« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

A Nobel Prize For Settled Science

What the climate change scaremongers don't want you to know

Today Dan Shechtman, Philip Tobias Professor of Materials Science at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, an Associate of the US Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory, and Professor of Materials Science at Iowa State University, received a telephone call that he didn’t expect. It was from the Nobel Committee which had taken valuable time out from awarding its Peace Prize to assorted crackpots, incompetents, frauds, despots and genocidal killers to bestow upon Dr. Shechtman the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Professor Schechtman’s Nobel Prize is a cautionary tale for the anthropogenic global warming scaremongers.

When Dr. Schectman made his discovery he was hounded out of his research position as a crackpot and derided by no lesser figure than Dr. Linus Pauling with the quip, “Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense. There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists.”

To make a long story short, for the longest time the science of crystallography was settled.

Since the birth of modern crystallography in 1912, when x-rays were diffracted from a crystal for the first time, until that moment 70 years later, this branch of science had relied on an unchallengeable basic tenet: the atoms in crystalline solids – such as metals, rocks or ceramic materials – are arranged in periodic order. The periodic pattern repeats itself throughout the crystal, as in a chessboard or a honeycomb hexagon. The regularity of the pattern dictates another important quality: crystals are composed of “tiles” possessing rotational symmetry. In other words, if the basic form that makes up the crystal is rotated, it will look exactly the same. A chessboard can be rotated four times, a quarter of a rotation each time, and it will look the same; the hexagon of a honeycomb can be rotated six times.

Crystallographers determined that there were only five possible rotational symmetries: single symmetry (there is only one way to rotate the tile so it will look the same ), double (two stages of rotation ), triangular, quadruple and hexagonal. The scientists concluded that there can be no pentagonal symmetry in crystals, since they cannot create periodic order – as anyone who has tried to cover a bathroom floor with five-sided tiles knows. In countless observations over many decades, crystallographers indeed saw only geometric crystals, all of them possessing rotational symmetry.

Then in April 1982

Shechtman looked at the pattern of points created by the crystal of the alloy he had prepared in the lab from aluminum and manganese, he saw a structure that contradicted both rules: the 10 points that appeared through the microscope attested to the existence of pentagonal symmetry; and the immediate conclusion was that the crystal did not possess a periodic structure. Shechtman had discovered a new world, in which there are solid crystals, but the known order was gone.

As is more common in science than we would like to admit, Schechtman wasn’t hailed as an original thinker or feted for a new discovery. He was belittled and ostracized by his colleagues because he had found something new when the science was clearly settled.

Now this is not to say that every discovery is, in fact, a discovery. I was alive when cold fusion debuted  — the physics phenomenon not the software — and every day publications retract articles they have published, some of these articles are esoteric and/or irrelevant but some have wormed their way into medical practice.

The point is that science is never, by its very nature, “settled.” That’s why we have people called “scientists.” Sometimes those people, like Schechtman and like the people who are questioning Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, take aim at the very bedrock of some scientific disciplines. The scientific method, with its focus on controlled experimentation and reproducibility of results, offers the best insurance against fraud.

This remains the primary objection of those of us who find the APG theory underwhelming. (To cut through the underbrush here, conflating APG and climate change is simply an Alinskyite tactic. Everyone believes in climate change, no one is arguing the Ice Age didn’t exist.) The scientists involved are part of an incestuous little group practicing something barely one-step much more akin to witchcraft than science. They are secretive. They are politically driven. And when they are challenged, something that is at the core of the scientific method, they howl “the science is settled.”

They seek nothing less that the silencing of men who owe their allegiance to the truth and not to some political agenda. They are the ones who will receive the Nobel Peace Prize not the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • MF

    that I wouldn’t have immediately thought of, but can definitely be used to bludgeon Gore-ites and other mindless liberals (but I repeat myself).

  • garythompson

    Yes, the science isn’t settled until multiple independant investigations validate it. We don’t have anywhere near this level of validation on AGW. As another take on the “how science works” comparing Einstein’s general theory of relativity to AGW, see here. http://cosmoscon.com/2011/09/30/a-demonstration-how-science-works/

    The “Science is Settled” meme is akin to bullying on the playground. And we all know how to take care of bullies – stand up to them.

    • rbdwiggins

      Settled Science is a political substitute for the lack of proof.

      • norris

        Global warming would be a great benefit to countries like Canada,China and Russia. More land could be used for farming. It would benefit other countries with lower heating fuel use.

