re: #70 pat

SB, apparently my links, primarily scientific, are too controversial. To be more concise, I believe that AGW is entirely unproven. And likely to be considered as likely as Copernicus’ theory of the mathematical certitude of planetary orbits.

Pat, a couple of people have mentioned over the last week that they temporarily couldn’t seem to post in the spinoffs, IIRC. It’s a little burp in the matrix that goes away soon. I really wouldn’t freak out or feel like it’s personal. Charles did mention an idea about limiting blogpimping, but AFAIK his last word on it was something like “There are a lot of different issues that I need to think about here to make it work correctly”. (paraphrase, not quote)

And btw, also AFAIK, Copernican theory didn’t propose anything about the ‘mathematical certitude of planetary orbits”. The strange thing about the acceptance of Copernican theory is that at the time, it couldn’t easily account for retrograde motion of the planets or their orbits in general— that had to wait for Johannes Kepler. (Copernican theory was more compact than the Ptolemaic, hence its adoption)

Thomas Kuhn has an excellent book that illustrates this as a classic example of paradigm shift:
The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought.

Also, hello cool LNDT lizards!