would seem that the atmosphere violates the laws of thermodynamics by transferring heat energy from the cool clouds to the hot lower atmosphere, from which it is then radiated."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, and V. E. Suomi, "Net Thermal Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus," _Icarus_ 61, p521-538 (1985)

"The LIR measurements are reasonable in the clouds, but increase to physically unreasonable levels shortly below the clouds. The probable error source and a correction procedure are identified"

Richard A. Kerr, "Venus: Not Simple of Familiar, But Interesting," _Science_, Vol. 207 (1980), p. 289

"Possible explanations for this apparent quandary cover a range of speculations. Problems with the instruments are still an issue, but a year of recalibration and analysis in the laboratory has revealed significant errors in only one of the three types of instruments involved."
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
Look to meterologists - their views differ.

No, they don't. Meteorologists understand the causes of the current climate change/global warming and realize it's primarily due to humans: https://www.amets...-change/

For meteorologists, only 1% believe the climate isn't changing and only 5% believe climate change is largely or entirely natural (http://blog.amets...-change/ ).
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2017
G. M. Tomasko, "The Thermal Balance of the Lower Atmosphere of Venus," _Venus_, p. 606.

"at both the Night and North probe sites [the thermal flux profiles] are much greater than the globally averaged solar net flux profile at low altitudes, implying a substantial radiative imbalance in the lower atmosphere. In view of the large and variable nature of these flux measurements, the investigators have searched for instrumental problems which could have affected the measurements, and have found one that could have systematically increased the measured thermal net fluxes (Revercomb et al. 1982). The authors believe that they understand the vertical dependence of the flux errors, and by adjusting the fluxes to reasonable values at low altitudes, they have derived corrected thermal fluxes as shown in Fig. 5 (Revercomb et al. 1980)."
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "If it was a problem, then scientists would be looking at it."

But, why should anybody even know about it? Like you said, who reads the old Venus papers anymore?


Plenty of people. And the article you quote is just that - an op ed piece in a magazine, from 1980.
Taylor was a co-author on other papers, which show that the data, within the error of the instrumentation they had back then, is not anomalous. End of story. If you want to believe it is, and Taylor was got at, to fit in with your silly Velikovskian woo, then so be it. That is all it is. A belief. Typical of the science-free conspiracist thinking of the idiots of EU.

http://www.scienc...85901978
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
By 2002, these corrections to the dataset were completely forgotten about.

Michael Shermer's _The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience_ ironically and definitively states:

"But there was no excess of energy radiated from the planet (since the thick atmosphere effectively contained the high surface temperature). The total radiated energy was in balance with absorbed sunlight, and it did not decline over time. Further, the high surface temperature had an alternative explanation from an atmospheric greenhouse effect."

How ironic that a guide dedicated to correcting misconceptions is itself written by somebody who does not even know that the dataset was corrected.

So so sloppy.

Scandalous.

One of many.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
From Charles Ginenthal's Newton, Einstein & Velikovsky: Celestial Mechanics, Electromagnetism, Solar System Instability & Cosmology, excerpts from p225 - 235:

"Taken together, the top of Venus' atmosphere exhibits a thermal imbalance of 15 to 20%, the middle and lower atmosphere, a thermal imbalance of around 50%, while the surface, on average, the thermal imbalance was 40 times greater than sunlight could provide ... The tremendous rise in infrared radiation, as one nears the surface of Venus, is similar to the heat emitted, say, by a white-hot block of metal, in that as one puts one's hand closer and closer to it, the heat rises to greater and greater levels, but at a certain point close to it, the heat rises immensely." (p228)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2017
^^^^^ Bollocks. Read the paper I linked. Based on all 4 Pioneer probes, and the Venera landers. Are you seriously stupid enough to think that scientists spend their time covering up things, due to it not matching prior expectations? You are seriously gone in the head.
As I said, all these 'controversies' exist only in your own mind, and are based on conspiracy theories, and wanting the world class idiot Velikovsky to be right. A comet, spat out of Jupiter. Seriously? In this day and age? See a shrink.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
From the same source ...

"Taylor, et al., assumed what they had not proved was responsible for heating Venus's atmosphere at the cloud tops, and to escape their assumption, called this 'the most [probable] value.' They made that choice not based on scientific evidence, but on an assumption set ... up as a kind of psychological reality and admitted it was their 'most [probable] value.' This, then, became the mantra upon which all the other readings were to be hammered into place." (p226)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2017
From Charles Ginenthal's........


He was a bloody Velikoskian crackpot, for christ's sake. We're supposed to take him seriously?????
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
Astronomers cite Tomasko's article on pages 611 - 612 of the definitive book on Venus, Venus, by Hunten, Colin, Donahue, Moroz, publ. Univ. of Arizona Press, 1983). This is a monstrous size and costs $80: difficult for ordinary people to gain access. Strangely, there are two articles about thermal equilibrium, the Tomasko article on pages 611-612, AND an article by F.W. Taylor on page 658. It turns out that only by adopting the most myopic view possible can you get thermal equilibrium from the evidence, and that is what Tomasko does.

For thermal equilibrium to pertain, two numbers must match up; the first is emissions which all parties involved agree reads correctly as 0.76. The second number is the planetary albedo. Tomasko claims (pp 611-612) "For the whole planet to be in equilibrium with absorbed sunlight, the bolometric albedo would have to be 0.76..."

(cont'd)
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
So, it looks like I was right; these 'controversies' are all to do with Velikoskian woo, and exist only in your mind and/ or on the pages of crank science websites. In which case, there is nothing to discuss. It has nothing to do with science.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

The second number is the planetary albedo. Tomasko claims (pp 611-612) "For the whole planet to be in equilibrium with absorbed sunlight, the bolometric albedo would have to be 0.76..." But the Pioneer Venus readings on albedo (Taylor's article, page 658) was 0.80 plus/minus 0.02, and the calculations from Venera data (also page 658) are 0.79, plus 0.02, minus 0.01. The closest you could get and stay within error bounds is 0.78.

Now you might ask, what's a lousy 0.02 amongst friends; doesn't sound like much ... This is one of those cases in which a little bit appears to go a long way. Consider what Taylor claims would have to be believed if the 0.80 figure for albedo were to hold good (also page 658): 'Clearly, the Pioneer measurements of emission and reflection are not consistent with each other if radiative balance applies ...'

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

Taylor does not particularly want to believe what the data is telling him: that there is no way that Venus is within error bounds of thermal equilibrium, but he does not deny the data. How then does Tomasko make a claim of equilibrium? Tomasko cites one 1968 calculation of albedo of 0.77 +- 0.07 without bothering to tell you that that estimate was later revised upwards to 0.80 +- 0.07 in 1975 (Taylor tells us that on page 657), and notes that Taylor's indication of 0.02 error bounds for the Pioneer reading (the most recent, and done with the best instruments from the best distance) may be 'too small'."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

Taylor notes (page 758): 'A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 +- .02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative (J. V. Martinchik, personal communication). A fuller analysis of PV albedo data - still the best in terms of wave length, spatial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the forseeable future, is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion then, the best thermal measurements of Venus, with the assumption of global energy balance, yield a value of the albedo of 0.76 +- .01; this is the most probable value.'