        • fisk2521

          Russia has no intention of giving any credence to environmental problems … recent rhetoric from them is that they are such a large country that the impact would not matter regardless of what they do. Of course, they have proven over and over again that they simply do not care how much environmental damage they do and it seems we pick up the tab for cleanup many times. … Chernobyl is a great example and it is still a great hazard and mess and we are still paying out …. while they develop their oil drilling programs withrecent loans from us. Motivation on our part is yet to be determined? ??

          When science becomes political it is no longer science.

    • davesinsanantonio

      Inquisition said to Galileo!

  • inwarresolution

    I love an article that’s well researched. There’s a lot of value in the links, particularly the one about “those of us who find APG underwhelming.” I just can’t get over that NYT article. Closed to comments, it’s a perfect example of the racial/gender based power structure analysis that academia is full of. It’s crap dressed up as analysis in fancy language, so the author prefers not to allow any dialogue.

    Few alarmists want to share the research that’s going on today in the areas of capturing carbon. They don’t want to believe that research will some day solve the problem. For some deep seated psychological reason, they prefer the “panic and scale back western society” approach.

    • wennejunk

      And fear.

      Without invoking Godwin’s law or getting drawn into that – the Nazis could do what they did because so many were too afraid to ask questions, demand answers, take a stand on principles and fight back.

      Fear.

      • kywrite

        is that recently it’s often used as a bludgeon to silence justified comparison. If the analogy is there, it should be pointed out. That’s the reason we study history.

  • freemanja1991

    We have one prof who doesn’t believe in Global warming? Why can’t he be teaching my classes?

    • evilleramsfan

      n/t

      • freemanja1991

        what university does that prof teach at?
        Hint the 1st land grant university in the country under the Morril act

  • Bill S

    Excellent illustration of the shortcomings of the short-sighted.

  • renl57

    It doesn’t matter anymore whether AGW is happening or not–because we’re not going to fix it even if it is happening.

    Obama’s own Energy Information Administration (EIA) now projects that in the year 2035, the world’s energy mix will look like this:

    Coal and oil: 58%
    Natural gas: 22%
    Nuclear: 6%
    Renewables (wind/solar): 14%

    That’s right! In 2035, 80% of world’s energy needs will still be met by fossil fuels whose combustion produces CO2. In fact, EIA estimates that in 2035, the world will be burning more coal than it does now.

    You can download the report from here (you’ll need Adobe Acrobat Reader):

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/index.cfm

    There isn’t going to be any “green economy”, despite all the environmentalist propaganda. At most the world economy will be 1/7 green, 6/7 fossil fuels.

    So even if the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents are right that AGW is real, AGW will not be stopped anyway.

    *If* AGW is real, we’ll just have to learn how to live with it.

    • rbdwiggins

      Historically, the interglacial periods have spawned mass migration, economic growth, human development and increased prosperity.

      That said, we no longer have to deal with rising global temperatures during the current interglacial period, because we reached peak temperatures nearly a decade ago and global cooling has already begun. “Hide the Decline.”

      My question to the alarmists is simple: How do we feed more than 6 Billion people if the onset of the next glacial period produces another “snowball” earth?

    • kywrite

      A breakdown, done in the same way, of the relative costs of each type of fuel. At a glance, I don’t see that data in this report.

      Thanks for that link, btw. Really good stuff.

  • azred

    The NYT article claims white conservative males more likely….

    Another study shows smarter folks more likely to be AGW skeptics.

    Bluntly, conservatives tend to be less likely to attempt to effect change through political manipulation. Regardless of anything else, that equates to being far more logical in drawing conclusions. If they want to call us smarter, so be it. I’ll call it wiser.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/smarter_folk_are_more_likely_to_be_sceptics#91341

  • beach91

    I am an electrical engineer in the aerospace industry and we are always trying to understand new phenomena. I cannot understand why the AGW folks think that a miniscule (<1C) of temperature change over 100 years is alarming. The idea of science being settled is completely a ludicrous statement the shows the total ignorance of the people saying that…i.e reporters mostly. Science will never be settled until we know everything there is to know. How will that ever happen and how will we know when we get to that utopia state?

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Man is clearly preventing the Earth from experiencing the healthy climate variations that are necessary for a healthy planet.

      I called it first

  • Adjoran

    And if you just forget about “hockey sticks” and such nonsense, because a century is a blink of an eye in climate change, you see that not only is the current long-term warming trend not at all unusual, it is getting closer to its likely end.

    Over the last half-million to 700,000 years, Earth has experienced repeated Ice Ages lasting typically 70-80,000 years and separated by warming periods of roughly 15-20,000 years. If you plotted global temperatures over this period based on the geological record, you will see a definite pattern of spiking peaks and plunges with long valleys between, both the highs and lows reaching virtually identical ranges in every cycle.

