1 / 48

Nature of the topic

(ii) The scientific community, politicians and the public are strongly divided on the topic. Identify opposing opinions or theories in the literature of the topic. Nature of the topic.

truman
Télécharger la présentation

Nature of the topic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. (ii) The scientific community, politicians and the public are strongly divided on the topic. Identify opposing opinions or theories in the literature of the topic. Nature of the topic • The issue of Global Warming is multi-faceted. The literature treats a number of main aspects. To name a few: • The science basic to the field of global climate and global temperature phenomena. • The science of the carbon cycle. • Clean energy research and development. • Global warming is anthropogenic. • Global warming in not anthropogenic 

  2. Global Warming is Anthropogenic • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Assessment Reports [1] – [4]. • CO2 content in the atmosphere is emphasized[5], [6] • Irreversable [7], with effects lasting more than 1000 years • “heat islands” created by the growth of cities [8], [9] • Fear that the uncertainties in results are serious due to the complexity of the system [11], [12] 

  3. Global Warming is not Anthropogenic • hydrocarbons are circulated from below the surface of the earth into the atmophere, and that that stimulates plant life, with concomitant benefits for mankind. No development of the hypothesis. • “science is not, nor ever has been, about consensus, but about experimental and observational data and testable hypotheses”. • Vostock ice cores provide data on temperature, CO2 levels, ice thickness back 420,000 years [16] • Found that temperature levels lead CO2 levels by 1300years in the southern hemisphere. • UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change distinguished scientific usage of “statistical association” (detection of change) from “attribution” (establishing cause and effect) [17]. 

  4. Al Gore’s slideshow “An Inconvenient Truth” • Melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.  The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct. • Evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years – in period rises in CO2 lagged behind temperature rises by 800-2000 years. • Emotive images suggest Hurricane Katrina caused by global warming; expert had to accept that “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming. • Drying up of Lake Chad caused by global warming.  The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case. • Study showed polar bears drowned due to disappearing arctic ice.  Gore misread study: four polar bears drowned because of particularly violent storm. • Threatens global warming could stop Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into ice age: Claimant’s evidence was that this was scientific impossibility. • Blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.  The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. • Suggests sea levels could rise by 7m causing displacement of millions; evidence is that sea levels expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years. • Claims that rising sea levels caused evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand.  Government unable to substantiate this; Court observed this appears to be a false claim. 

  5. (ii) The scientific community, politicians and the public are strongly divided on the topic. Identify opposing opinions or theories in the literature of the topic. Global Warming is Anthropogenic [1] IPCC First Assessment Report 1990 (FAR), International Panel on Climate Change, Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml [2] Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 (SAR), ibid. [3] Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001 (TAR), ibid. [4] Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)ibid. 

  6. [5] G. S. Jones, N. Christidis, and P. A. Stott, “Detecting the influence of fossil fuel and bio-fuel black carbon aerosols on near surface temperature changes”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol. 11, pp. 799–816, 2011. “Past research has shown that the dominant influence on recent global climate changes is from anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases with implications for future increases in global temperatures”.

  7. [6] J. F.B Mitchell, J. Lowe, R. A. Wood and M. Vellinga, “ Extreme events due to human-induced climate change”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 364, no.1845, pp. 2117-2173, 2006 “A recent assessment by the intergovernmental panel on climate change concluded that the Earth's climate would be 2–6°C warmer than in the pre-industrial era by the end of the twenty-first century, due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. In the absence of other changes, this would lead to the warmest period on Earth for at least the last 1000 years, and probably the last 100000 years.”

  8. [7] S. Solomona, G-K. Plattnerb, R. Knuttic, and P. Friedlingsteind, “ Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 1704-1709, Feb. 2009. “The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.”

  9. [8] W.-C. Wang, Z. Zeng, and T.R. Karl, “Urban heat islands in China”, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 17, pp. 2377–2380, 1990. “ .”

  10. [9] P.D. Jones, P.Y. Groisman, M. Cou ghlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. Wang and T.R. Karl, “Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land”, Nature, vol. 347, pp. 169-172, Sept. 1990. “ .”