Tomasko is basing his entire case on one outdated calculation, and upon a 'personal communication from Martinchik'.

(cont'd)
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
And you are still talking about stuff that was sorted out decades ago, by the very authors you are quoting, and confirmed by much later measurements on another mission. It is dead in the water. No longer an issue. Give up. Velikovsky was a complete idiot. And so are you for believing his crap. Goodnight.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

Taylor is saying that the best measurements available tell us that thermal balance is not to be had on Venus, and that Sagan and his super greenhouse theory are FUBAR, but that that can't really be, that he and others are probably, hopefully looking at something the wrong way, but he doesn't know what that something is.

So so sloppy.

And then to have somebody explain all of this to you, and you just go on about Velikovsky. He's only barely related to this, and his role is limited to successfully predicting Venus' temperature. The scientists were trying to save face.

Discrediting Velikovsky unfortunately does nothing to service your argumentative needs here. The problem you face is this large set of documents which plainly state that the dataset was corrected to reflect the greenhouse effect AS AN ASSUMPTION.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2017
From John Ackerman, "An Alternative View of Venus" ...

"Thus independent measurements on five vehicles, one measuring the energy emitted into space from the cloud tops, and four measuring some component of the up-welling or net (upwelling minus down-dwelling) energy flux in the atmosphere at completely different geographic locations, are consistent and indicate that Venus is radiating an enormously larger amount of energy than it receives from the Sun. In spite of this data, the authors of every one of these papers deferred to the theoretical model of Pollack, suggesting that all five of the radiation instruments on which their analyses are based, might be in error -- even though there was no indication of problems in the calibration of data ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

"Based strictly on a thermodynamic analysis of the Pioneer Venus radiation data another group stated that neither the greenhouse effect nor global dynamics can explain the net outflow of energy, and that an internal source on Venus must be responsible for the emanating some 250 times the flux radiated by the Earth. Unfortunately, these authors also defer to the Pollack model, suggesting the possibility of instrumental error or that perhaps two of the three small probe sites are atypical of the planet as a whole."

L.G. Young, "Infrared Spectra of Venus," Exploration of the Planetary System (Boston 1974), p.139

"some theoreticians have dismissed perfectly good observations under the assumption that the data were 'noisy' because conditions on Venus appeared to vary on a short time scale, a situation that could not occur in their models ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
(cont'd)

"There has been a profusion of crude, oversimplified models which have 'explained' discrepancies between theory and observation as due to effects not included in the theory. Thus there has been a tendency to claim 'agreement' with the observations prematurely. Finally, not only have wrong interpretations of the data been widely accepted at various times, but some correct interpretations have been rejected for long periods of time. What interpretation is 'acceptable' has been colored by prejudices (Venus is/isn't like the Earth, the curve of growth does/doesn't apply to a scattering atmosphere, etc.) so that major questions appear to have been decided more on emotional than on rational grounds."

(This btw is not a catastrophist speaking here, so I'm not sure how you will be able to slander this through Velikovsky ...)
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "Are you seriously stupid enough to think that scientists spend their time covering up things, due to it not matching prior expectations?"

They didn't cover it up. They publicly admitted it in the original published papers. You just never thought to check.
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
It takes a true ideologue to fail to check something, and then when somebody else remembers to do so, they are attacked.

Much of what you need to know about how something like this can happen is explained by your own reactions to information which you did not formerly know of.

Like I said, everybody has to make a choice between being an ideologue or an expert. When you choose to follow your narrative rather than the data -- when you try so hard to ignore the controversy -- science cannot save you from your own sloppy approach.

You look around yourself, thinking that somebody somewhere would have noticed.

Who?

Why?

What you never do is look at your own reaction, and honestly admit: Probably others would respond as I have here.

You act as though more recent data would somehow alter the chosen albedo calculations.

Why would they?

Once it's considered "settled science", the question becomes closed.
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
^^^^ Idiot. The sodding data has been updated by the Venus Express mission. Check the papers. They had their own bloody instruments. Far better than was on Pioneer. There is no controversy. Just a bunch of Velikovskian woo merchants, upset, because their idiotic beliefs about Venus being a comet ejected from Jupiter aren't scientifically possible.
You call this a controversy? F*** me. Is that it? Are any of your other ''controversies" grounded in actual science, or is this it? Just woo merchants, yes?
And where is the link to this Ackerman bloke? Where did he publish? And why should I take any notice of him?
Did anybody (i.e. this cretin Ginenthal) think to contact Taylor, or any of the other authors, for an explanation, before they started accusing them of all sorts in their idiotic woo journals?
Did they follow up with the numerous authors of Venus Express papers?
Did they f***. It all comes down to impossible Velikovskian woo with you idiots.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
.......(Boston 1974)............


Says it all about you idiots. Venus Express, 2006 - 2014. Read the papers, woo boy.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "Did anybody (i.e. this cretin Ginenthal) think to contact Taylor, or any of the other authors, for an explanation, before they started accusing them of all sorts in their idiotic woo journals?"

What is the question?

It's all written up in their publications.

Which part is confusing?
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "Did anybody (i.e. this cretin Ginenthal) think to contact Taylor, or any of the other authors, for an explanation, before they started accusing them of all sorts in their idiotic woo journals?"

What is the question?

It's all written up in their publications.

Which part is confusing?


Hey, idiot, they looked at the data, and published calibrated data later based on all four Pioneer probes, plus the Venera landers, as I linked. There is NO CONTROVERSY. Venus Express confirmed their findings, and a lot more. Get it?
The controversy exists only in your head, and a bunch of crackpot journals.
You were talking about controversies in science, to start with. This isn't one. Point me to a recent paper where this is considered controversial.
Homebrook
2.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
What is amusing about this article is that they are unwittingly making a study of themselves.
What they fail to grasp is that one's presuppositions determine the rules for evidence, including their own.
From the article: "people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to "in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true."
"We find that people will take a flight from facts to protect all kinds of belief including their religious belief, their political beliefs, and even simple personal beliefs such as whether they are good at choosing a web browser," says Troy Campbell (University of Oregon).
Exactly, and most particularly the writers of this article.
They seem to be profoundly blind to the fact that their statements apply to themselves first.
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "You call this a controversy?"

Not for you to decide, fortunately. And the real scandal is that you did not already know. We're supposed to believe that -- without systematically documenting them -- we can know that there are no real controversies.

You'd be more believable if you could point to some sort of effort to identify the various debates throughout the sciences.

But, you can't -- because nobody has actually done that work.

So, you are in the position of having to make confident claims about something which you've never actually looked into, and which the journalism pretends does not even exist.

There's an obvious contradiction here.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
There's an obvious contradiction here.


Yes, that being that idiots like you, and other woo merchants, who believe in all sorts of impossible nonsense, can't get it through your thick heads that there is no controversy. Only that invented by other woo merchants. Ergo, it doesn't exist within science. Unless you'd like to quote something post-Venus Express that still thinks this is controversial? You won't, because it doesn't exist. So it is NOT a scientific 'controversy', is it?
Now, tell us again, where did Venus come from?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
So, you are in the position of having to make confident claims about something which you've never actually looked into, and which the journalism pretends does not even exist.


