[Breakable]

One issue I have with the current design that I don’t see a nice list of news,
so it might be more friendly to the newbies, but it is less friendly to the old-timers.

[Breakable]

Well scepticism is an important part of science, but for it to happen you have to have something to be skeptical about. Be it GW, Evolution or Standard Model. Each of those (and other well accepted) theories have theirs skeptics, controversial evidence and gray areas which are still to be investigated. So here is for you skeptics something to sympathize with 😉
http://i.imgur.com/hAY2R.jpg

Regarding the criticism of GW theory, specifically “EPAGreenhouseGasEmissions.pdf” some of it is probably valid, but that does not mean that GW theory itself is fundamentally flawed, every theory has its criticism. More likely it means that there is more work to be done. Who can actually say that the simplified models cannot predict anything without testing? You can never know what is the programs output without actually running it – this is what I learned from experience – and no theory is better than actual results. And if Copenhagen is of any measure we will see the results in 50-100 years, because the experiment is ON. My own nonscientific opinion is that humans must have an impact on earth if they play such huge part in the system, especially with our outdated technology:
http://www.oklo.org/wp-content/images/p-earth-night.jpg
What the actual impact is – we will see.

There are probably scientists who don’t get funding because of opposition to GW theory, I guess there are some flaws in the Capitalism, this is one of them (in case the concerns are actually valid, and not some angry person rant over getting fired). On the other hand science itself should not be biased for or against a theory, but should instead gather evidence and analyze it impartially.

Open mindedness means willingness to consider new ideas based on evidence. The problem is when evidence is imperfect, and that’s mostly the case. But people usually tend to like the evidence that support their own ideas more, and demand perfect evidence to refute them. Unfortunately this evidence is too hard to produce and in real world we have to work with imperfect one. Motive, alibi, weapon can get someone convicted for life even if all of those can be fabricated. The tricky part is comparing imperfect evidence in an impartial fashion.

[Breakable]

Just in case you did not catch the joke:

[Breakable]

While I would not say that science is driven by consensus, I think it is important to have some baseline to begin with, on which you can verify, criticize and improve. If you had for example a 100 equally supported competing theories instead of one widely accepted one it would be much harder to work out the truth, because not one scientist would be able to study them all in his lifetime.
There is a list of all the superseded theories here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
its interesting to see how they evolved.
Regarding the code or data analysis that is done by GW scientists I would not be surprised to learn that it was sloppy work, because they are not specialists in this area. It would be better if such work was left to the professionals – software engineers and data analysts, but that of course requires a different level of funding. Still sloppy work is better than no work IMHO, because you can criticize, improve and work out the issues.

[Breakable]

Scientific Consensus vs Consensus
http://makewealthhistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/climate-change-consensus.jpg

[Breakable]

PS:Tnx for the link.

[Breakable]

Well not every myth about scientific consensus is right either. It also depends how you define scientific consensus. I don’t think I could define it before scientific method (pragmatic) was born in 1877. And while the consensus is usually wrong in some way, improvements can be be made by investigating those areas and filling in the gaps. For example I don’t consider Einsteins relativity model to be a revolution of Newtonian physics, because Newtonian physics is still used in most areas.

Regarding the CRU leaked emails, I don’t actually see myself what is there so incriminating about them? Of course I clearly see that scientist did not check every email against the PR and Law departments, but this seems like normal communication, and I have no doubt that my own outbox (as a software developer) is even more incriminating.

[Breakable]

Seems to work now. Tnx!
Sorry for being inverbose 😉

[Breakable]

FFS is non-profit. So basically no profit can be happening there.
Maybe some mutual fund could be started to do that, but its a lot of work, and requires a lot of knowledge. Any bankers around here?
What about starting fusion (and not necessary only Focus) mutual fund?

[Breakable]

Alternatively it might be a good idea to make yourselves more available to the medium and small investors (bread and butter).

[Breakable]

The first question would be:what kind of instruments you already have and which ones are planned in the future.

[Breakable]

In my opinion Rezwan is doing a great job (and a big favour for us) with informing all about the internals of the experiment progress. The big periods of silence could be alleviated by tweeting the occasional “Opened a rift in space time”, but its more a favour for the fans, and not very important for the project itself. Look at the desperate Pollywell folk, who get a sketchy update from the Army once half a year under best circumstances.
So tnx Rezwan, and keep up the good work!

[Breakable]

Calm down, the most important is they keep working on it 😉

[Breakable]

If speed of access is important then 1 click access can only be offered by full list of topics on the main site, 2 clicks if its hidden.
Alternatively a tag cloud might be better than categories, as I myself can never put 1 thing into a single category.
To not to confuse first time visitor a few major topics could be offered at the top “What is Fusion, Fusion Technologies, Who We are(What we do), Impact (Speculation)”

[Breakable]

Some news:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/12/05/2044243/Iranian-Crackdown-Goes-Global?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Slashdot/slashdot+(Slashdot)

[Author]

Posts