magicjava

What Is Fashion - Find All Latest Fashion Trends, Fashion Articles, Fashion Tips & Advice!

aaaaaaaaaa i cant see it!!!!!!! can you please rem...

2012-01-20T08:38:43.142-05:00

aaaaaaaaaa i cant see it!!!!!!!
can you please remove the audio file from it?
ty Mark

i cant see this one because there is a audio restr...

2012-01-20T08:31:39.860-05:00

i cant see this one because there is a audio restriction to my country
can u remove it pls?
i would like to see it!

P.S. And, honestly, the full answer is there just ...

2011-01-21T17:34:50.191-05:00

P.S. And, honestly, the full answer is there just aren't enough hours in the day to go through all of science and separate the hocus pocus from the stuff that's actually good work.

Maybe the ozone hole is just another example of scientists slinging bull in order to get funding, maybe it's not. I just don't have the time to look into it.

Unfortunately no, I didn't ever find the answe...

2011-01-21T17:16:02.525-05:00

Unfortunately no, I didn't ever find the answer.

Did you ever find an answer to your question about...

2011-01-15T11:42:18.124-05:00

Did you ever find an answer to your question about the ozone hole?
http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-ozone-hole.html

having some questions in HDF5. is there a way to c...

2010-12-29T15:13:18.526-05:00

having some questions in HDF5. is there a way to conatact by email?

My apologies for not being here for a while. There...

2010-12-10T02:19:35.902-05:00

My apologies for not being here for a while. There've been other things going on in my personal life that I've needed to attend to.

Mr. O'Sullivan, all of my work has been placed in the public domain. This means you are free to use it as you see fit.

However, I am not personally trying to demonstrate fraud on the part of NASA or any other scientists. I am simply trying to reproduce published claims and pointing out where the information made available to the public falls short of what's needed to do that.

As a quick note, NASA responded to my FOIA appeal several months ago. They provided me with the values for the vectors Ai and Theta Bar i, which I hope to post here in the near future.

However, they claim that there is no documentation in NASA regarding the atmospheric height of each foot print for each channel scan of the Aqua satellite. It's therefore still impossible to reproduce any of their claims.

They've lied to us before about the moon-landi...

2010-12-05T04:22:41.492-05:00

They've lied to us before about the moon-landings.
"Scientists" made billions from the Apollo Program.
Now NASA is making trillions from the global warming conspiracy.
Follow the money. Follow the money.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that you both keep...

2010-10-15T08:21:40.311-04:00

I am keeping my fingers crossed that you both keep digging into the data...

Hi, Your experiences over the US Government's ...

2010-10-07T04:59:10.161-04:00

Hi,
Your experiences over the US Government's apparent fraud in manipulation of satellite data mirrors the extraordinary evidence of malfeasance I have uncovered in my series of 'Satellitegate' articles.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6419&linkbox=true&position=1
Please contact me via this link if you would be willing to work with me on progressing FOIA requests.
http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/johnosullivan
John

I like to see a good illustration in the websides,...

2010-07-28T15:07:01.545-04:00

I like to see a good illustration in the websides, even if the text isn´t good, i think the graphics have too much importance.I must to say this blog contain a great graphics and that´s what i´ve been looking for.Actually
costa rica investment opportunities
introduce wonderful graphics about different things.

Questions: 1. Which is ozone data in CSSK? I find...

2010-06-22T19:55:21.878-04:00

Questions:
1. Which is ozone data in CSSK? I find CO2 & Water vapor. No O3.
2. What is purpose of 'normalizing' data in CSSK?
3. In movie, color table confusing - what color is low, what color is high? What color is 'no data'?
4. Does this data seperate stratospheric & tropospheric ozone? Stratospheric shields from UV. Tropospheric sources are industry & fires which would be consistent with higher amounts over N. hemisphere & Africa.
5. Mercator projection can significantly distort perception of amount of ozone. Use equal-area projection like Hammer or Aitoff.

In your "Aqua Satellite" PDF, two items....

2010-06-21T22:21:34.616-04:00

In your "Aqua Satellite" PDF, two items.
1. team member bios apparently verbatim from NASA site. Credit appropriately?
2. Graphic on UAH monthly temperature. 0.5C error bar is probably individual measurement. Monthly temperature composed of many of these measurements and multiplies error bar by factor of roughly 1/sqrt(number of measurements). See Standard Deviation of the Mean.