And why would I go scouring woo sites for their stupid beliefs? Point it out to me in the scientific literature, or give up. It doesn't exist.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2017
What is amusing about this article is that they are unwittingly making a study of themselves.
What they fail to grasp is that one's presuppositions determine the rules for evidence, including their own.
From the article: "people cherry-pick which pieces of information to pay attention to "in order to reach conclusions that they want to be true."
"We find that people will take a flight from facts to protect all kinds of belief including their religious belief, their political beliefs, and even simple personal beliefs such as whether they are good at choosing a web browser," says Troy Campbell (University of Oregon).
Exactly, and most particularly the writers of this article.
They seem to be profoundly blind to the fact that their statements apply to themselves first.


Sorry, what did you have in mind?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
In short, there are a lot of hypotheses (note the word) in science that are still up for grabs. Further data and observations may change, or totally discard, those hypotheses.
The crap Reeve is banging on about isn't one of them. It is only questioned by woo believers. Velikovsky? Give me a break.
This applies to other rubbish that they believe in, that have been shown to be total and utter tosh, such as electric comets, electric stars, electric cratering, etc. It all boils down to Velikovskian woo. And Velikovsky was an idiot. Scientifically illiterate idiot, at that.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2017
Here is an interesting article on the fruitloop Velikovsky, by a former insider, C. Leroy Ellenberger, who finally saw the error of his ways:
http://www.filedr...elusions (no password)

Whatever Velikovsky was doing, it sure as hell had nothing to do with science.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
Re: "Taylor was a co-author on other papers, which show that the data, within the error of the instrumentation they had back then, is not anomalous. End of story ..."

http://www.scienc...85901978

This paper, btw, doesn't discuss the anomalous heat flux observations at all. Why did you point me to this?

Re: "Venus Express confirmed their findings, and a lot more."

I'm looking for the thermal flux measurements here ...

http://www.lpi.us...dhem.pdf

It does not appear that this mission generated any vertical heat flux data at all. There's first of all no lander; it's just an orbiter.

Further, wikipedia plainly states that the orbiter stopped reporting data before it fell into the atmosphere.

Can you please explain how this mission "confirmed their findings" -- more accurately stated as corrections to the vertical temperature flux?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
Here is an explanation for the scientific task of demonstrating vertical temperature flux ...

The Thermal Balance of the Atmosphere of Venus, Tomasko, Boese, Ingersoll, Lacis, Limaye, Seiff, Stewart, Taylor

"In a purely radiative-convective equilibrium model the thermal flux carried outward by the model will not be constant but will equal the net inward solar flux at each level. What is needed is therefore the profile of broad-band (0.3 to 3 micron) net (downward minus upward) solar flux at each level in the atmosphere."

If you go through _Venus Express: Results of the Nominal Mission_ published by the AGU, there's no observational data for temperature flux.

You sent me on a wild goose chase.

Thanks for wasting my time.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2017
Here is your Venus Express mission data that confirms Venus' thermal equilibrium ...

_Venus Express: Results of the Nominal Mission_ by the AGU

"Some of the main objectives for Venus were determination of the temperature field in the altitude range 55–100 km, both on the nightside and on the dayside, mapping of the surface temperature, and making profiles of the abundance of a large number of gases in the middle and lower atmosphere. It was also to measure the outgoing thermal flux to determine the global radiation budget. Unfortunately, a mechanism that controls the mirror that switches the beam between the different calibration targets and the view toward the planet is stuck in its launch position, pointing toward a blackbody target. In spite of many attempts it has not been possible to move the scanner since the launch."
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2017
You haven't even taken the time to investigate your own claims. You're just throwing links at people hoping that nobody will actually read them.
Dark_Solar
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2017
It's good that someone is working to quantize this phenomenon. Speaking from personal experience, I've frequently found that people deny a thing because at some point someone fed them incorrect information and they never questioned it. Further, upon interacting with them on the subject denied as reality, it has just as frequently become quickly apparent that they don't really know anything about the subject beyond what they were told.

Perhaps a simple remedy for this behavior is better/more thorough S.T.E.M. education and a stronger focus on critical thinking.
ddaye
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2017
Jeebus this isn't a phenomenon it's a trillion dollar marketing campaign going back generations. You may as well study the "evolution" of bridges.
And scientists wonder why they're not winning the climate change "debate."
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017

A proven scientific theory is no longer a theory but a fact.

antigoracle

NO.
A proven scientific theory is a proven scientific theory.
A fact is a proven scientific theory and a fact is still a scientific theory because it is a proven scientific theory.
Skepticism of theories is what moves science foward so that they can become fact.

The problem is that you are applying skepticism to these facts.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
You haven't even taken the time to investigate your own claims. You're just throwing links at people hoping that nobody will actually read them.


Get this through your thick, woo driven skull; there is no anomaly. There is no controversy. It is dreamed up by Velikovskians who, by definition, are outside the realm of science. Period.
If you want a decent review of what data are currently used to model the thermal structure of Venus' atmosphere, then read this paper, and the references therein:
http://www.lmd.ju...640M.pdf

"We report a good correspondence with the results obtained in
previous investigations with VIRTIS-M and OIR, as well as evi-
dences of wave activity. The operational extension of the Venus Ex-
press mission will allow to directly compare new data with
observations acquired with OIR on Pioneer Venus at similar condi-
tions in term of solar cycle."

In short; it agrees well with OIR (Pioneer IR instrument).
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2017
I think there's a lot of confusion what scepticism means. Scepticism does not mean denial. Scepticism is a state of mind where one is open to hearing the idea - but will not accept it until substantiated by objective evidence.
(e.g. if one says one is a sceptic it becomes impossible to be religious, because the entire idea of religion is based on having to accept it on faith)

Scepticism is the ground state of science. Nothing is accepted until sufficient evidence is presented. In areas where absolute measurement aren't possible (e.g. in high energy physics due to Uncertainty Principle or climate science due to lack of a second Earth for comparison) certain thresholds are set for what is acceptable (5 sigma for high energy physics, 95 percent confidence for stuff like climate science or pharmaceutical research)

To make the bizarreness of climate deniers plain: They are basically claiming that 5% confidence is enough for them while 95% confidence is not.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
And scientists wonder why they're not winning the climate change "debate."


Since when? Maybe in some countries, who have an addiction to fossil fuels, where 40% of the population believe Earth was created by a supernatural being within the last 10 000 yrs.
However, there is no hope of winning any scientific arguments in such a country. Otherwise, most other people and governments are getting it.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
Here is an interesting article on the fruitloop Velikovsky, by a former insider, C. Leroy Ellenberger, who finally saw the error of his ways:
http://www.filedr...elusions (no password)

Whatever Velikovsky was doing, it sure as hell had nothing to do with science.


Actually, that link is fuxxed. Try this:
http://www47.zipp...ile.html
FredJose
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2017
It nearly always is in science whenever a testable theory is made.
Untestable theories are generally rejected as invalid by scientists.
And this evidence is reviewed and retested again and again.

