Originally Posted by W*GS
Yep. We gotta accept a whole lot of nonsense before we even get to Venus.
But here's my problem with this strategy: I do not have a PhD in Astronomy and cannot in good conscience pass judgement either way on these "new paradigms" that Mark is offering. That is why I need to see how peers in the appropriate scientific fields are receiving these new ideas. If the inventor of the idea (in this case, McCanney's "Plasma Discharge Comet Model") has simply made up his theory and by-passed peer-review and published independently (either in book form, over radio interviews or on a self-published website) then what hope does the non-specialist have of ascertaining the validity of the claim? In fact, by-passing peer-review is the hallmark of a person who fears failure with peer-review because they (secretly? unconsciously?) know their idea doesn't hold water.
So, that is why I need Mark to offer the scientific journals which have reviewed McCanney's "new model" over the past 30 years (and not merely a link to McCanney's own website) for sustainability.