  11. [10] D. J. Keenan, “The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chung Wang”, Energy & Environment , vol. 18, No. 7+8, pp. 985-995, 2007. • “ABSTRACT • Wei-Chyung Wang has been a respected researcher in global warming studies for decades. I have formally alleged that he committed fraud in some of his research, including research cited by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (2007) on “urban heat islands” (a critical issue). Herein, the allegation is reviewed, and some of its implications are explicated. • 1. INTRODUCTION • The work of Jones et al. (1990) is a significant paper in global warming studies (see below for details). In February 2007, Stephen McIntyre blogged about evidence he had found showing that it was “impossible” for Jones et al. to have carried out their work as they had claimed.1 An anonymous comment on the blog then indicated potential issues with the closely-related work of Wang et al. (1990).2 Further study by myself found additional evidence of problems. The evidence particularly implicates Wei-Chyung Wang—the lead author of Wang et al. and a co-author of Jones et al.”

  12. [11] P.D. Jones, “Climate models and climate extremes” Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 287-293, 2002. • “Climate change will alter expectations about the future to such an extent that past statistics about averages, variability and extremes will no longer be relevant. Scenarios of the future depend upon the rate of greenhouse gas increases (and changes in aerosol distributions) in the atmosphere, and are best produced by coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models. Uncertainties in the scenarios are large, however, not only because future emissions have to be estimated, but also because the climate system is complex and varies considerably from decade to decade naturally.”

  13. [12] H.D. Matthews, N.P. Gillett, P.A. Stott and K. Zickfeld, “ The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions”, Nature, vol. 459, pp. 829-833 , Jun. 2009. “ .”

  14. (ii) Identify opposing opinions or theories in the literature of the topic. Global Warming is Not Anthropogenic 

  15. [13] A.B. Robinson and Z. W. Robinson, “ Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth”, The Wall Street Journal, December 4, 1997. “A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases. What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution. Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.”

  16. [14] W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas, A. B. Robinson, Z. W. Robinson, “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide” Climate Research, 1999, 13, pp. 149–164 . “A review of the literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th century have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates as inferred from numerous laboratory and field experiments. There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Meaningful integrated assessments of the environmental impacts of anthropogenic CO2 are not yet possible because model estimates of global and regional climate changes on interannual, decadal and centennial time scales remain highly uncertain”

  17. [15] R. M. Carter, “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change”, The Aus IMM New Leaders’ Conference, Brisbane, QLD, 2 - 3 May 2007, pp. 61-74. “Much public discussion on global warming is underpinned by two partly self-contradictory assumptions. The first is that there is a ‘consensus’ of qualified scientists that dangerous human caused global warming is upon us; and the second is that although there are ‘two sides to the debate’, the dangerous warming side is overwhelmingly the stronger. Both assertions are unsustainable. The first because science is not, nor ever has been, about consensus, but about experimental and observational data and testable hypotheses. Second, regarding the number of sides to the debate, reality is that small parts of the immensely complex climate system are better or less understood – depending upon the subject – by many different groups of experts. No one scientist, however brilliant, ‘understands’ climate change, and there is no general theory of climate nor likely to be one in the near future. In effect, there are nearly as many sides to the climate change debate as there are expert scientists who consider it Some key questions and answers that are relevant to the climate change debate include the following. Is there an established Theory of Climate? Answer: no. Do we understand fully how climate works? No. Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant? No. Can deterministic computer models predict future climate? Another no. Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous, human-caused climate change is upon us? Absolutely not. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate, or to a dangerous level? No, in either case. Is global temperature currently rising? Surprisingly, no. And finally, is the IPCC a scientific or a political advisory body? Answer: it is both.”

  18. [16] M. Mudelsee, “The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka”, Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 20, pp. 583-589, 2001. “Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.31.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.71.3 ka.”

