Select to expand quote

remery said..
Its not "lottery ticket time" because the Brewarinna recording (4th) was not made on the same day as the corrected Bourke recordings (2nd/3rd).

Entry made at 9am on January 4th to record the hottest temperature for the previous 24 hours. Scratchie time!

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Chris 249 said..

The truth (not a subject you're familiar with, so I'll cut you some slack) is that there is no conspiracy theory at all in my post.

Perhaps you could consider learning English. If you did, you'd see that a "conspiracy theory" is (to use the Oxford definition) "a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event." To use the Miriam Webster definition, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

So what you completely failed to understand is that nothing I wrote was anything about anything "covert" (to save you looking it up, that means something secret or hidden) or "secret". It's a publicly knowledged fact that Marohasy is "a Senior Fellow with responsibilities for Climate Change in the Research Program at the IPA" - that's a quote from the IPA's own site. And the also IPA publicly states that Reinhart, a major supporter of the organisation is an Honorary Life Member - check out the IPA's own site again. it is a simple publicly known truth that Marohasy works with an outfit that is funded by a coal magnate, and that the coal magnate's business is affected by climate change policy.

To make it plain for the slowest (or most paranoid or least honest) amongst us, by definition a "conspiracy theory" means you're claiming there is a secret. I'm not doing that, I'm referring to a connection that is publicly acknowledged by those involved.

Your view seems to be that certain high wealth individuals are covertly influencing an organisation to distort the truth or hide real facts by only promoting a one sided view or even false information to progress thier cause.

Is that not a conspiracy theory? and incendentally the exact one you are suggesting Marahasey is promoting by questioning the processes and data produced by an organisation as opposed to questioning its objectives or motives?

Alternatively, maybe questioning the data and processes used is called the scientific method.....

This reminds me of the tobacco industry.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
.....From a scientific point of view, any data point that misses "the best index" of what you are measuring is dodgy, so it's completely reasonable to ignore it.....

Wot ? Like its reasonable to ignore the BOM temperature readings when they use a one second peak that all the other metrological institutions say aren't the best index ?

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

Entry made at 9am on January 4th to record the hottest temperature for the previous 24 hours. Scratchie time!

Good point..

If Brewrinna is a surrogate it appears to read about 4 degrees higher than Bourke, presumably it's using a Glaisher Stand.

Found this comment from one of Jeff Berwicks videos.

Pride Before The Fall: PedoJoe's Snow White CONgress & The Seven Deadly Sins (odysee.com)

The group that I have found with the lowest vaccination rates are flat earthers/globe skeptics just by correlation alone. This indicates to me that flat earthers/heliocentric skeptics are more intelligent, in general, than a heliocentrist that is still locked into that poorly constructed consensus based reality. Logical fallacy, particularly APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (trust the "experts!") is not science. It's PSY-ence. They manipulate the minds of people who were poorly trained by Pavlovian classical conditioning. The same training methods used on common housepets are being used on humans, like in schools. All the way down to the bell that changes classes. These people usually have no mind of their own and they are the weak minded NPCs that "trust the science" and these farkwits people call "experts."


twitter.com/markmaycot/status/1661068746067263493?s=20

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Found this comment from one of Jeff Berwicks videos.

Pride Before The Fall: PedoJoe's Snow White CONgress & The Seven Deadly Sins (odysee.com)

The group that I have found with the lowest vaccination rates are flat earthers/globe skeptics just by correlation alone. This indicates to me that flat earthers/heliocentric skeptics are more intelligent, in general, than a heliocentrist that is still locked into that poorly constructed consensus based reality. Logical fallacy, particularly APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (trust the "experts!") is not science. It's PSY-ence. They manipulate the minds of people who were poorly trained by Pavlovian classical conditioning. The same training methods used on common housepets are being used on humans, like in schools. All the way down to the bell that changes classes. These people usually have no mind of their own and they are the weak minded NPCs that "trust the science" and these farkwits people call "experts."


twitter.com/markmaycot/status/1661068746067263493?s=20

Nah, pretty sure people with views like this do appear on Fox regularly

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
Nah, pretty sure people with views like this do appear on Fox regularly

I think they work at Fox. They might even own Fox.

Then again classic pavlova, mmmmmmmm

pavlova is such a heliocentric desert, no way a NPC would understand the psyence behind it.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Alternatively, maybe questioning the data and processes used is called the scientific method.....

That's called "peer review" (note the word peer).

