On Sun, 30 Dec 12, Phillip Helbig wrote:
There have been determinations of the CMB temperature at high redshift
in the past. ...
The general expectation is that the CMB temperature INCREASES with
redshift. How many papers find this, and how many find something else?

Sure, Phil, but consider these points from this incident:
(1) Team A (1999) found disagreement but did not publish
(2) Team B (2012) found agreement and published.
(3) Team A published in 2012 to balance Team B's finding.

Now consider this, Phil: If it hadn't been for Team A's prior effort,
Team B's affirmative finding would have been published alone. All
would have hailed it as yet another confirmational finding, even
though the paper itself is littered with qualifiers (which you will
see if you read it). But Team A, using VLBI, showed that Team B's
finding is not reliable. (By the way, one member of Team B proof-read
Team A's paper, and another member of Team B was the referee.)

Therefore, how many other such findings have gone unchallenged simply
because there was no other "Team"? Note also from this incident that
papers are more likely to be published when they agree with the
current wisdom -- Team A did not publish for 12 years. So it is
entirely plausible that efforts on this front go 50-50, but the
affirmative ones publish and the negative ones do not.

Not really relevant here, but IIRC, 1830-211 is a gravitational-lens
system. Any static model needs to QUANTITATIVELY explain the huge
amount of gravitational-lens data.

So you mean, we need to explain the lensing angles in the absence of
the modelled "dark matter". Good point!

Eric