Comments on: OT: Proper science from The Guardian: Dark matter detected http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2464&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ot-proper-science-from-the-guardian-dark-matter-detected Just don't tell me the debate is over… Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:07:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Simon http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2464&cpage=1#comment-941 Simon Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:16:36 +0000 http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2464#comment-941 @Vinnie: the article you mention was covered <a href="http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2439" rel="nofollow">here.</a> Plimer's book just happened to be the first in my list - it's not an order of priority! And there are holes in Plimer's arguments, however the fundamental point of his book is correct: namely, you can't just listen to climatologists - you need to look at geology, cosmology and a whole bunch of other disciplines to understand the climate system. As for the planet cooling, check the satellite record. Given what's been happening with the surface record, it cannot be trusted any more… @John: Hope you're wrong! @Vinnie: the article you mention was covered here.

Plimer's book just happened to be the first in my list - it's not an order of priority! And there are holes in Plimer's arguments, however the fundamental point of his book is correct: namely, you can't just listen to climatologists - you need to look at geology, cosmology and a whole bunch of other disciplines to understand the climate system.

As for the planet cooling, check the satellite record. Given what's been happening with the surface record, it cannot be trusted any more…

@John: Hope you're wrong!

]]> By: John Simpson http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2464&cpage=1#comment-938 John Simpson Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:23:28 +0000 http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2464#comment-938 Sorry to disappoint you, but this is also unscientific post-modern science. It has not detected "dark matter" but simply found a statistical anomaly that did not correspond with a computer model. Quote : they expected 0.8 events ( from a computer model) and found 2 (over 2 years) Well, how can you detect 0.8 events - that has to be from a non-physical model because you can obviously detect only an integral number of events. And how did they know the extra "1.2" events were "dark matter" - because their model ASSUMED that anything that was not accounted for in the model was dark matter. This is exactly the same sort of nonsensical argument that is used to prove AGW. What if the extra event was caused by something other than dark matter - hmmm, the computer model does not allow for a natural explanation. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is also unscientific post-modern science.

It has not detected "dark matter" but simply found a statistical anomaly that did not correspond with a computer model. Quote : they expected 0.8 events ( from a computer model) and found 2 (over 2 years) Well, how can you detect 0.8 events - that has to be from a non-physical model because you can obviously detect only an integral number of events. And how did they know the extra "1.2" events were "dark matter" - because their model ASSUMED that anything that was not accounted for in the model was dark matter.

This is exactly the same sort of nonsensical argument that is used to prove AGW.

What if the extra event was caused by something other than dark matter - hmmm, the computer model does not allow for a natural explanation.

]]> By: Vinnie http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2464&cpage=1#comment-937 Vinnie Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:22:51 +0000 http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2464#comment-937 Nice to see Dark Matter being detected. I hope they have got it. Me? I'm no more (or less) than a interested individual and avid media observer. So, I noticed that you are a "Climate" blog, but that you didn't seen to notice, right next to this article on the Guardian's website today, the leaked UN report of 3 degrees C temp rises if the (then most) current deal was actually signed? Or was this an oversight that a report like this wouldn't register interest with people who are following Copenhagen? Or Climate? Or possibly your blog? Here is the article ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-3c and here's the report itself ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/copenhagen-emissions-cuts-future-temperatures I also noticed (but wasn't at all suprised to find) Ian Plimer's book as your top recommended. Hmm, seems strange to me seeing as how he still won't or can't answer direct questions about the references he has used ... or things like, how he comes to the conclusion the the planet is cooling. But that's just me. I best be off. All the best. Vinnie. Nice to see Dark Matter being detected. I hope they have got it.

Me? I'm no more (or less) than a interested individual and avid media observer.

So, I noticed that you are a "Climate" blog, but that you didn't seen to notice, right next to this article on the Guardian's website today, the leaked UN report of 3 degrees C temp rises if the (then most) current deal was actually signed? Or was this an oversight that a report like this wouldn't register interest with people who are following Copenhagen? Or Climate? Or possibly your blog?

Here is the article ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-3c
and here's the report itself ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/copenhagen-emissions-cuts-future-temperatures

I also noticed (but wasn't at all suprised to find) Ian Plimer's book as your top recommended. Hmm, seems strange to me seeing as how he still won't or can't answer direct questions about the references he has used ... or things like, how he comes to the conclusion the the planet is cooling.

But that's just me.
I best be off.

All the best.
Vinnie.

]]>