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
pavlova is such a heliocentric desert, no way a NPC would understand the psyence behind it.

to be fair though Mr Kipling does make exceedingly good cakes.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
That's called "peer review" (note the word peer).

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?


Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?

Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Here you go...

authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Who can you name that wasn't a prominent scientist or working with prominent scientists that suddenly overturned orthodoxy?

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Carantoc said..

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?

Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Here you go...

authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html

Peer review is an essential part of the Scientific process. But it is not perfect by any means. These days it mostly means a like minded peer has reviewed the paper and ensured it doesn't suck. They certainly do not check for it's accuracy beyond entry level assessment for logic. rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppable-momentum-of-outdated

It is a pretty low bar and subject to significant abuse. If a paper is sound but draws conclusions that go against popular opinion many journals will simply refuse to publish it. Many journals are like news outlets If it is beyond reproach a brave journal may publish it, but be subject to significant cancel culture. A good recent example is the collation and presentation of global extreme weather trends that was published. It uses the same data as every other scientific analysis including the IPCC and even comes to the same conclusions as the IPCC working reports, but it was subject to intensive pressure to withdraw it because it showed there was no increase in global extreme weather events besides the temperature. They eventually just put a label on it saying it was disputed. No one has published a rebuttal paper since or come up with a valid reason it is wrong, but it carries a stigma irrespective.

Ultimately subsequent papers are what proves a paper right. If a published paper comes to certain conclusions, it then leads to other papers to either confirm it or discredit it. The more that support it confirm it whereas if none can replicate it then there are questions. A good case in point is the famous James Cook fish being effected by ocean acidification paper. It was shocking in its conclusions and enjoyed massive mainstream reporting all around the world. It spawned a huge number of parallel studies. None of which could replicate it. It is now the subject of fraud allegations from other scientists. peer review is important, but by no means a guarantee of anything. It is estimated at least 50% of published papers have the wrong conclusions.

www.science.org/content/article/does-ocean-acidification-alter-fish-behavior-fraud-allegations-create-sea-doubt

rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fish-and-foul?fbclid=IwAR0UNvlWYhUGtroCJTgAs51wZ9GcZoyViscBoRL2WxbGNiyQhuNioFmwh0g

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Carantoc said..

Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Who can you name that wasn't a prominent scientist or working with prominent scientists that suddenly overturned orthodoxy?

Barry Marshal is a great example. Just a doctor and not prominent and his work proving ulcers were caused by bacteria was resisted and rejected by the scientific establishment for decades. His work was only recognised when he deliberately infected himself.

The resistance by the scientific community to change thier thinking is quite appaliing, especially when vested commercial or political interests are funding the status quo.

www.nature.com/articles/437801a

True, peer review is not perfect, but its better than anecdotes, testimonials and tweets.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Mr Milk said..

Carantoc said..

Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Who can you name that wasn't a prominent scientist or working with prominent scientists that suddenly overturned orthodoxy?

Barry Marshal is a great example. Just a doctor and not prominent and his work proving ulcers were caused by bacteria was resisted and rejected by the scientific establishment for decades. His work was only recognised when he deliberately infected himself.

The resistance by the scientific community to change thier thinking is quite appaliing, especially when vested commercial or political interests are funding the status quo.

www.nature.com/articles/437801a

Chris' wife works with Barry so you'll make a friend there if you keep talking him up. Others know Barry for his extreme views about parking at the hospital. One doctor I know assures me the Nobel committee should've found someone more deserving, the Nobel committee awarded the food prize to Monsanto so it's fair to say they make questionable decisions. Pretty sure Nobel only gifted the Norsk the right to hold the committee because of the contradiction in having an armed country award a peace prize. Perhaps the Swedes would be a little more diligent in making selections.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..

Carantoc said..

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?

Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Here you go...

authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html

Peer review is an essential part of the Scientific process. But it is not perfect by any means. These days it mostly means a like minded peer has reviewed the paper and ensured it doesn't suck. They certainly do not check for it's accuracy beyond entry level assessment for logic. rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppable-momentum-of-outdated

It is a pretty low bar and subject to significant abuse. If a paper is sound but draws conclusions that go against popular opinion many journals will simply refuse to publish it. Many journals are like news outlets If it is beyond reproach a brave journal may publish it, but be subject to significant cancel culture. A good recent example is the collation and presentation of global extreme weather trends that was published. It uses the same data as every other scientific analysis including the IPCC and even comes to the same conclusions as the IPCC working reports, but it was subject to intensive pressure to withdraw it because it showed there was no increase in global extreme weather events besides the temperature. They eventually just put a label on it saying it was disputed. No one has published a rebuttal paper since or come up with a valid reason it is wrong, but it carries a stigma irrespective.