Not really; Just one scientific peer review would normally do. Unless you have evidence of a mass global conspiracy of fabricating evidence?
Just exactly how many more people must independently look through telescopes again and again to confirm there exists moons around Jupiter after 10000 people have already done so?


How does one test the validity of the Darwinian evolutionary model?
Observing fossils just doesn't cut it since all that is observed is dead carcasses and nothing more. There is not sequence of step-wise morphological development that can be discerned and that will lead to an inevitable conclusion of "evolutionary progress". There is just fully formed, fully functional carcasses that got fossilized.
Darwinian evolution is unobserved and undocumented.
FredJose
2 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
Observing multiple generations of bacteria and observing changes in dietary patterns does not qualify the bacteria as successful examples of Darwinian evolution - the bacteria are still exactly that - bacteria. Neither is the observation of immunity or any other currently quoted minor changes. The organisms are still exactly what they started out as - whatever KIND of organism they were.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
^^^^^And there we have another reason for people failing to understand science - this time a faith based belief in supernatural woo, as opposed to Velikovskian woo.

Hey, Fred, you share over 98% of your genome with chimps. Slightly less with gorillas, and slightly less still with orangs. How do you think that got there? We either evolved from a common ancestor, or your god was one lazy b***ard, who modelled his ultimate creation on 'lesser' species.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
You haven't even taken the time to investigate your own claims. You're just throwing links at people hoping that nobody will actually read them.


Here is an article, pre-Venus Express, that already trashes the Velikovskian 'young Venus' woo. Plenty of references in there. And that doesn't even go into the breaking of certain laws of physics that the idiot Velikovsky's ideas require:
http://www.talkor...ung.html
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2017
Hey, Fred, you share over 98% of your genome with chimps.

Heck, we share 50% of our genome with bananas. Expolain THAT with a 'designer'.

(or that fact that all orgnaisms use right handed sugars but cannot use left handed sugars. A 'designer' would either allow us to use both or would some allow to use either.)
jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2017

Heck, we share 50% of our genome with bananas. Expolain THAT with a 'designer'.

(or that fact that all orgnaisms use right handed sugars but cannot use left handed sugars. A 'designer' would either allow us to use both or would some allow to use either.)


I think the designer just got bored after a while, and thought, "Ahhh, sod it, let's have another chimp variant....abracadabra...there you go."
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
carbon_unit
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
Humy, I'm with you except:
Not really; Just one scientific peer review would normally do. Unless you have evidence of a mass global conspiracy of fabricating evidence?
As Steven Novella writes in an article on Accupuncture http://theness.co...e-colic/ :
No one study is definitive, because there are simply too many ways to generate spurious results (even without fraud and with the best intentions). Replication is the final arbiter – any result that is real should consistently reproduce. Results that are spurious will be inconsistent.
Consider the havoc Wakefield wrought with his fraudulent paper on vaccines and autisim which somehow got through peer review.
Just exactly how many more people must independently look through telescopes again and again to confirm there exists moons around Jupiter after 10000 people have already done so?
This brings to mind canals on Mars.
Science "fact" is always open to revision.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017

A proven scientific theory is no longer a theory but a fact.

antigoracle

NO.
A proven scientific theory is a proven scientific theory.
A fact is a proven scientific theory and a fact is still a scientific theory because it is a proven scientific theory.
Skepticism of theories is what moves science foward so that they can become fact.

The problem is that you are applying skepticism to these facts.

LOL.
I have a theory that someday science will be able to grow you a brain, yet I'm still skeptical that you could become intelligent.
HeloMenelo
3.7 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2017

A proven scientific theory is no longer a theory but a fact.

antigoracle

NO.
A proven scientific theory is a proven scientific theory.
A fact is a proven scientific theory and a fact is still a scientific theory because it is a proven scientific theory.
Skepticism of theories is what moves science foward so that they can become fact.

The problem is that you are applying skepticism to these facts.

Better put, monkey goracle and his clan of socks above is showing off his tree swinging skills, and we all take pleasure in exposing his idiocy.... every single day :D
HeloMenelo
3.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2017

A proven scientific theory is no longer a theory but a fact.

antigoracle

NO.
A proven scientific theory is a proven scientific theory.
A fact is a proven scientific theory and a fact is still a scientific theory because it is a proven scientific theory.
Skepticism of theories is what moves science foward so that they can become fact.

The problem is that you are applying skepticism to these facts.

LOL.
I have a theory that someday science will be able to grow you a brain, yet I'm still skeptical that you could become intelligent.


We have all the proof over all these years that you are incapable of growing a brain in that hollow overly inflated skull of yours, and we're not skeptic at all about your lack of intelligence ;)
Pumastar
3 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2017
Jeebus this isn't a phenomenon it's a trillion dollar marketing campaign going back generations. You may as well study the "evolution" of bridges.
And scientists wonder why they're not winning the climate change "debate."

Scientists have won in every respect, more people know that client change is happening than not, have you been hiding as an antigoracle sock in the closet for the past 2 decades ?
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Here is an article, pre-Venus Express, that already trashes the Velikovskian 'young Venus' woo. Plenty of references in there. And that doesn't even go into the breaking of certain laws of physics that the idiot Velikovsky's ideas require"

Tim Thompson's rebuttal attempts to undermine the meaning of the published admissions that that the dataset was corrected to reflect the greenhouse effect as an assumption. He does this by proposing a set of thought experiments.

Notice that he does not post or respond to any of the quotes from the original papers.

This is the very reason why the climate change community knows nothing about this problem: Tim's rebuttal here is the best that was ever proposed.

But, his primary argumentative strategy is to avoid repeating these nasty quotes.

The strategy worked, but realize it is just as much directed at you as me.
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "If you want a decent review of what data are currently used to model the thermal structure of Venus' atmosphere, then read this paper, and the references therein"

This paper again has nothing to say about the net thermal flux, because that would somehow require generating a new dataset which shows the heat up minus the heat down at each altitude. The Venus Express mission was incapable of generating this data; the one instrument which stood a chance of doing this is admitted to have failed at launch. It's not clear why you are pointing to these papers.

If all you did was to look at the numerous graphs in this paper, you would notice that they are all relating latitudinal variations in pressure and temperature.

There is no vertical flux data here at all, and it's embarrassing that you keep on pointing to this mission to make your point.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
Conservatives lie.

Attendance at inaugurations?

"WMD!"?

jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
@Reeve,
Because, you idiot, they are the only data that exist. What point are you trying to make, FFS? Velikovsky was right? Please, don't insult my intelligence, or that of any other scientifically literate person. You said there was a controversy. There isn't. Just a bunch of scientifically illiterate mythologists getting their knickers in a twist, because data had to be corrected, as it was obviously wrong. This has nothing to do with science. As Tim said, if you are claiming excess heat from the surface, where is your convection?
carbon_unit
Jan 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
Perhaps instead of going back to the laboratory in order to force agreement of their data with their favored models, they should have simply considered the mission a failure and sent a new one.

Instead, they sent this mission to primarily study the latitudinal variations for a planet that is remarkably lacking in latitudinal temperature variations.

Don't you think that's a bit odd?