    Today we are about 18,000 years in from the last actual Ice Age, so time is not on our side. Anything we can do to warm up the globe, we should be doing as fast as we can.

  • jasper1

    The scientists involved are part of an incestuous little group practicing something barely one-step much more akin to witchcraft than science.

    The evidence for global warming and human’s role comes from many different sources. The global warming trends are clear, with every decade over the last 40 years being warmer than the previous. The arctic sea ice continues to decline rapidly. Humans put more carbon into the atmosphere in 2010 than any time in human history.

    You suggest that it is only a small cabal of secretive scientists. No, there is widespread consensus from a variety of disciplines and countries that the evidence is there.

    Finally, for those who hold the “science is never settled” matra. I suggest you look at the link between smoking and cancer. According to you, since the science cannot be “settled” in this question, then why should we tell people not to smoke?

    • streiff

      this is just a profoundly stupid mix of truisms amd hubris.

      1. There is a huge body of evidence that contradicts the basic foundation of APG, which really isn’t based on science any more than economics is based on science. We know that the climate alarmist know this because we have documentary evidence of them suppressing for purely political reasons contradictory evidence. In fact, at the time of Schechtman’s discovery much more was known about crystals and their role in metallurgy than we know today about “climatology.” It is amazing that real scientists are running from CERN’s discovery of a particle that my drastically rewrite the Theory of Relativity and the scientists who made the discovery are broadly sharing data and methodology.

      2. The climate alarmist are a cabal of scientists who closely guard both their data and models. When has it ever been necessary, outside climate change pseudoscience, to file a freedom of information request to get access to data used as the basis for a scholarly publication? Quick answer: Never.

      3. There is a link between smoking and cancer. There is a link between sunrise and daylight. There is also a link between matches and fire and your face and Miichael Mann’s nether regions. The difference is that no doctor will claim that smoking, de facto, causes lung cancer. It doesn’t. Lots of nonsmokers get lung cancer. Lots of smokers never get lung cancer. Smoking, properly understood, is a risk factor for lung cancer but it is not the cause of lung cancer. Were that the case we wouldn’t be spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually studying the cause of that disease.

      I really want to thank you for posting this screed because it has made my point in a way I never could have. In a story about a scientist who makes a discovery outside the accepted dogma, is ostracize and ridiculed, and then gets a Nobel Prize for that discovery you claim that we have infallible knowledge in a field that is in its infancy.

      There is probably a Nobel Peace Prize in your future.

      • Matthew Morris

        about the bad mark that left

      • jasper1

        “There is a huge body of evidence that contradicts the basic foundation of APG”

        There is no such thing. Provide a cohesive document that can refute the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences 2010 report–or the IPCC report.

        “The climate alarmist are a cabal of scientists who closely guard both their data and models. ”

        Not so, the data is publically available and you can download it from GISS and other sources. The evidence is not just based on models but empirical evidence.

        “Smoking, properly understood, is a risk factor for lung cancer but it is not the cause of lung cancer”

        So, based on your “assessment” of the link between cancer and smoking, what action steps would you take? Would you tell your children it is ok to smoke because it is only a “risk factor” and they are as like to get cancer if they smoke than if they don’t?

        “There is a link between sunrise and daylight. There is also a link between matches and fire”

        This is silly–you think it is merely a correlation between sunrise and daylight or matches and fire? I expect that if you conduct a controlled experiment you would find a causal link between the two–if you don’t live on your flat earth, that is.

        • streiff

          completely contrary to science.

          To top this off your ability to prevaricate appears pathological as you grab one-off instances and ignore masses of exceptions to your example.

          Obviously, you don’t really understand the scientific process beyond the high school level. That you don’t understand the state of the science in cancer or cancer research is blindingly obvious.

          Science is not in the business of making policy prescriptions. There are professionals that do that, they are called “elected olfficials.” There are lots of good reasons for that because once science gets involved in policy it starts defending the policy which isn’t really science. Whether or not smoking causes cancer is beside the point. Science has indicated that smoking is a risk factor for a lot of diseases. We don’t know the exact mechanisms and we are still studying them. What I, or society, wish to do with that information is not a scientific issue. If you are trying to minimize Medicare/Medicaid costs you obviously want to encourage smoking. If you want to marginally increase longevity… and I say marginally because the many European nations, the Japanese and Koreans are much heavier smokers than Americans yet we don’t see any significant longevity advantage… then you want to discourage it. If you value civil liberties maybe you do nothing. But scientists are no more capable of opining on what to do with the information than any other member of the electorate. They may be better educated in a particular discipline but they aren’t necessarily smart or wise.