Ultimately subsequent papers are what proves a paper right. If a published paper comes to certain conclusions, it then leads to other papers to either confirm it or discredit it. The more that support it confirm it whereas if none can replicate it then there are questions. A good case in point is the famous James Cook fish being effected by ocean acidification paper. It was shocking in its conclusions and enjoyed massive mainstream reporting all around the world. It spawned a huge number of parallel studies. None of which could replicate it. It is now the subject of fraud allegations from other scientists. peer review is important, but by no means a guarantee of anything. It is estimated at least 50% of published papers have the wrong conclusions.

www.science.org/content/article/does-ocean-acidification-alter-fish-behavior-fraud-allegations-create-sea-doubt

rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fish-and-foul?fbclid=IwAR0UNvlWYhUGtroCJTgAs51wZ9GcZoyViscBoRL2WxbGNiyQhuNioFmwh0g

I haven't even looked at the James Cook Fish thing but it sounds in the same vane as the great barrier Reef coral bleaching from global warming, destroyed! Never coming back!
Well, how much of it is back, I know it's a significant amount, but not enough for mainstream media, gotta stick with the narrative. I was asking a marine biologist about the zooxanthalle leaving the coral and was assured that it couldn't be all the sunscreen in the water causing their discomfort. I dunno but I don't think the climate magically changed super quickly while super low tourist numbers were at the reef.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

remery said..
That's called "peer review" (note the word peer).

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?


Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Such as?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
A good case in point is the famous James Cook fish being effected by ocean acidification paper. It was shocking in its conclusions and enjoyed massive mainstream reporting all around the world. It spawned a huge number of parallel studies. None of which could replicate it. It is now the subject of fraud allegations from other scientists. peer review is important, but by no means a guarantee of anything.

Part of peer review is to try and ensure that the experiments can be repeated. It seems to me that the peer review process worked because parallel studies could not replicate the results.

Select to expand quote

It is estimated at least 50% of published papers have the wrong conclusions.

If you are talking about the Ioannidis paper, you might enjoy reading this...
replicationindex.com/2020/12/24/ioannidis-is-wrong/

"If we learned anything from 2020, it is that science and democracy are not perfect, but a lot better than superstition and demagogy."

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Chris 249 said..

The truth (not a subject you're familiar with, so I'll cut you some slack) is that there is no conspiracy theory at all in my post.

Perhaps you could consider learning English. If you did, you'd see that a "conspiracy theory" is (to use the Oxford definition) "a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event." To use the Miriam Webster definition, a conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

So what you completely failed to understand is that nothing I wrote was anything about anything "covert" (to save you looking it up, that means something secret or hidden) or "secret". It's a publicly knowledged fact that Marohasy is "a Senior Fellow with responsibilities for Climate Change in the Research Program at the IPA" - that's a quote from the IPA's own site. And the also IPA publicly states that Reinhart, a major supporter of the organisation is an Honorary Life Member - check out the IPA's own site again. it is a simple publicly known truth that Marohasy works with an outfit that is funded by a coal magnate, and that the coal magnate's business is affected by climate change policy.

To make it plain for the slowest (or most paranoid or least honest) amongst us, by definition a "conspiracy theory" means you're claiming there is a secret. I'm not doing that, I'm referring to a connection that is publicly acknowledged by those involved.

Your view seems to be that certain high wealth individuals are covertly influencing an organisation to distort the truth or hide real facts by only promoting a one sided view or even false information to progress thier cause.

Is that not a conspiracy theory? and incendentally the exact one you are suggesting Marahasey is promoting by questioning the processes and data produced by an organisation as opposed to questioning its objectives or motives?

Alternatively, maybe questioning the data and processes used is called the scientific method.....

1- Didn't you know that the IPA admits that its researchers, like Marohasy, promote a one sided view? The IPA itself says so on its own website; it's a political pressure group and it admits it. Surely to god everyone knows that.

The IPA specifically states that it's for the free market and limited government, and it says "our researchers apply these ideas to the public policy questions which matter today." So it clearly and repeatedly states that its researchers, like Marohasy, apply political ideas to public policy questions, rather than looking at them from an unbiased perspective. The IPA also states that it is against Net Zero in black and white in its annual report. It puts up papers arguing against Net Zero. It doesn't even pretend to be unbiased.