They're trying to build up more arguments for their greenhouse model, but through a process of avoiding the most prickly questions about that vertical heat flux.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2017
There is no vertical flux data here at all, and it's embarrassing that you keep on pointing to this mission to make your point.


Because it can probe the atmosphere at various levels and obtain temperatures. And nowhere do they see anything relating to this idiotic woo you believe in. There is no controversy. End of story.
http://onlinelibr...204/full

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
Perhaps instead of going back to the laboratory in order to force agreement of their data with their favored models, they should have simply considered the mission a failure and sent a new one.

Instead, they sent this mission to primarily study the latitudinal variations for a planet that is remarkably lacking in latitudinal temperature variations.

Don't you think that's a bit odd?

They're trying to build up more arguments for their greenhouse model, but through a process of avoiding the most prickly questions about that vertical heat flux.


Yes, of course, it's all a conspiracy to cover up yet one more of Velikovsky's unsuccessful predictions! Jesus, get a life.
I'll repeat, for the hard of thinking:
As Tim said, if you are claiming excess heat from the surface, where is your convection?


This is worth a read, too:
http://abob.libs....ten.html
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Just a bunch of scientifically illiterate mythologists getting their knickers in a twist, because data had to be corrected, as it was obviously wrong. This has nothing to do with science. As Tim said, if you are claiming excess heat from the surface, where is your convection?"

In order to make your claim, you ignore the fact that ...

(1) The scientists were wrong about Venus' temperature to begin with, from the very start.

(2) You didn't even realize that they corrected the dataset just a few days ago, and neither do 99% climate change activists online still ... today.

(3) The excess heat was observed by more than one mission.

(4) Tim Thompson is guessing ... statements like "There can be no question but that Venus would be very much hotter than it is today, if it were thousands of degrees hot only a few thousand years ago." ... Why do people find this stuff convincing?
humy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
Just exactly how many more people must independently look through telescopes again and again to confirm there exists moons around Jupiter after 10000 people have already done so?


This brings to mind canals on Mars.
Science "fact" is always open to revision.

But the "canals on Mars" was always a highly questionable interpretation of the observation right from the start.
Is the science fact that the Earth is round and not flat still "open to revision"?
Or is it settled?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "This is worth a read, too ... TOP TEN REASONS WHY VELIKOVSKY IS WRONG ABOUT WORLDS IN COLLISION ..."

It should be clear to anybody who is following along that Velikovsky can indeed be wrong about Worlds in Collision, and yet still right about Venus being a newcomer to the solar system.

The former is a pretty elaborate hypothesis.

The latter was the starting point for his creation of that elaborate hypothesis -- the insight which led to all of these other ideas.

What's the big deal? This is obviously not a conversation about Velikovsky's hypothesis; we're talking about the greenhouse model.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "This is worth a read, too ... TOP TEN REASONS WHY VELIKOVSKY IS WRONG ABOUT WORLDS IN COLLISION ..."

It should be clear to anybody who is following along that Velikovsky can indeed be wrong about Worlds in Collision, and yet still right about Venus being a newcomer to the solar system.

The former is a pretty elaborate hypothesis.

The latter was the starting point for his creation of that elaborate hypothesis -- the insight which led to all of these other ideas.

What's the big deal? This is obviously not a conversation about Velikovsky's hypothesis; we're talking about the greenhouse model.


Where is the convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? How old do you think Venus is?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Why so many craters?"

I think you should have looked into this a bit more than you have ...

https://en.wikipe...of_Venus

"Compared to Mercury, the Moon and other such bodies, Venus has very few craters ... there are also fewer of the large craters, and those appear relatively young; they are rarely filled with lava, showing that they were formed after volcanic activity in the area ceased, and radar data indicates that they are rough and have not had time to be eroded down ... Compared to the situation on bodies such as the Moon, it is more difficult to determine the ages of different areas of the surface on Venus, on the basis of crater counts, due to the small number of craters at hand."

You should take the time to look things up before making claims.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
.....yet still right about Venus being a newcomer to the solar system.{/q]

Apart from those pesky laws of physics, like conservation of angular momentum, and the stability of Earth's orbit over a long time. And the Moon is still here.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Why so many craters?"


If it was 10 000 years old, it wouldn't have any!!!! Get it? How often do you think large impacts occur? How many on Earth in the last 10 000 years? 'Many' was a relative term. It shouldn't have any, according to your idiotic chronology.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
But, the testimony which is claimed by Velikovsky is that it arrived as a comet. That seems to be at odds with your assertion that it should have no craters, no?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
So, I'll repeat this, as well:

Where is the convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? How old do you think Venus is?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2017
But, the testimony which is claimed by Velikovsky is that it arrived as a comet. That seems to be at odds with your assertion that it should have no craters, no?


Who cares what Velikovsky thought? He was a world class idiot. According to him, it was spat out of ****ing Jupiter!!!!!!! How many craters do you think it picked up on the way? Jesus wept, you people believe some right crap, you really do.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Another problem which you ignore, from _Principles of Planetary Climate_ ...

"Now what about Venus? Are we finally equipped to say that we can account for the high surface temperature of Venus in terms of the CO2 greenhouse effect? Unfortunately, not quite. The problem is that the high albedo of Venus means that the climate is maintained by a relative trickle of absorbed solar radiation, while the high surface temperature means that the infrared emission at wavenumbers higher than 2300 cm-1 would exceed 3800 W/m^2 if the atmosphere were transparent in that spectral region. Unlike the Earthlike case, the atmospheric opacity there matters very much."

You are pointing to a sky that has a 20 km thick cloud cover as the source for Venus' surprising heat. With so much cloud cover, it's a wonder that the surface is not COLDER than Earth's surface.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2017
the testimony which is claimed by Velikovsky.....


Testimony???? What testimony? He made this s**t up!!!
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Where is the convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? How old do you think Venus is?

93 atm of CO2. What do you think is going to happen?

And where is the link to what you quoted, where was it published, and when, so we can see the rest of it?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2017
^^^^Never mind, I downloaded the book, to your shame. Quoted out of context, didn't we, hmm? He was talking about how to set up parameters in a software climate model. And goes on to say:

Detailed radiation modeling of the high wavenumber region is consistent with a value prad ≈ 10bar, so it appears that the CO2 greenhouse effect alone gets us almost all the way to explaining the high
surface temperature. The remaining opacity needed to bring the surface temperature up to 720K
is provided by Venus' high sulfuric acid clouds,the trace of water vapor in the atmosphere, and
sulfur dioxide (in order of importance).


Tut tut.
gkam
Jan 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
carbon_unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Just exactly how many more people must independently look through telescopes again and again to confirm there exists moons around Jupiter after 10000 people have already done so?
This brings to mind canals on Mars.
Science "fact" is always open to revision.
But the "canals on Mars" was always a highly questionable interpretation of the observation right from the start.
Is the science fact that the Earth is round and not flat still "open to revision"?
Or is it settled?
Sorry, ran out of time/space. Didn't mean to imply the canals were something as solid as moons of Jupiter. There is an effect of increasing resolution/evidence. Canals were thought to exist at low resolution. Once high resolution imagery became available, canals were gone. There is a point one moves past where a return to previous notions becomes very improbable due to evidence. We're not going to suddenly find canals, flat earth, Velikovsky correct, etc.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
You seem to have missed the point ...