          I think in a controlled experiment we would find causation between surnise and daylight and correlation between matches and fire. Any other supposition marks one as an idiot… oh, sorry you think there is causation between matches and fire even though I have matches in my pocket and I’m not burning. Controlled experimentation is what won Dr. Schechtman his Nobel. Controlled experimentation is what proved Dr. Pauling wrong on this and several other things. Controlled experimentation is what climate fearmongers such as yourself can’t do.

          Now a word to the wise here, knowing in advance that will not be heeded to you, you’ve had your say on the issue and have done nothing to address the case made in the original story. If you post again you will address the facts in Dr. Schecthman’s cace or you’re gone.

          • jasper1

            streiff

            Dr. Schechtman is indeed an example of how difficult it can be to convince the scientific community about a different perspective. You may also want to look at development of plate techtonics as another.

            I disagree about the parallel, though, because, unlike Schechtman, those that are denying the evidence of AGW offer nothing in the way of evidence to support their claims. Instead we get the tinfoil hats talking about all those scientists making things up–thousands I tell you, thousands!

            I am all in favor of separating science and policy. Unfortunately, your dislike of the policy options is driving your perception of science. I noticed you did not respond to my request for a comprehensive refutation of the evidence found in the NAS paper.

            You also didn’t respond when I noted that, contrary to your assertion, the data used in calculating temperatures is freely available online.

            Here’s CRU http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/station-data/
            Here’s GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/

            Instead you to ban someone because they disagree with you. Ah well, at least I won’t have to read your reply.

            Finally, I’ve never made a claim to being scientist, only that you consider the evidence. I find it disturbing that you would use your admin level access to find my name, google it, and then post a result. I have nothing to hide but is this even ethical? All because I disagree with you. Will you be revealing the names of the other posters without their consent as well?

        • streiff
          • Locked and Loaded

            http://www.redstate.com/users/jasper1/

            You’re sure making it hard on him.

        • rbdwiggins

          that contradicts the basic foundation of AGW…

          You can start by reading this report:

          Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

          NASA fell victim to, or was complicit in, Climategate, and GISS credibility is now suspect. As evidenced by the whistleblower’s release of the East Anglia emails and source documents.

          The IPCC is a political body. It has zero scientific credibility. Sadly, the NAS has chosen to travel down this same path. Let’s hope that the Academies reverse course.

          Side note: The planetary mechanism required to support the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming Due to an Increase in Atmospheric CO2 can never exist.

  • Matthew Morris

    The statists have given us too many problems to follow int he news lately… much less to solve.

    My succient-as-I-can, gist-of-it questions on the AGW issue:

    Even giving the AGW-ers their “positions,” namely:

    * models are good
    * data is good
    * data is open
    * models are open
    * data is complete
    * models are complete
    * understanding overall is complete (or complete enough)
    * consensus is pure
    * there are no politics involved
    * there is no cultism
    * no anti-West religion
    * no weak, anti-scientific social-psychology / sociology stuff going on
    * etc., etc.
    (Yeah right to all the above!)

    To what degree and in what ways do man’s activities alter conditions as compared to if there were no man? Further, what is likely to be the difference in the climate in 1,000 years time with man as compared to without man? (sensibly adjusting variables and assuming current trends as needed, particularly in the with-man scenario. Heck, for that matter, assume ridiculous trends if it makes you feel better! Assume CO2 emissions continue to grow at current rates ad infinitum, far surpassing currently sequestered carbon in the whole entire planet!) How about 10,000 years? (We can all agree such time periods are tiny blips for planet Eath) It makes no difference- your ability is non-existent in any case. You don’t know the variables and factors. You don’t know a model. The further out in time you go, the more evident your “fail”.

    In other words unless you had a darn-near complete understanding of the planet’s entire climate history, you may as well assume, propose, and argue (religiously!) that AGW (which if could even be “known” to be a “truth”, would more properly be described as Anthropogenic Climate Impact/Change) is saving humankind from a coming ice age.

    On a related note: What is even more laughable than the Reality Based™, philosophically-naturalistic, “I believe in science” community’s arrogance and hubris towards the intellectually inferior, spiritual/religious people?

    Answer: Why, the degree of their actual (in reality) religiosity concerning matters of the natural (physical) order, of course! Very weak epistemologies have they. And ontologies too. And blind about it all the while! It’s fun, albeit mean-spirited, to make fun of them for it…. such simple minds.