Yeah, consensus science never fails.
The shy, 70-year-old Shechtman said he never doubted his findings and considered himself merely the latest in a long line of scientists who advanced their fields by challenging the conventional wisdom and were shunned by the establishment because of it.
…
“I was thrown out of my research group. They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying,” he recalled. “I never took it personally. I knew I was right and they were wrong.”
Full story here at Yahoo News.
Congratulations for winning the Nobel Prize, and for having the courage and stamina to stick it out Dr. Shechtman. I hope you will be an inspiration to many others to not let the intimidation of closed minded peers wear you down. Science self-corrects, sometimes taking years to do so and we are witnessing the self correction of climate science consensus slowly take place before our own eyes.
Thanks to Mary Friederichs who submitted the story via our web interface.
======================
UPDATE: R. Gates provides this video in comments:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks Lucy (October 6, 2011 at 3:26 pm),
I agree with you on some and disagree on others – as you expected, but the difference is neither of us is trying to foist massive programs of social change on the planet based on who we agree with. This is where the hubris of the CAGW crowd (or their self-interest maybe – I am in a generous mood today) is so poorly received.
Steve M says:
October 6, 2011 at 4:10 am
“Andrea Rossi’s cold fusion device is being tested again today in Bologna for a handful of scientists, with the startup of his 1MW plant scheduled for the end of this month.”
Interesting news! Very sceptical, but also very interested!
Regarding Andrea Rossi, found this;
http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/
But, in 90% of those cases, organized establishment conservatism never came into play, because the wacko’s theory never gathered any organized support beyond a tiny handful. In the case of climate contrarianism, there are Nobelists on board the side of the heresy–and massive establishment resistance and insistence. The situation is different here, therefore.
Much of the establishment’s position can be accounted for sociologically. Warmism is “PC”–it fits the template of the fad of the era: environmentalism. and it fits the psychological need of that faction of humanity that is inclined to utopian fantasies, relentless indignant finger-pointing, and the messianic delusion. Hence it has attracted sycophants, and the backing of the gov’t. This in turn has led to a groupthink mindset and climate of opinion. Hence it takes a rare man to buck it–leading to a strengthening of groupthink.
As a result of the influence of these subjective factors (and more) on establishment opinion, the odds against warmism’s objectively being “correct” go down. It isn’t being cried down because it’s objectively wrong so much as because it frustrates the vanity and ambition of the latest factions (Environmentalism, Big Academia) seeking to rise in the endless process of the “circulation of the elites” (Pareto).
PS: When I wrote above, “It isn’t being cried down because it’s objectively wrong …'” I meant that climate contrarianism isn’t being cried down because it’s wrong …” The way I wrote it, it looks like the “it” referred to “warmism” in the previous sentence.