Is it or is it not exceptional?

[Aero]

Arsenic DNA is exceptional, so it demands exceptional evidence

That seems exceptional to me. Here are a few more exceptional claims, feel free to add your own and debate any any that are less than exceptional from your perspective.

Net power Polywell fusion
Mach effect thrusters
Room temperature superconductors
eestore
AGW
Heim Theory
Mach effect wormholes

Does every new idea that is beyond mere extension of current practice qualify as exceptional per the current church of physics?

[tomclarke]

Arsenic DNA is exceptional, so it demands exceptional evidence

That seems exceptional to me. Here are a few more exceptional claims, feel free to add your own and debate any any that are less than exceptional from your perspective.

Net power Polywell fusion
Mach effect thrusters
Room temperature superconductors
eestore
AGW
Heim Theory
Mach effect wormholes

Does every new idea that is beyond mere extension of current practice qualify as exceptional per the current church of physics?

I think the issue here is how likely is the hypothesis, and how much evidence do we thus far have to back it up:
p(H) a priori likelihood of hypothesis (goes very low if => big change to physics)

If E is total evidence:
p(E|H)/p(E) = K is a Bayesian "amplification factor" indicating the extent to which rational belief in H is made more or less likely by E.

Obviously, there is a lot of uncertainty here, but it is a good way to quantify opinions:

Hypothesis/p(H)/K
Net power Polywell fusion/0.05/2
Mach effect thrusters/0.001/1
Room temperature superconductors/0.5/1.9
eestore /0.001/0.1
AGW/0.5/1.9
Heim Theory [not studied, expect low]
Mach effect wormholes [see Mach effect - no great difference]

And, on the AGW topic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 2697.story

Best wishes, Tom

[palladin9479]

Does every new idea that is beyond mere extension of current practice qualify as exceptional per the current church of physics?

While I detest the linking of a religious establishment to physics, the answer to your question is yes. Exceptional can be taken to be anything that is new science (vs amplification of current science). Einstein's Theory of relativity was exceptional (at that time) as it refuted some of Newton's assumptions. This is the way of science, nothing is permanent as that would assume humans already know everything.

[IntLibber]

And, on the AGW topic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 2697.story

Best wishes, Tom

Problem with that story is that BEST hasn't actually completed their work, Muller was just spewing his prejudices backed up by a random sampling of a small number of temperature stations without consideration of a) how poor quality they were, and b) without eliminating actual UHI. Classic confirmation bias with cherry picking and whipped hype cream on top.

BTW: I work on Watts Up With That? so I am quite aware of this particular issue.

[tomclarke]

And, on the AGW topic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 2697.story

Best wishes, Tom

Problem with that story is that BEST hasn't actually completed their work, Muller was just spewing his prejudices backed up by a random sampling of a small number of temperature stations without consideration of a) how poor quality they were, and b) without eliminating actual UHI. Classic confirmation bias with cherry picking and whipped hype cream on top.

BTW: I work on Watts Up With That? so I am quite aware of this particular issue.

Well as with all the blog science, you get different science from different blogs. though more on some than others.

This issue is not the "killer issue" for anti-AGW types. It is merely looking at whetehr the climate scientists were all cooking the books and misrepresenting surface temperature increase.

Muller would seem to have a bias towards thinking this was the case, but has turned round after looking more closely at the problem.

Sure, this is only preliminary. But you have to be a real conspirary theorist to think that such a study, meant to challenge orthodoxy, so funded, and with people who have previously had views contrary to orthodox, would cook or PR results in a pro-AGW way.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/b ... l-warming/

[seedload]

And, on the AGW topic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 2697.story

Best wishes, Tom

Problem with that story is that BEST hasn't actually completed their work, Muller was just spewing his prejudices backed up by a random sampling of a small number of temperature stations without consideration of a) how poor quality they were, and b) without eliminating actual UHI. Classic confirmation bias with cherry picking and whipped hype cream on top.

BTW: I work on Watts Up With That? so I am quite aware of this particular issue.

The other more prominent problem with the story is that it confuses warming with AGW making claims about confirming or refuting AGW theory based on a study that is just looking at temperature data for warming. Yes, a lot of people believe it got warmer in the last century - including most skeptics.

Just read the first paragraph of this ridiculous story:

"A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view."

And it concludes:

"All the physical indicators are consistent with a warming world. There is no doubt the trend of temperature is upwards since the early 20th century. And that trend is accelerating."

Study is not about AGW. Study may confirm an upward trend in temperatur in the last century. Most people believe this to be true anyway - including skeptics. Study says NOTHING about a trend that is accelerating.

regards