Is the scientific community stupid?

The answer is NO! We should not trust experts. We should only trust what they can prove. And there is a very specific and very structured way of knowing what it is they have proven. The Scientific Method. Within the Scientific Method, it's the the volume and thoroughness of peer reviewed evidence that makes us aware of what is trustworthy.

 

Scrubbers remove sulfur in the flue gas along with some other contaminates but do not address the release of CO2. Clean coal technology can take different forms-scrubbers and carbon sequestration or liquefying coal to natural gas and using that to fire a combustion turbine. Very expensive in any form and the few plants that have undertaken these approaches can't compete with natural gas fired generation or renewables. CO2 capture is a really tough engineering task that may never prove to be viable on a large generation facility. BTW wood pellet plants also emit a good deal of CO2 and if the exhaust is not treated particulates.

 

But you said in another thread "No no no no. Peer reviewers don't evaluate if the study is accurate or not. Rejecting a study because you disagree with the conclusion would be a huge no no. The review would be appealed, the Editor would get involved, and the peer-reviewer would be expeditiously dismissed."
How does that peer review help the accuracy? They don't evaluate whether the study is accurate .

 

I have a college degree in physics, although I have always worked in R&D labs developing microprocessor based products, most for use in industrial or scientific settings.

I keep up with what is happening in science, as well as in electronic engineering, through magazines. Scientific American is probably the best for the general public, though I think many are never curious enough to care.

There is so much science going on around the world, that it is impossible for anyone to keep up with it all.

Most people are consumers of science, whether they know it or not. The computer is the result of close to 300 years of scientific research. Half of physics is the study of light and electricity. Electric generation began as a science experiment, as did the light bulb. The development of the transistor was an early use of quantum mechanics. Hard drives have been developed to a high degree through scientific research as has microchips. Companies like Intel employ thousands of research scientists. Even the programming languages used in computers were scientifically developed. HTML and the World Wide Web was created by scientists. AI is a science that has been developing steadily over the past 100 years or so.

Medical advances are made through scientific research. I don't follow it all that close, but it seems, that for most people, and for most cancers, cancer is curable, thanks to science, and the people who drive science.

It used to be, that older men had to have an occasional prostate exam. Now they just do a blood test. Just think of all the anxiety that has been lifted from men's minds, thanks to science.

 

Exactly. We shouldn't trust "opinions" (whether in agreement or disagreement) Only peer-reviewed evidence.

 

Great post! People who attack Science have no idea what it is they are attacking.

 

But peer Review is largely opinion...

 

but they don't review for accuracy.

 

Opinion about what? Show an example of what you're talking about. Refer to a real life study and explain.

 

Yep, lot's of politically driven, "pseudo science'' with a flat out, agenda. Just call it "science" and ridicule those who wont swallow it as gospels.

 

Peer review is a published opinion on the validity of a scientific study. For instance there are currently at least two scientific opinions on what killed the Dinosaurs. The most mainstream one is a giant space rock, but there are doubters.

 

They can review for accuracy of the data used and the premises. As well as the methodology.

 

I see. So you were just joking...

 

Students of science learn by applying scientific laws, theories, and whatnot to the world, through experiments, and record the results. We know that Newtons laws of motion are valid, because millions of students, over the years, have proven them correct, to within experimental error. Science advances, step by step, often with very small steps, each built upon the one before. That is science evolves.

I think there was a breakthrough of sorts when the Higgs particle was found. Before, fields in field theory were often seen as just mathematical constructs. But after the successful creation of a Higgs, the fields have begun to be seen as a physical thing. The underlying structure of everything. Light is not a thing, as much as it is an excitation on the electromagnetic field. I'm not sure how it will change any thing, other than as a different way of looking at things, of resolving the particle wave duality paradox. But time will tell.

 

The number of Scientific breakthroughs increases year by year. The things we don't know and will be discovered in the next few years is astounding. This is a bad time to be a science denier. They're missing the show...

 

but you said "Peer reviewers don't evaluate if the study is accurate or not. Rejecting a study because you disagree with the conclusion would be a huge no no" In other words, the reviewer could look at the data and methodology, but would not have to look at the study all because he can't disagree with the study.

 

No it isn't. No one works in a vacuum. If one person is working on something, you can be quarateed that someone else is working on it. The idea is to solve a problem, answer a riddle. The goal is to expand mankind's knowledge base. Often it is a race, first to market and all. That is the thing about science, it needs to be useful. A faulty idea is not useful and thus rejected. A good idea is accepted and built upon. It has nothing to do with opinion.

 

If you want an honest answer from someone who is qualified to answer your question, you must ask yourself what does this person gain from their answer. The less they have to gain the more likely you are getting a truthful answer. The problem with issues like climate change is the politics and enormous sums of money involved. There is the potential for a lot of unscrupulous people to make fortunes off of a manufactured crisis. So is climate change a real threat or a cash cow? One has to ask themselves what there is to gain from such a suggestion and does the money generated by it eclipse what would be spent to remedy the problem. Very early on in the climate narrative, (which by the way keeps renaming itself in order to be more palatable and sound more plausible, nothing suspicious about that, right?) taxes became a bigger topic than the "crisis". All of sudden the global warming folks started tossing around carbon jargon, carbon this and carbon that but when they got to carbon footprint and the individual's impact they started talking about a permanent tax on individuals and families. Things like water and air are basic to all life and all humans are entitled to all they need, right? Well, a long time ago somebody figured out a way to charge us for water that is irrevocable and permanent, some communities even bill households that have their own wells because they draw from the same aquifer. Well that is exactly what a carbon tax is, charging you for the air you breath. Once that genie's out of the bottle there'll be no putting it back and all of the Al Gore types will become trillionaires. It's more likely that extraterrestrials are real than man made climate change. You have to consider the source, if it's promoted by leftist, liberal, progressive, socialist, communist, Democrats, you have to question it and watch your wallet.

 

​

No.

​

4.5 billion years.

Scientists have some hypotheses but no definitive evidence or explanation.

Yes, very much.

There was and yes they do.

No.

No they do not and they are almost completely safe.

[/QUOTE]Is the earth really flat?[/QUOTE]

Very few people doubt this.

Very few people doubt this.

When did the scientific community state a position on UFOs?

When did the scientific community state a position on environmental regulations? How many people really oppose basic environmental regulations?

They mostly do but keep changing their minds about certain foods. Like eggs. There is still a lot we are still figuring out and debating when it comes to diet.

Very few people doubt this.

I'd call proof any sign or indication or fact that makes the probability of something at least 99% true or something like that.

I'd say above 90%. Don't need absolute proof but strong evidence is almost as good.

I'd say when there stops being much serious debate about basic points and there is a large consensus and they aren't changing their minds about basic points all the time. When the topic or theory has been well explored for a while and has a lot of data and evidence collected about it. Also, when they can present strong evidence for the theory in question.

 

They're not dumb. They are biased.

 

yes... some of them are... look how long it took for them to debunk the vaccine Autism study

 

Why is the eternal existence of matter/energy "impossible"?

 

That is an ASSUMPTION without any basis whatsoever.

Matter/energy has always existed and will always exist in one form or another because it can neither be created nor destroyed.

If you want to prove that it "got there somehow" you will have to establish that the Laws of Physics are WRONG.

 

WTF does that mean?

Do you understand how peer review works?

If you make a hypothesis that matter can be created/destroyed and produce test results proving that matter can be created/destroyed then peer reviewers would try to replicate your results. If they can then they will publish their results confirming your results. If they can't they will publish their results debunking your results.