"The problem is that the high albedo of Venus means that the climate is maintained by a relative trickle of absorbed solar radiation."

From this trickle of solar radiation, you generate your planet hot enough to melt lead.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2017
You seem to have missed the point ...

"The problem is that the high albedo of Venus means that the climate is maintained by a relative trickle of absorbed solar radiation."

From this trickle of solar radiation, you generate your planet hot enough to melt lead.


And, in your misunderstanding of all things scientific, do you think that Venus always had that atmospheric composition? Do you think the Sun always had its current luminosity? There is very good evidence, as Tim Thompson stated, that Venus had a large water inventory (D/H ratio). As the Sun becomes more luminous, and as more and more water becomes vapour (powerful g/h gas), it starts to run away. It never rains out the CO2 from volcanism. The CO2 builds up. And on we go.
See p. 17-18 of chapter 1 of the book you quoted.
One thing we do know - Venus did not arrive in the solar system ~ 6000 years ago! That is just too stupid for words.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "One thing we do know - Venus did not arrive in the solar system ~ 6000 years ago! That is just too stupid for words."

Realize that your argument is that the history of planetary systems can be rewound like a video tape, over billions of years.

This would require that over billions of years, our solar system would not be subjected to any significant external events.

This is hardly something we should treat as a conclusion.

It's a starting-point hypothesis, an over-simplification.

Realize that this leaves a number of unresolved mysteries ...

Venus' retrograde motion ...

The fact that the various planets are observed to tilt in categories -- as though they were captured together ...

The fact that our newfound ability to observe other solar systems forces us to consider such planetary captures and even dramatic wanderings within solar systems.

There's little reason to believe at this point that your over-simplification is accurate.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2017
The fact is that we know that cultures across the world tracked Venus, as if their lives depended upon it. There's no debate over that -- and yet, it's pretty ridiculous, given the current sky, that they cared at all.

Tracking Venus is the likely motive that is cited by some historians as having inspired the Oracle Bone texts -- the earliest form of written record known to exist in China.

References to Venus prior to 1500 BCE are inexplicably given using words and symbols that were traditionally reserved for comets.

They describe Venus as appearing 'hairy' or refer to its 'horns' or 'long tail.' (There are references prior to 1500 BCE to goddesses such as the Sumerian Innana, however, the iconography associated with these goddesses typically involve images of comets.)

The message from the astronomical community is that all planetary history MUST happen a long time ago. Yet, they offer no substantive explanations for these unusual facts.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
^^^More mythology based woo. Nothing to do with science. Depends on who is interpreting it, and how they are interpreting it. Irrelevent.

Why no convection? Why so many craters? Why such a thick crust? Why so few volcanoes? Where are you getting the CO2 from? Jupiter? What about all the basalt? Much of that on/ in Jupiter?

Sorry, this is all too ridiculous for words. You want an idiotic idea, dreamed up by a scientifically illiterate bloke, 60 odd years ago, to count as a controversy in modern science. It isn't. Nobody takes the loon Velikovsky seriously. Never have, never will.
Just accept that what you believe is purely faith based, with no basis in science, and then we can all get on with discussing real science.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Another thing - conservation of angular ****ing momentum. You know, the laws of physics. Jesus.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Maui fished NZ from the sea. How much credence do you give that? Or are we cherry picking, and then misinterpreting mythology to suit the woo that you believe in? Idiotic stuff.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "You want an idiotic idea, dreamed up by a scientifically illiterate bloke, 60 odd years ago, to count as a controversy in modern science. It isn't. Nobody takes the loon Velikovsky seriously."

Sagan ...

https://www.youtu...N7iVIuhk

"The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. And there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. And the history of the study of our solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong -- and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
So what? If somebody studies the Black Sea and finds that it may have been formed from the overflowing of the Med at the end of the last ice age, and there is evidence to support that, and others suggest this could account for the biblical flood story, that is fine.
Velikovsky, apart from getting the science wrong (which is what Sagan is saying, and pointed out on more than one occasion), has zero evidence to back up his misinterpretation of myth.
http://abob.libs....elu.html
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
From a summary of an 1894 text on the history of the swastika at http://abob.libs....bobk/sw/

"The fortunate find in the seventies, at Mawangdui, China, of a Han dynasty silk comet atlas sheds considerable light on earlier enigmatic motifs. Most illuminating is the drawing, described by text on the artifact as a long-tailed pheasant star. This rendering of a jetting comet viewed down its axis of rotation has a considerable history, and, as a motif, appears on artifacts found in most areas of the world ...

This fabulous winged deity had a radiance like the Sun, could change shapes at will, and destroyed other gods and kings by casting down fire and stirring up storms of reddish dust which darkened the Sun, Moon and stars. Clearly Garuda was symbolic of an Earth approaching comet ..."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
http://www.newdaw...en-right

"At the time of publication of Worlds in Collision, many aspects of Velikovsky's theories were flatly characterized as purest nonsense by authorities within the astronomic world. Later the truth would surface that some of Velikovsky's harshest critics had never actually read his book prior to making their declarations, but had instead based their critique solely on pre-publication summaries of the book ...

In 1974, a symposium of scientists (including Velikovsky) was held in San Francisco to debate Velikovsky's theories that ended up pitting several leading critics against Velikovsky. The official 'spin' coming out of that conference -- and the impression left on the general public -- was that Velikovsky's theories had been finally and definitively disproved."
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
^^^^Who gives a s***? What has this got to do with Venus being a frigging comet? It demonstrably wasn't. People believed (and still do) all sorts of crap. Stuff they couldn't understand, they made up stories about. Stories get altered as they are passed down the generations. They are not a basis for forming scientific hypotheses. Unless you can provide some VERY good evidence of what you are claiming. You can't. Neither could Velikovsky. Which is why it has nothing to do with science. You can post all the mythological woo you like, it makes not a jot of bloody difference. Find the evidence, then posit your hypothesis. Not the other way round.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Stories get altered as they are passed down the generations. They are not a basis for forming scientific hypotheses."

How does the alteration of stories over generations disprove the importance of consistencies between cultural stories across oceans, before a time when it was thought that such travel was commonplace?

All you have for us is an arrogant, self-serving claim that ancient people -- your ancestors -- were ignorant.

And when the data does not service this arrogance -- as in the case of Venus' thermal flux -- you become an apologist for the correction of that dataset.

You tried to argue that the Venus Express mission proved your case ...

... yet did not even take the time to look for thermal flux data.

You just started sending papers at everybody, apparently not noticing the numerous graphs showing latitude.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
And when I said 'evidence', above, I don't mean, "according to the ancient ones, Daddy took a pee on a rock", and then misinterpret that to mean "a great fountain of water fell from Saturn to Earth."
I mean real, scientific evidence. You know the kind.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Stories get altered as they are passed down the generations. They are not a basis for forming scientific hypotheses."

How does the alteration of stories over generations disprove the importance of consistencies between cultures?

All you have for us is an arrogant, self-serving claim that ancient people -- your ancestors -- were ignorant.