It's fine if they have political views, but not fine when people try to ignore the fact that Marohasy and her co-workers are working for an organisation that admits it is biased, and admits that its researchers apply political ideology.

It is utterly dishonest of anyone to claim that pointing out that a body ADMITS it applies a political approach to scientific issues is saying anything about conspiracy theories. Jeezers H Kerrist, a conspiracy is something secret and the fact that the IPA's workers apply political ideas is something that the IPA proudly admits. This is simple English comprehension......

Did you not (1) know that the IPA states that its researchers like Marohasy provide a one-sided view and try to ignore that; or
(2) did you NOT know that the IPA states that its researchers like Marohasy provide a one-sided view?


2- I use the scientific method. That includes not using double standards (like you do when you support someone who praises evidence from old papers, but criticise it when I use evidence from old papers), peer review, proper stats, etc.

The people you support like Marohasy don't use the scientific method. For example, Marohasy works with Stewart who is ridiculously un-scientific when he does things like wave a magic wand that has 20% of the data he uses disappear for no apparent reason, and then pretends that he can provide information of value with an un-representative sample.

The scientific method means that the data that is used should be consistent. That means that data that is inconsistent - like temperature data that doesn't use the most valuable index of atmospheric heat at the time - should be discarded.

If you understand the scientific method, please find a source that says that data taken at an inconsistent time in an inconsistent manner should be included in analysis. I've checked with scientists (not climate scientists) and they say it should not be. It is UN-scientific to make a big deal about the BoM using normal scientific methods.

It is also un-scientific to work for an organisation that admits that its researchers provide a one-sided bias view, and to not admit that and try to make allowances for it.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..



Barry Marshal is a great example. Just a doctor and not prominent and his work proving ulcers were caused by bacteria was resisted and rejected by the scientific establishment for decades. His work was only recognised when he deliberately infected himself.

The resistance by the scientific community to change thier thinking is quite appaliing, especially when vested commercial or political interests are funding the status quo.

www.nature.com/articles/437801a

Ah yes, an article that says that physicians - who are NOT scientists - and drug companies (who are also not scientists) were outraged by White's excellent work. Hard to be less relevant when you're talking about scientists. An article about opposition by non-scientists is not evidence about opposition by scientists.

Some scientists may have disagreed with White, but that's just one example in one area of one field. There are many, many more examples where the scientific consensus has been overturned and those responsible have applauded them.

My wife's boss came from the boondocks, was working with a fairly small uni, and overturned the scientific consensus in astrophysics. You know what happened to him when he tried to say that the universe wasn't doing what the consensus said it would?

They gave him a Nobel Prize. Just like they did to a patent office clerk who brought in probably the biggest scientific revolution of all time. Scientists earn their reputation by OVERTURNING the consensus, not by following it.

You do make a good point when you write about "vested commercial or political interests that are funding the status quo". Fossil fuel companies are among the world's biggest commercial bodies, and they have a very big interest in squashing the idea of climate change. So do political interests like the parties they can and do sponsor, and even sovereign countries that earn a lot of money from fossil fuel.

The amount of money available to fund science to overturn the concept of climate change is enormous. Companies like Whitehaven - not the biggest - can make up to three billion dollars profit per year. This year Australia's biggest funding body, the ARC, funded about 3% of grants. That funding didn't go to scientists' pockets, it went to their research. So the fossil fuel industry has vastly more money, and it can give it to whatever it wants whereas the typical scientist can't get research funding.

The average Australian academic, with about 8 years full-time study and the associated HECS debt, earns $102,884. The average Australian coal miner earns $108,532. The idea that one of them is more biased than the other is strange.

The big money vested commercial interests are DEFINITELY on the side that is against the scientific consensus.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Carantoc said..

remery said..
That's called "peer review" (note the word peer).

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?


Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Such as?

....Such as ?

...people who weren't considered scientific peers until after they made some discovery or theory that was new ?

surely just about all of the great ones ?. Isn't that how they became great ?

If you want specific examples I'll start near the beginning with Galileo ......

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

....Such as ?

...people who weren't considered scientific peers until after they made some discovery or theory that was new ?

surely just about all of the great ones ?. Isn't that how they became great ?

If you want specific examples I'll start near the beginning with Galileo ......

Journals are becoming more open with the review process. While I'm not especially enamoured with MDPI, you might like to see some of their recent publications that include Review Reports. This will give you some idea of the scientific rigour peer review enables. Something I doubt IPA encourages.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

We see a lot of anomoly graphs like this.