  19. [17] R.C. Barnard and D.L. Morgan, “ The National Academy of Sciences Offers a New Framework for Addressing Global Warming Issues”, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 31, pp.112-116, 2000. “The recent landmark report by the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the science on which the Kyoto Protocol was based. NAS concluded that the policy choices and the mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases by the developed nations were based on incomplete science with significant uncertainties. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also distinguished the scientific usage of “statistical association” (detection of change) from “attribution” (establishing cause and effect) We suggest that the modern grounding-line retreat is part of ongoing recession that has been underway since mid Holocene time. It is not a consequence of anthropogenic warming or recent sea level rise. (Italics added).”

  20. [18] R. S. Lindzen, “Climate Alarm and Scientific Illiteracy (Revenge of the unappreciated scientist?)”, Goteborg 3 May 2006 “What is truly agreed (albeit with some controversy) 1. The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Over the past 60 years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6 ±0.15 degrees Centigrade (C). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming. 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming. It is, in fact, increasing, and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect (mainly due to water vapor and clouds) by about 2%. 3. There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2.” [19] R. S. Lindzen, “Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously”, Energy and Environment, 2007, 18 (7-8), pp. 937-950. “The main point of this paper is simply to illustrate why serious and persistent doubts remain concerning the danger of anthropogenic global warming despite the frequent claims that ‘the science is settled.’ Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4 degrees over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate.”

  21. [20] M. Leroux, “’Global Warming’: Myth or Reality? The actual evolution of the weather dynamics”, Energy and Environment, vol. 14 no. 2&3, pp. 297- 322, 2003.

  22. [21] C. Monckton, WITNESS STATEMENT, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Claim No. CO/3615/2007, 22 August 2007 Professor Carter comments at paragraph 30(a) of his statement as follows: “In actuality, the data indicate that the opposite is the case, with temperature change preceding CO2 change.” Dr Stott, at paragraph 18 of his statement, concedes: “For much of the past 650,000 years, it would appear that the initial driver was temperature, with induced changes in carbon dioxide … It is probably right to say that scene 9 of the Film represents somewhat of a simplification of this picture.” Dr Stott then quotes extensively from the guidance. However, I observe that the guidance does not specifically correct the errors either in the sequence of events or in the consequential exaggeration of the effect of additional CO2 concentration upon temperature. Instead, it merely poses questions to be put to pupils, of which two are singled out by Dr Stott for emphasis: “Is the relationship between CO2 concentration and the Earth’s temperature one of cause and effect or one of coincidence?” “Is CO2 the cause of rising temperatures or is rising CO2 caused by rising temperatures? Sceptics say we don’t know – what is the explanation in AIT [the film]?” 49. 50. 57.

  23. Conclusion 101. • Given the inaccuracies in the Film and conceded by the Defendant, in my opinion it is not legitimate to argue that the Film ought to be shown to schoolchildren merely because its conclusion is broadly in accord with the science as it now stands. The Film’s conclusions are exaggerated, or at worst simply wrong. For example, the Film predicts that hundreds of millions of people are at near-term to medium-term threat of suffering from anthropogenic climate disasters such as sea levels rising at least an order of magnitude faster and several millennia sooner than the current best estimates; or malaria spreading; or an increase in individual catastrophic weather events, when none of these assertions is in reality true.

  24. Other Opinions [23] N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, Science, vol.306, p. 1686, 3 Dec. 2004. “The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). …The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.”

  25. [24] L. Antilla, “Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change”, Global Environmental Change, vol. 15, pp. 338-352, 2005. “The results of this study indicate that the collective newswire/news service community is not only an essential but a dominant source of climate science news. … numerous examples of frames constructed as valid science. … many examples of journalistic balance that led to bias, but some of the news outlets repeatedly used climate sceptics—with known fossil fuel industry ties—as primary definers. Worse yet, in some instances, such articles originated from wire or news service providers (including newspapers that provide such services or are affiliated with news service agencies)—which caused the exponential spread of misinformation. Media attention granted to the non-peer-reviewed comments of climate sceptics disregards the fact that if one disagrees with a certain study, one may attempt to publish their dissenting analysis within the forum of peer-reviewed literature.”