Mr. Rothwell, As I mentioned in my first post, it...

2010-05-02T18:26:36.987-04:00

Mr. Rothwell,

As I mentioned in my first post, it's not for me to settle disputes in physics.

For now, I would say take heart in the progress the field has made and the knowledge that if the research is sound, in the long run it will win out.

To paraphrase an old saying, the mills of science grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small.

You wrote: "Until objections from scientists...

2010-05-02T09:46:33.195-04:00

You wrote:

"Until objections from scientists outside the cold fusion community can be met, I think that's the best I can do."

Let me know if you find any objections that have not been met. "Skeptics" have published only 5 or 6 peer-reviewed papers as far as I know. Most of these negative papers are available at LENR-CANR.org. As you see from this one, all of their objections were met by 1990:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

Seriously, if you can find a skeptical paper not in our collection, or one that raises issues that have not been met, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would let me know. My address as on the the front of LENR-CANR.org. I strive to make LENR-CANR.org the world's largest collection of anti-cold fusion papers.

Here is a summary of the skeptical arguments:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

Mr. Rothwell, I've added a "Technical As...

2010-05-01T19:33:39.724-04:00

Mr. Rothwell,

I've added a "Technical Aside" on cold fusion that I hope reflects your side of the dispute and provides a link to your web site.

Until objections from scientists outside the cold fusion community can be met, I think that's the best I can do.

You wrote: "If you can provide me with a rep...

2010-05-01T13:07:04.613-04:00

You wrote:

"If you can provide me with a replacement for cold fusion in the post I wrote, I'll rewrite the post without any reference to cold fusion. The replacement must:

*) Show why science claims need to be validated.
*) Have been shown to be False.
*) Recognizable by non-scientists."

This is not about obligations or what I should do for you. You made an error. Cold fusion does not fit your criteria. It has been shown to be true, not false. Countless claims were shown to be false, but apart from polywater and a few others, they are obscure or forgotten. They are forgotten precisely because they were not replicated. You would have to look through back issues of physics journals to find them.

We know that cold fusion is real because it was independently replicated in hundreds of laboratories at high signal to noise ratios. That is the only way we ever know that any claim is true; there are not other criteria. If an effect could be widely replicated at a high s/n ratio and yet still be wrong, the scientific method would not work, and civilization would not exist.

If there is any obligation, I suppose it is one that you owe to yourself: to read about a subject and learn about it before judging it, and to apply objective standards of science to all claims.

Mr. Rothwell, If you can provide me with a replac...

2010-05-01T00:59:48.959-04:00

Mr. Rothwell,

If you can provide me with a replacement for cold fusion in the post I wrote, I'll rewrite the post without any reference to cold fusion. The replacement must:

*) Show why science claims need to be validated.
*) Have been shown to be False.
*) Recognizable by non-scientists.

In return, I will consider whatever debt I may have to the SPAWAR folks for getting my career started and me leaving a year earlier than I said I would, to be paid.

You wrote: "What changed in the middle of th...

2010-04-30T22:03:59.754-04:00

You wrote:

"What changed in the middle of these two events?

Money changed.

Now there are governments paying scientists to do research in this area and those scientists are all saying 'Yes, cold fusion is great.' This is pretty much what scientists do whenever money is tossed around."

Or as Stan Szpak of SPAWAR put it, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.

However, you are wrong. There is practically no funding available for cold fusion in the U.S., and the political opposition is as strong as ever.

"I used to work at the Navy's SPAWAR project back in the Star Wars days. We all knew Reagan's Star War's project would never work, but we keep working and we produced results that _did_ work even those results didn't change the fact that the technology central to Star Wars _didn't_ work and never would.

Now SPAWAR is working on cold fusion and producing results."

Three people at SPAWAR working on cold fusion. Szpak is retired and still comes into the lab. The other two work on weekends and after hours. No funding has been allocated since 1990. At China Lake, when Miles reported positive results, they cut all his funding, threw him out of the lab and reassigned him to a menial job in the stock room. He got the message and resigned. Note that Miles was designated a "Distinguished Fellow of the Institute" at China Lake.

There is tremendous political opposition to this research. Robert Park told a large crowd of cheering people that he and Zimmerman (a Clinton appointee) would "root out and fire" any Federal researcher who tries to do an experiment, attends a conference, or even talks about cold fusion. I was there in the audience and I know for a fact that they followed through on those threats.