And when the data does not service this arrogance -- as in the case of Venus' thermal flux -- you become an apologist for the correction of that dataset.

You tried to argue that the Venus Express mission proved your case ...

... yet did not even take the time to look for thermal flux data.

You just started sending papers at everybody, apparently not noticing the numerous graphs showing latitude.


I looked at the thermal flux data. The authors said it was unreliable. End of story.

Where is your convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? Why so few volcanoes? How old do you think Venus is?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2017
For clarity, here is what Tomasko et al said:

"The reality of this apparent imbalance is, however, questionable since the direct measurements of the net thermal flux from the three small probes differed widely, precluding a simple determination of the globally averaged net thermal flux deep in the atmosphere."

In other words, it was unreliable.

http://authors.li...8187.pdf
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "In other words, it was unreliable."

You seem to not realize that with such logic, we could throw out all of Earth's temperature dataset as well.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2017
You seem to not realize that with such logic, we could throw out all of Earth's temperature dataset as well


What a f***ing idiotic comment to make. How many times has the Earth temperature profile been measured? By aircraft, balloons, spacecraft? How many of them experienced an error? Did it happen every single time? Were they hurtling through a scalding atmosphere at many km/s?
Jesus, you people really need to learn some science, before you start criticising it.
The error in the PV probes were recreated using the lab version back on Earth. Unlucky, S**t happens. They tested it, found the problem, but couldn't apply a sufficient correction to make the data particularly usable.
http://www.scienc...82901130
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
And, as I keep having to point out, none of this helps Velikovsky's scientifically illiterate woo, does it?
Where is your convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? Why so few volcanoes? How old do you think Venus is?

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
Christ, there are some big craters on Venus. In Velikosky's ridiculous chronology, there would have been an extinction level event every century at least, if that same cratering frequency had happened on Earth, rather than being somehow magnetically attracted to Venus!
https://astrogeol...database
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "The error in the PV probes were recreated using the lab version back on Earth"

Yeah, and what were these instrumental failures which you agree were validated?

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
Christ, there are some big craters on Venus. In Velikosky's ridiculous chronology, there would have been an extinction level event every century at least, if that same cratering frequency had happened on Earth, rather than being somehow magnetically attracted to Venus!
https://astrogeol...database


Actually, having d/l the crater database, I'll change that to every decade or less!

Yeah, and what were these instrumental failures which you agree were validated?


Read the paper. Surely you have it, or you wouldn't be on here saying they covered it up.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Read the paper. Surely you have it, or you wouldn't be on here saying they covered it up."

Your message appears to be that you TRUST these scientists.

You don't really care to know what the instrumental failures were.

You're not seeking to understand the reasons.

You're seeking out their conclusions ...

... primarily because they agree with your own.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
Nope, they recreated the failure in the lab. And you've never even read the paper, have you? And yet you're on here, with your brand of science-free mythology based woo, accusing people of lying to cover up possibly the most idiotic nonsense known to mankind, that is disproved in any number of ways! Bloody typical of woo peddlers.

Where is your convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? Why so few volcanoes? How old do you think Venus is?

Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2017
Re: "Nope, they recreated the failure in the lab."

It was several different types of instruments they are claiming all failed in the same way.

It took a year of investigation to identify how one of these instruments might have failed.

I know that you don't know what all of these claimed failures are because this information is not available on the web. There's only one publication that discusses it in depth, and it's not online.

Yet, what we have here is that you agree ... without knowing what you're even agreeing with.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2017
Yet, what we have here is that you agree ... without knowing what you're even agreeing with.


Give it a rest woo boy. Read the paper. I linked to it.

"The deployment transients occurred at about 60 km above the Venus surface where the sensors were suddenly exposed to rapid forced convective cooling by being thrust into a high-speed gas stream 45°C colder than the sensors. In laboratory simulations this resulted in a transient error,
which started near zero, grew to a maximum amplitude after about 5 sec, and then decayed to negligible values after about 30 sec." etc, etc.

And, as I'll point out again, it is irrelevant. Velikovsky's nonsense was a non-starter, and has nothing to do with science. Not to mention:
Where is your convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? Why so few volcanoes? How old do you think Venus is?

jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2017
Let's not forget that all these scientifically illiterate woo peddlers were accusing Tomasko,et al of a cover up. If they needed to cover it up, why report it in the first place?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2017
LOL.
The AGW Cult's Chicken Littles and their Alternative Facts.
No wonder they see the sky falling.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
LOL.
The AGW Cult's Chicken Littles and their Alternative Facts.
No wonder they see the sky falling.


Dafuq are you on about?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
The simple fact is that there are people who, when faced with data that do not match their expectations, change their minds, and people who deny the data. The second are conspiracy theorists, deniers, religionists, and other psychopathological personalities. Unless we wish to invoke the demon of psychological control and conditioning, there is no way to help these unfortunate individuals. But we can deny them a role in social decisions. They will scream and whine about how their rights are being denied but the alternative is to allow them to deny our rights.

Some hard decisions are going to have to be made. Democracy's flaw is populists who depend upon the democracy of the stupid.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2017
Unless we wish to invoke the demon of psychological control and conditioning, there is no way to help these unfortunate individuals.


The bizarre thing is that action on climate change would be in their best interest - even ignoring the effects they deny but simply by increasing their quality of life (quality of the environment) to saving them a lot of taxes (having to wage less wars and keeping dying industries alive).

It never fails to amaze me that there are people who actually WANT to breathe in the stuff from coal powerplants and who they actually WANT to keep subsidizing fossil fuels over much cheaper alternatives and who actually WANT to keep being dependent on unstable governments for their supply of energy.

Go figure.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2017
The only solution is tests. Score 50% and you get to vote. Score 90% and you can run for office. The problem is most who score 90% will be too smart to want to run for office and will already have a day job.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
Score 50% and you get to vote. Score 90% and you can run for office. The problem is most who score 90% will be too smart to want to run for office and will already have a day job.
...........then the rare occasion of one of the 90% makes his debut, Donald Trump. And the dishonest Fake News Media goes on a name calling binge just like you are so prone to do Schneibo, you just don't know how to get off the Fake Science & Fake News bandwagon.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2017
Re: "The AGW Cult's Chicken Littles and their Alternative Facts."

When you try so hard to ignore controversy, you also lose an ability to understand what the real scandal is.

The scandal is not that Velikovsky inspired the Venus Pioneer mission; his only role in this is that he correctly predicted Venus' hot temperature.

The scandal is that the public was never told that this dataset was corrected, and that the very large majority of climate change activists -- probably beyond 99% of them -- have no idea either.

It's a scandal because they should have sent another mission.

It's THAT important to get this right.

And this is obvious.

If the people here had their sh*t together in the least, they would try to understand that there will of course be consequences for this failure to understand that the Venus dataset was corrected to reflect the greenhouse effect AS AN ASSUMPTION -- not a finding.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2017
Just look even a little bit into the future -- to 2020 or 2024.

Michael Mann has officially launched a national effort to find climate scientist candidates for government office, as of the last few weeks.

One has to imagine that he'll be spending the next few years locating and prepping somebody for the office of presidency.