  26. [25] W. R.L. Anderegga, J. W. Prallb, J. Haroldc and S. H. Schneidera, “Expert credibility in climate change” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 27, pp. 12107–12109, Jul. 2010. “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we se an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

  27. [26] M. Latif, “Uncertainty in climate change projections”, Journal of Geochemical Exploration, In press, 2010. “Twentieth century climate exhibits a strong warming trend. There is a broad scientific consensus that the warming contains a significant contribution from enhanced atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations due to anthropogenic emissions. The climate will continue to warm during the 21st century due to the large inertia of the Earth System and in response to additional GHG emissions, but by how much remains highly uncertain. This is mainly due to three factors: natural variability, model uncertainty, and GHG emission scenario uncertainty. Uncertainty due to natural variability dominates at short time scales of a few years up to a few decades, while at the longer centennial time scales scenario uncertainty provides the largest contribution to the total uncertainty. Model uncertainty is important at all lead times. Furthermore, our understanding of the Earth System dynamics is incomplete. Potentially important feedbacks such as the carbon cycle feedback are not well understood and not even taken into account in many model projections. Yet the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the global mean surface temperature will exceed a level toward the end of the 21st century that will be unprecedented during the history of mankind, even if strong measures are taken to reduce global GHG emissions. It is this long-term perspective that demands immediate political action.”

  28. Categorize the information that you have gathered and discuss. • Evaluate the theories with respect to the principles of the scientific method Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784) 

  29. Some years ago, I asked the CEO of a company I was considering joining, what was the most important quality of a leader. He replied, without hesitation, “Integrity”. “… it is doing the right thing when it is not necessarily to your benefit.” J Stevenson Kenney IEEE Microwave Magazine 8(4),14-15, Aug. 2007 

  30. The Scientific Method. • In support of the anthropogenic contribution. • Research Question. Is a research question posed at all? • Hypothesis. The hypothesis is either stated or inferred from the general approach to a paper. • Poor experimental data collection. Temperature data has been collected from only a limited number of sites. Mainly on land masses. Most probably mainly in developed countries. Certainly very little sea data, most probably little desert/mountain data. • How is global temperature defined? A crucial aspect would be to agree on something to disagree on. Is global temperature a definable phenomenon? • The climate model The climate model is outside of the scope of this assignment, but it can be noted that even the proponents of anthropogenic warming are uneasy about the model. • The scientific method: designing an experiment. Obviously only observations can be made; the scientist cannot experiment in the Galilean sense. 

  31. The Scientific Method. • Denying anthropogenic contribution. • No specific hypothesis? In many instances, no question is asked and no hypothesis clearly defined. The mechanism of NOT contributing to global warming is not definable. • Hypothesis about sea carbon cycle. A number of scientists refer to the relative contributions to the carbon cycle from sea, land mass (plants), agriculture, etc. Mechanism is defined. • Also no experiment Similarly, controlled experiments are not possible; scientists have to rely on collecting data. • What about ice core samples? The processing of data collected from ice cores would seem to be very convincing to the statement that temperature increases lead CO2 concentration. Doubt expressed as to the validity of the data. • Hypothesis that plant life would benefit from increased CO2. Only statements observed. 

  32. Arguments • Informal Fallacies (next lecture) • Proof by eminent authority. • Proof by accumulated evidence. • Proof by appeal to emotion. 

  33. References • Quality of Journals – • conference papers, popular press ISI impact factors? • Diversity – not only one or one goup of journals or one source. Legal/medical or other goups? 

  34. Is there a phenomenon of global temperature change? Yes, but it is part of natural, Non-GH processes. Yes, and it is caused by the Greenhouse Effect Ice cap data, observed temperature changes, etc. How does the GE work? – GH gases, etc. What are the causes? Anthropogenic release of GH gases – activities, etc. Non- anthropogenic release of GH gases – sources, etc. So what’s going to happen? Predictions of future changes. So what’s going to happen? Models Armageddon, the four Horsemen Nothing? 