"I see little reason to think they're doing anything different now than what they were doing back in the 80s, which is taking the governments money and reporting whatever success they can."

I suggest you review the literature more carefully. You will see very large and obvious differences, such as the fact that with many techniques, reproducibility is now 100%.

"Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll certainly grant you that the original cold fusion research was judged too harshly by both the press and the scientific community. But the fact remains that the original research was soundly rejected and the original claims withdrawn."

The research was rejected but the claims were not retracted or withdrawn. Thousands of scientists replicated. Not one of them has withdrawn. When I say the results were rejected, I do not mean only that most journals refused to publish them, or that people criticized them at conferences. I mean that Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, and many others were fired or forced out. Their experiments were trashed with horse manure; their equipment and papers stolen; their houses vandalized, and they were accused in the Washington Post, Time magazine, the New York Times, Sci. Am., New Scientist and elsewhere of being “frauds, lunatics and criminals,” which made it impossible for them to get funding. Schwinger resigned from the APS in protest, and wrote:

"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf

When scientists stand by their results at great personal sacrifice, even at the cost of their careers, you can be sure they are not doing it for money, despite Szpak’s dictum. There are still a few like that. They are old fashioned people. Most are retired, or dead. When the last one dies, I expect cold fusion will be forgotten. You say it will "take time." I am afraid the researchers do not have time.

Mr. Rothwell, The original cold fusion clams were...

2010-04-30T19:55:41.013-04:00

Mr. Rothwell,

The original cold fusion clams were rejected like few other scientific claims have ever been rejected. Now you are saying that there are more scientists that can prove cold fusion works than can fit into a symposium. What changed in the middle of these two events?

Money changed.

Now there are governments paying scientists to do research in this area and those scientists are all saying "Yes, cold fusion is great." This is pretty much what scientists do whenever money is tossed around.

I used to work at the Navy's SPAWAR project back in the Star Wars days. We all knew Reagan's Star War's project would never work, but we keep working and we produced results that _did_ work even those results didn't change the fact that the technology central to Star Wars _didn't_ work and never would.

Now SPAWAR is working on cold fusion and producing results. I see little reason to think they're doing anything different now than what they were doing back in the 80s, which is taking the governments money and reporting whatever success they can.

Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll certainly grant you that the original cold fusion research was judged too harshly by both the press and the scientific community. But the fact remains that the original research was soundly rejected and the original claims withdrawn.

Resurrecting those claims and showing them to be True, if it can be done, is going to take time.

You wrote: "You make a fair point and I'...

2010-04-30T13:32:04.304-04:00

You wrote:

"You make a fair point and I've changed the original text to 'hypothesis' to clarify the meaning."

That's an improvement. Perhaps you should also say that it is your opinion that the hypothesis was false, and that opinion is contrary to nearly every expert and every published paper. The experts agree that the hypothesis was correct but incomplete.

When you make a statement not supported by the literature, it is good form to say so. Of course you have a right to your opinion, but your readers would probably want to know that thousands of distinguished scientists disagree, and only a handful think you are right.

P.S. I grabbed the upper stratosphere image by ac...

2010-04-30T01:38:46.833-04:00

P.S.

I grabbed the upper stratosphere image by accident.

here the lower stratosphere:
http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tls_v03_2.png

The data comes from RSS: http://www.ssmi.com/data/...

2010-04-30T01:30:14.960-04:00

The data comes from RSS:
http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/graphics/plots/sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tts_v03_2.png

There is a downward trend from the beginning of the series in 1980, but since 1995 (15 years ago) it's been flat.

But my intent was not to argue stratosphere temps. I was asking if Dr. Hansen has ever published the conditions that would show global warming to be false.

wiki The stratosphere is situated between about 10...

2010-04-29T22:27:36.139-04:00

wiki
The stratosphere is situated between about 10 km (6 miles) and 50 km (31 miles) altitude above the surface at moderate latitudes, while at the poles it starts at about 8 km (5 miles) altitude.

Chosing 21km data fromChristies satellite temperature slope is
-9E-5 per day -0.03C/year
so not sure where you got your no change for 15 years from!.

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3443/amsutempsinc21km.png

green dotted trace is strat.