Are Scientists Always Smart?

Guest post by Steven Goddard

There is no question that some of the greatest minds have been scientists.  Da Vinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Edison, Einstein, Fermi, Feynman are a few names that come to mind.

But how about the consensus?  One of the most famous cases of consensus science gone ridiculous involved the theory of Continental Drift.  In 1912, a German scientist named Alfred Wegener introduced the theory that the continents were not stationary, but rather moved.

http://www.spacetoday.org/images/SolSys/Earth/WholeEarthSatMap/EarthMapSatImagesGoddard890x459.jpg

Any child can see that the continents fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, yet the scientific community took over 50 years to stop ridiculing Wegener and accept his theory.

“Utter, damned rot!” said the president of the prestigious American Philosophical Society.

Anyone who “valued his reputation for scientific sanity” would never dare support such a theory, said a British geologist.

“If we are to believe in Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again.” Geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain

further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students.”    Geologist Barry Willis

Sound familiar?

http://travel.state.gov/images/maps/brazil.gif

http://www.globalkids.info/v3/content/africa.jpg

Several earlier scientists had also observed the obvious – from Wikipedia :

Abraham Ortelius (1597), Francis Bacon (1625), Benjamin Franklin, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (1858), and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. W. J. Kious described Ortelius’ thoughts in this way:[1]

Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus … suggested that the Americas were “torn away from Europe and Africa … by earthquakes and floods” and went on to say: “The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents].

Not only do the continents fit together, but Wegener observed that their geology matched.

http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-DuToit.jpeg

http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-DuToit.jpeg

And the fossils match.

. Wegener-Continental Drift-Fossils

http://www.scientus.org/Pellegrini-Wegener-1.gif

We see a parallel to global warming.  The earth is not warming out of control.  Sea level is not rising out of control.  The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are not collapsing.  The IPCC documents have been shown to be littered with junk science and fraud.  The hockey team has been shown to be misusing their positions.  Yet the consensus hangs on to the ridiculous, for the same reasons they did from 1912 to 1960.  No one wants to “forget what they learned and start over again.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

254 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gary Pearse
February 15, 2010 6:34 am

I skimmed the responses and didn’t see any biographical stuff on Wegener. It should be mentioned that Wegener was a Meteorologist! He was also an Arctic explorer and the German polar research institute bears his name:
http://www.awi.de/en
These fellows discovered in a survey that the Arctic Basin ice was much thicker than expected at the same time the Catlin Follies were drifting around in the dark finding ice thinner than expected.

Jack Simmons
February 15, 2010 7:56 am

Pepi (20:19:04) :
Pepi, thanks for clearing that up.
I was aware of Darwin’s recognition of the problems the fossil record posed to his theory. As you said, he didn’t call it the Cambrian big bang.

February 15, 2010 9:11 am

>>
Baa Humbug (16:37:33) :
This is the Penman equation…
Penman’s formula: E0 = (0.015 + 0.00042T + 10−6z) [0.8Rs − 40 + 2.5Fu(T − Td)] (mm day−1), where T is the daily mean temperature (i.e. the average of the extremes), z is the elevation (m), Rs is the solar irradiance of the lake’s surface, F stands for (1.0 − 8.7 × 10−5 z), u is the windspeed at 2 m, and Td is the dewpoint temperature.
What I need to know is, which has a stronger influence on the equation, T temperature or Rs solar irradiance?
Thankyou in advance
<<
If you take the partial derivatives of E0 WRT Rs and T, the derivative WRT Rs is simpler. If we only deal with Rs and T (ignoring the other variables), then the partial derivative of E0 WRT Rs depends only on T while the partial derivative of E0 WRT T depends on both Rs and T. I would say that T has a stronger influence on E0, but that’s just a cursory look. A more detailed look might say the opposite.
Jim

February 16, 2010 1:52 am

Politicians cost lives (02:42:59) :
Please visit http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/index.php
Your experiment is spot on, repeatable and verifiable.
I think it shows more as well.
I’ll post a link on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-517.html
when I have posted a new thread specifically about your experiment.
My apologies, I could not find a direct email address for you,
and I hope you read this.

1 9 10 11