I've spoken to numerous people about the Venus Pioneer mission online over the past year.

I've come to realize that the awareness is in the single digits, if that -- and I see no reason to currently believe that even climate scientists are aware of it.

Imagine the scandal of a climate scientist presidential candidate who has no idea, and is publicly challenged. This would forever change the public perception of climate science.

That is why this is so scandalous -- because so much effort goes into ignoring scientific controversy today that the experts eventually stop being the experts.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
I've spoken to numerous people about the Venus Pioneer mission online over the past year.


Yep, more cranks. There is no controversy, you idiot. Why don't you actually have the balls to call out these people in print, under your own name, and accuse them of lying? Because you know damn well that you'll be sued. And told to present evidence to back up your claim. You are a F***wit of the highest order, with zero scientific knowledge, and a belief in the brain dead rantings of somebody who was equally scientifically illiterate.
Why don't you crawl back under the rock from which you came?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
@Reeve,
Tell me, what evidence would you bring to answer this oft repeated, and ignored question:

Where is your convection? Why so many craters? Why the thick crust? Why so few volcanoes? How old do you think Venus is?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2017
Here is Reeve's proposition. I don't think he realises how bloody stupid it makes him look:

Venus was a comet! It was spewed out of Jupiter (not sure where you are getting CO2, or SO2 or basalt from, but hey ho). It was due to a volcano (not sure how that happens at Jupiter). It swung by Earth a few times (completely ignoring the law of conservation of angular momentum). Some insects and stuff fell from this cometary Venus to Earth (not sure where you are getting insects from at Jupiter, or how they survived the heat).
It then settled into its current orbit, and cooled so quickly to have a crust thick enough to support huge mountains. Despite being so hot and young, there was very little volcanism. In its ~6000 years, it has been smashed into by almost a 1000 decent sized asteroids/ meteorites. It has cooled so much that its lower atmosphere is non-convective.
Now, can anybody give me a good reason why science would need to invent a cover up to deny that work of genius?
rodkeh
1 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
This article is not about science or its dissemination, it is the same thing I've been dealing with my whole life, the need for the establishment to make everyone conform to their beliefs, no matter how idiotic they my be. Nonconformity is a sin and an affront to the established religious dogma.

The author is not concerned with science or facts or truth, just trying to find a better brainwash tool.

It will be a stroke of pure luck if any really science survives.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2017
The only solution is tests. Score 50% and you get to vote. Score 90% and you can run for office. The problem is most who score 90% will be too smart to want to run for office and will already have a day job.
-- Da Tard.
Be careful what you wish for. In your case, a score of 0, and you end up euthanized.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
Here is Reeve's proposition. I don't think he realises how bloody stupid it makes him look:


Now, can anybody give me a good reason why science would need to invent a cover up to deny that work of genius?


So what about your "work of genius" & "bloody stupid" in advocating the assassination of US President Donald Trump at the link immediately below?

Everybody who has posted above will learn a lot about jonesdave simply from reading the link below in which jonesdave openly advocated for the assassination of President Donald Trump & was 5 Star upvoted by Georgyboy gkam. The post has been referred to appropriate Law Enforcement at the FBI & Secret Service & Physorg appropriately put on notice to the existence of the open threat.

https://phys.org/...try.html

jonesdave
1 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2017

So what about your "work of genius" & "bloody stupid" in advocating the assassination of US President Donald Trump at the link immediately below?
Everybody who has posted above will learn a lot about jonesdave simply from reading the link below in which jonesdave openly advocated for the assassination of President Donald Trump & was 5 Star upvoted by Georgyboy gkam. The post has been referred to appropriate Law Enforcement at the FBI & Secret Service & Physorg appropriately put on notice to the existence of the open threat.


Benni, you are are f***wit. Yes? Prove me wrong, and actually post something with some sort of scientific merit. Not happened yet, unlikely to happen in the future, yes? . Trump is a f***wit.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2017
This article is not about science or its dissemination, it is the same thing I've been dealing with my whole life, the need for the establishment to make everyone conform to their beliefs, no matter how idiotic they my be. Nonconformity is a sin and an affront to the established religious dogma.

The author is not concerned with science or facts or truth, just trying to find a better brainwash tool.

It will be a stroke of pure luck if any really science survives.


And you are obviously scientifically illiterate, yes? Own up, it's not a big deal. Plenty of people don't understand science and maths. Ask Benni, or cantthink, or Reeve. Plenty of the tosspots around.
jonesdave
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
Any other woo deniers out there? Don't you just get sick of these bleedin' idiots? Coming on here with their crap? Every time you ask them to spell out their woo....guess what? They disappear! Tosspots, the lot of them.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2017
Plenty of the tosspots around.
.........jonesdave
jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2017
Plenty of the tosspots around.
.........jonesdave


And your point is, s**t for brains?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
@BenniBoy,
The post has been referred to appropriate Law Enforcement at the FBI & Secret Service & Physorg appropriately put on notice to the existence of the open threat.


You are seriously funny. Either that, are you are as thick as pigs**t! Deary me. You, personally, have put the FB effing I on watch? Really? What did they say? "Stop wasting our time" would be my guess.
Surprise yourself, Benniboy, some of us live in a free country. Remember that? We can call our leaders all the cnuts under the Sun. It's great. Because most of them are. Unfortunately, that priviiege seems to have been lost for you poor saps.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
This article is not about science or its dissemination, it is the same thing I've been dealing with my whole life, the need for the establishment to make everyone conform to their beliefs, no matter how idiotic they my be. Nonconformity is a sin and an affront to the established religious dogma.

The author is not concerned with science or facts or truth, just trying to find a better brainwash tool.

It will be a stroke of pure luck if any really science survives.


Manage to get past your 11+ did you? Unlikely, I'd have thought.
jonesdave
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2017
Here is Reeve's proposition. I don't think he realises how bloody stupid it makes him look:


Now, can anybody give me a good reason why science would need to invent a cover up to deny that work of genius?


So what about your "work of genius" & "bloody stupid" in advocating the assassination of US President Donald Trump at the link immediately below?

Everybody who has posted above will learn a lot about jonesdave simply from reading the link below in which jonesdave openly advocated for the assassination of President Donald Trump & was 5 Star upvoted by Georgyboy gkam. The post has been referred to appropriate Law Enforcement at the FBI & Secret Service & Physorg appropriately put on notice to the existence of the open threat.

https://phys.org/...try.html



Still laughing my t*ts off about that!!!!!!
rodkeh
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
And you are obviously scientifically illiterate, yes? Own up, it's not a big deal. Plenty of people don't understand science and maths. Ask Benni, or cantthink, or Reeve. Plenty of the tosspots around.


I'm not the Yank here, you are!
rodkeh
1 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Manage to get past your 11+ did you? Unlikely, I'd have thought.


Maybe that means something to an uneducated Yank!
xponen
not rated yet Jan 29, 2017
Ridiculing people for stupidity won't help change their mind. It only gave a comedic entertainment for people in the same camp as the rediculer.

You have to dig deep into people's mind for buried interest/motives and replace them with different values.

Or better start reforming children education instead of dealing with the heavy baggage & inertia of an adult mind.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.