The 'planetary tidal influence on climate' fiasco: strong armed science tactics are overkill, due process would work better

Leif,
that is all you have to say about this blatant case of censorship which is quite similar to the censorship suffered by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc
It is unfortunate that you could not publish your rebuttal in the journal followed by my reply.

Nicola Scafetta wrote –
“Remember that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton etc science was considered “Junk” at the beginning also by smart people. But then things changed in time as people understood things better.”
The odd one out there Nicola is Sir Isaac who really did create junk by trying to tamper with the resolution for planetary retrogrades in order to encase planetary dynamics within a clockwork solar system or rather,a rotating celestial sphere universe.
To this day it is nearly impossible to find people who can discuss this crucially important issue in a transparent way by virtue that they are instructed/indoctrinated from the time they enter high school to think of Newton’s laws of motion with no historical or technical background whatsoever hence they remain unthinking for the rest of their lives. Mathematicians themselves once admitted that they haven’t a clue what Sir Isaac did and how he did it but that wouldn’t happen today for historical reasons –
“The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. ” Rouse Ball ,1907
This is no mere matter of Newton being wrong or reckless,this was an issue that has always existed and especially in relation to the Galileo affair where there is a mismatch between the system which predicts astronomical events and those which prove the dynamics of our planet which in turn effects observations of all the other celestial objects and their genuine motions.
“Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’ position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair.”
http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html
Newton exploited the lack of resolution in this matter hence the ‘predictive’ convenience became a point of departure for unbridled speculation in that ‘predicting’ and ‘speculating’ share roughly the same root term. The great disservice is not so much portraying the need of the Church to have an Earth centered universe,that really only developed later,it is the complete obliteration of a problem that tested even the most sympathetic supporters of the discoveries of Copernicus –
“Better still, if someone wishes, he can assign to the sky those motions of the earth that [Copernicus] adds to the first two, and use the same calculation procedures. But that highly learned and intelligent man considered it inadvisable, on account of these undisciplined minds, to invert the entire system of his hypotheses, and he contented himself with having established
that which was sufficient for the true discovery of phenomena.” Gemma Frisius
All this surfaces today,even in this thread, where not only does the tail wag the dog but the hair on the tail wags the tail and that is why so many gets themselves into a contrived stew. For those willing to make the journey back through history and the historical and technical foundations of the speculative/predictive excesses they will come back to astronomy and terrestrial sciences in a new and fresh way with not the slightest trace of the hype and novelties that pass themselves off as astronomy and terrestrial sciences today.
[Mr. Kellher, site Policy requires that you use only one screen name. Which name shall it be? ~ mod.]

Moderator.Tried to post under Kelleher in another thread but no sign of response so assumed,perhaps wrongly,that it was an intervention. I’ll keep it at Gkell1 however ,with a more proactive approach to the issue of modeling conclusions without regard for physical considerations,I would expect this goes against the grain of many people here and my stay may not be long.
Isvalgaard wrote –
“You all the sudden dropped Newton [as he did not suffer censorship. perhaps], and you are wrong about Galileo. He was not censored for the science but for a theological issue.”
Not so, the Pope in that era was by far the most powerful political leader so when Galileo tried to put the words of the Pope in the mouth of a fictional fool (Simplicio) ,what do you think was going to happen ?.
Galileo was partially correct in his historical assessment of Church involvement in astronomical discoveries but look what has happened since as the so-called Galileo affair has dissolved into a childish idea that you have an Earth centered Church with a theological necessity on one side and an enlightened scientist on the other when this should be unbearable both technically and historically.
http://inters.org/Galilei-Madame-Christina-Lorraine
People seem to forget that for all the hoopla about the Royal Society revolution in the 17th century,it took them until 1752 to make the necessary correction which the Church had made back in 1582 where the true orbital position of the Earth in space was restored by taking off 10 days due to an overcompensation between daily rotational and orbital characteristics.
In short,nobody wants to expand their perspectives in any direction nor take the responsibility when that wider perspectives shows a much clearer technical picture on one side and a muddier historical picture on the other. The driving force behind the present speculative conclusions arise from a determination to bury historical perspectives because it is convenient to do so hence the draining away of the appreciation of the genuine natural historical insights that have thrilled so many generations of students and interested adults up to this era and its mania to predict the future.

This is very disturbing, it is a warning to other journals not to publish papers that support skeptic arguments, OR ELSE.

Peter Miller wrote –
“Perhaps a little off topic, but here is someone who is a fan of global warming and the science really makes a lot of sense!
http://www.expanding-earth.org/ ”
Dear ,oh dear,oh dear !.
Evolutionary geology suffers from the same problems as climate research in that there is a huge disparity between modeling using stationary Earth perspectives such as thermal convection as opposed to the two way street where the surface clues point in the direction of the rotating fluid interior and visa versa.
I went to the geological community about a decade ago and pointed out that all rotating celestial bodies with fluid compositions display an uneven rotational gradient between equatorial and polar latitudes so that exempting the rotating fluid interior of the Earth from this mechanism was much more difficult than actual recognizing this differential rotation.
It is possible to get the 26 mile spherical deviation between Equatorial and polar diameters to mesh with the symmetrical creation of crust off the Mid Atlantic Ridge via a common mechanism.By using the uneven gradient where the fluid interior of the Earth does not rotate as a unit but like the Sun and the gas giants with exposed viscous compositions, display a zonal flow. As this would be a new area of research there are really no graphics to present this in anything other than a loose form –
http://www.psc.edu/science/2006/inprogress/images/surfacezonalflow.jpg
Why waste time with an ‘expanding earth’ when the observations and principles are already in place to work with the uneven rotational gradient of the fluid interior and especially the graceful deviation of the Earth from a perfect sphere as it follows the characteristics of differential rotation.