  35. The majority Opinion • Expert credibility in climate change1 • UE  Unconvinced by Evidence; CE  Convinced by Evidence. • UE group comprises 2% of top 50 climate researchers (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200. • Mean expertise of UE group 60 publications; CE group 119 publications. • Researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈ 80 % of UE group; less than 10% of CE group. (Bulk of UE researchers have not published extensively in peer-reviewed climate literature.) • Top-published researchers in CE group have average of 408 climate publications; top UE researchers average 89 publications • CE researchers’ top papers were cited an average of 172 times; 105 times for UE researchers. 1W. R. L. Anderegg, J. W. Prall, J. Harold, and S. H. Schneider, “Expert credibility in climate change”, PNAS, vol. 107, no. 27, pp. 12107 – 12109, Jul. 2010. 

  36. The majority Opinion Expert credibility in climate change1 1W. R. L. Anderegg, J. W. Prall, J. Harold, and S. H. Schneider, “Expert credibility in climate change”, PNAS, vol. 107, no. 27, pp. 12107 – 12109, Jul. 2010. 

  37. Barry James Marshall, • Australian born medical researcher, professor at the University of Western Australia. (All Fields Rank 227, Clinical medicine Rank 180). • Up to the early 1980’s, accepted science (but everybody) believed that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid. 

  38. Barry James Marshall, • Australian born medical researcher, professor at the University of Western Australia. (All Fields Rank 227, Clinical medicine Rank 180). • Up to the early 1980’s, accepted science (but everybody) believed that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid. • Marshall believed that the ulcers were caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, and the rest of the world ridiculed him, beleiving that no bacterium could survive in the stomach acid environment. • In 1982, Marshall and his co-worker, Warren, performed a culture of H. pylori, but could not succeed in infecting piglets with it. 

  39. Barry James Marshall, • Australian born medical researcher, professor at the University of Western Australia. (All Fields Rank 227, Clinical medicine Rank 180). • Up to the early 1980’s, accepted science (but everybody) believed that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid. • Marshall believed that the ulcers were caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, and the rest of the world ridiculed him, bleiving that no bacterium could survive in the stomach acid environment. • In 1982, Marshall and his co-worker, Warren, performed a culture of H. pylori, but could not succeed in infecting piglets with it. • In 1984, Marshall drank a petri dish with H. pyloriand within 5 days became ill. Antibiotics cured him. 

  40. Barry James Marshall, • Australian born medical researcher, professor at the University of Western Australia. (All Fields Rank 227, Clinical medicine Rank 180). • Up to the early 1980’s, accepted science (but everybody) believed that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid. • Marshall believed that the ulcers were caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, and the rest of the world ridiculed him, bleiving that no bacterium could survive in the stomach acid environment. • In 1982, Marshall and his co-worker, Warren, performed a culture of H. pylori, but could not succeed in infecting piglets with it. • In 1984, Marshall drank a petri dish with H. pylori and within 5 days became ill. Antibiotics cured him. • The experiment was published in 1985 and it earned him and Warren the Nobel Prize in 2005. 

  41. R.H. Goddard, • In 1919 the American scientist and inventor, R.H. Goddard proposed that if a rocket had enough fuel and if it were correctly designned, it would be able to carry a payload to beyond the influence of the earth's gravity, more specifically into the stratosphere. • The New York Times, and many scientists, ridiculed him 

  42. "It does say so, and therefore the impulse to do more than doubt the practicability of such a device for such a purpose must be--well, controlled. Still, to be filled with uneasy wonder and express it will be safe enough, for after the rocket quits our air and and really starts on its longer journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. Einstein and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that. His Plan Is Not Original That Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react--to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." 

  43. On 17 July 1969, when the Apollo 11 crew was on the way to the first landing of man on the Moon, The New York Times finally printed a correction: 

  44. On 17 July 1969, when the Apollo 11 crew was on the way to the first landing of man on the Moon, The New York Times finally printed a correction: 

  45. On 17 July 1969, when the Apollo 11 crew was on the way to the first landing of man on the Moon, The New York Times finally printed a correction: Apollo 11 landed on the moon at 20:18 UTC on 20 July, 1969. 

  46. References • Quality of Journals – • conference papers, popular press ISI impact factors? • Diversity – • not only one or one goup of journals or one source. Legal/medical or other goups?

More Related