( Blog for website at http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ )
(Answering Stephen Hurrell comment here.)
(Transparent indeed.) Metaphorical face-pulling and jeering, ridicule and denigration is a standard tactic in science to reject unpalatable findings, though not usually so blatant. Google [Rationalskeptics + "point and laugh"] to see it pervades the whole forum. 'Pointing and laughing' >> 'booing and jeering'. Not quite sure what the next stage is. Fisticuffs probably.
So much for Moderation, eh? Under such protection it wasn't possible to get even close to having Plate Tectonics recognised as "Just a Theory" in order to compare with Earth expansion.
Nevertheless, it is fairly confronting to be faced all at once with evidence for Earth expansion, evidence that the Plate Tectonic paradigm is probably wrong, and evidence that the entire issue is coloured by politics at various levels. It really is scratching at the underbelly of consensus, and a fine example how the 'scientific method' crudely applied with partisan interest, has led us up the garden path - (Craig Venter :- "I think the way science is conducted around the world, we probably waste over 90% of the money.)
That's quite a threesome to have to deal with, so you can understand the "point-and-laugh" response, because there is nothing else of much substance that can be raised in defence. It's all it has. Plate Tectonics *is* only a theory. It *does* contradict itself whichever way it turns (and is therefore unworkable), there is *ample* evidence for Earth expansion, and Earth expansion *does* explain global geology much better. (And the literature is replete with the dodgy shenanigans of practicing scientists in general.)
And it's all substantiated.
Plate Tectonics *is* a big lie. *That* is the story that can never be written because there are too many ramifications that these days of litigation are too risky to probe too deeply. As we have just seen institutional interest can be ferociously brutal (e.g. academic, in the way that young fellow Aaron Schwartz was recently hounded to his death for making available to the public, information that the public had already paid for; political in the way that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is similarly currently being hounded for 'political' transgression. (Who can forget that video of those helicopter killings done in our name?)).
"Oh yeah? What about the helicopter that killed Osamabinladen then?"
And as I write, that other Bin Laden, ..Obama, ..under fire from the National Rifle Association for having a bodyguard for *his* children and denying their call for all children in American schools to be similarly protected. (And just in case of any autistic interpretation here, let me make it very clear I think Obama compared to the alternative is just fine. God save us from *rampant* protectionism (Google 'Lenore Skenazy') (or here if you'd rather listen) that appears to afflict America from "knee pads for crawling babies" (google images) to automatic assault weaponry for drivers and home owners.
See? It's all about scale and sense of proportion.
I'm not optimistic about public freedoms in the face of those who see their role in policing them. One thing seems certain though - in today's world individuals are very much targets for attention if they step out of line.
The whole area (PT / EE) just needs a good clean-up, beginning (I think) in the schools as an object lesson in the way science works (or rather doesn't), ..but I don't know if it can be done. Only the geological subtext will eventually creep out-from-under as a casualty survivor, but the aegis that buried it will be left untouched as "not the issue".
But it is entirely the issue, and it was what allowed the lie to develop and flourish. In this case it doesn't much matter, because it is only geology. There are no real pecuniary interests such as there are in pharmaceuticals or biotech. The closest we get is questioning the lengths institutions will go to to secure their kudos. So there are no serious ramifications (if we count our children's education as of no consequence). However it is precisely because of this that it has thrived, and is therefore a prime example of 'science gone wrong'. It's a corruption. There's a lot to say about it. (Society going wrong is another (but similar) story :: Scale, cause-and-effect, and sense of proportion. There's one for quantification: how do you model that lot?
I see the thread is still locked. With four hundred and twenty pages of Booing-and-Jeering I think it has proved itself to be too adversarial. There are other ways.
[ See also - Debunking Plate Tectonics - at :-