Tell me, how do they arrive at a mean ocean surface temperature today and what is the error margin? How did they do it in 1910 and what is the error margin?

These graphs are usefull as they provide some indication of trends. But our ability to know the mean global surface temperature of the ocean in 1910 is unbelieveably poor. The error margin just in the actual techniques used to measure the sea temperature would be significant and then the errors in extrapolating a few data points to a global mean is even more significant.

There is no way we actually know the mean global surface temp in 1910 to within a deg - which makes any claim other than it fluctuates irrelevent.

And that pretty much sums up all claims around century long trends on a global scale. Even the satellite data differs by up to 0.3 of degree just on todays global surface temp. The difference between land and satellite data sets is even more, up to 0.5 to 0.7 deg difference. To claim with any certaintly todays global surface temp is 1 deg higher than what it was in 1940 is just absurd. We have no clue to that accuracy.

We can say with confidence there has been a mild increase in global surface temps over the last 40 years, because we have accurate satellite data to use. We also know 40 years ago was a low point. Prior to that the errors are greater than the anomolies claimed.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..

We see a lot of anomoly graphs like this.

Tell me, how do they arrive at a mean ocean surface temperature today and what is the error margin? How did they do it in 1910 and what is the error margin?

These graphs are usefull as they provide some indication of trends. But our ability to know the mean global surface temperature of the ocean in 1910 is unbelieveably poor. The error margin just in the actual techniques used to measure the sea temperature would be significant and then the errors in extrapolating a few data points to a global mean is even more significant.

There is no way we actually know the mean global surface temp in 1910 to within a deg - which makes any claim other than it fluctuates irrelevent.

And that pretty much sums up all claims around century long trends on a global scale. Even the satellite data differs by up to 0.3 of degree just on todays global surface temp. The difference between land and satellite data sets is even more, up to 0.5 to 0.7 deg difference. To claim with any certaintly todays global surface temp is 1 deg higher than what it was in 1940 is just absurd. We have no clue to that accuracy.

We can say with confidence there has been a mild increase in global surface temps over the last 40 years, because we have accurate satellite data to use. We also know 40 years ago was a low point. Prior to that the errors are greater than the anomolies claimed.

Let's not forget what that graph looked like before they rejected the 1909 data.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Chris 249 said..

Carantoc said..

remery said..
That's called "peer review" (note the word peer).

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?


Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Such as?

....Such as ?

...people who weren't considered scientific peers until after they made some discovery or theory that was new ?

surely just about all of the great ones ?. Isn't that how they became great ?

If you want specific examples I'll start near the beginning with Galileo ......

Nah. Galileo was a Professor long before he upset the Church.
From my favourite subscription encyclopaedia ($50/yr donation), Wikipedia

In 1589, he was appointed to the chair of mathematics in Pisa. In 1591, his father died, and he was entrusted with the care of his younger brother Michelagnolo. In 1592, he moved to the University of Padua where he taught geometry, mechanics, and astronomy until 1610.[39

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Carantoc said..

Chris 249 said..

Carantoc said..

remery said..
That's called "peer review" (note the word peer).

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?


Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Such as?

....Such as ?

...people who weren't considered scientific peers until after they made some discovery or theory that was new ?

surely just about all of the great ones ?. Isn't that how they became great ?

If you want specific examples I'll start near the beginning with Galileo ......

Nah. Galileo was a Professor long before he upset the Church.
From my favourite subscription encyclopaedia ($50/yr donation), Wikipedia

In 1589, he was appointed to the chair of mathematics in Pisa. In 1591, his father died, and he was entrusted with the care of his younger brother Michelagnolo. In 1592, he moved to the University of Padua where he taught geometry, mechanics, and astronomy until 1610.[39

He's was the first heliocentrist, probably created the recipe for pavlova too.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Chris 249 said..

Carantoc said..

remery said..
That's called "peer review" (note the word peer).

Do you self-identify as a peer to someone else, or is the title limited to those you choose to identify as your peers ?


Pretty sure there are plenty of scientists in history who were never considered peers until after they questioned the orthodoxy and were found to be correct. In fact that would include some of the greatest historical scientists I can think of.

Such as?

....Such as ?

...people who weren't considered scientific peers until after they made some discovery or theory that was new ?

surely just about all of the great ones ?. Isn't that how they became great ?

If you want specific examples I'll start near the beginning with Galileo ......

That was him and science versus religion. Not peers.

Can you give us some more?