Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Scientific Consensus (Score 1) 762

by crunchygranola (#47858087) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

"Global Warming is Proven Science" -Today "Global Cooling" - 1970s

Which "consensus" is right? Then or now? Or is it just another "immature fields of study" that needs more funding?

Ah, the false premise fallacy. Sorry, there was no "global cooling" consensus in the 1970s. Just one of many falsehoods trotted out by climate deniers.

The Wikipedia page on this exposes the lie nicely. But you will just keep repeating it won't you?

Comment: Re:Science creates understanding of a real world. (Score 1) 762

by crunchygranola (#47854891) Attached to: How Scientific Consensus Has Gotten a Bad Reputation

And, there you have an important piece of the global warming puzzle that many seem to miss.

Kids in chemistry class may have problems understanding basic chemistry. But, the experiments are laid out, the theories, the laws, the hypothesis are all there - everything is made available so that a juvenile layman who is willing to make the effort might become a novice chemist. And, the learning continues through the second year of chemistry, right on through their college and/or university years.

And notice that is is only after you taken those years of chemistry study that you are in a position to weigh-in on complex topics in chemistry, or the evaluate them at a serious level. But you can understand the basic facts of complex chemical issues at more elementary level with lesser degrees of learning, but only if you have applied yourself and learned.

Now - where can we find the layman's textbooks on manmade global warming?

The fundamental sub-disciplines of physics, chemistry, and statistics that go into the climate science all have readily available layman's textbooks (as you concede yourself). The IPCC report is an excellent place to understand the scientific evidence for AGM, it provides a comprehensive and accessible survey of the science of the field. If you haven't read it then you only have yourself to blame. If you have read it and you fail to understand by reason of ignorance (not hitting those layman's textbooks) you have only yourself to blame. If you read it and simply reject what it says because... why? You don't like its conclusions? Then again, you have only yourself to blame.

Oh - we have to take the word of the "consensus". Interesting. As has already been pointed out, the moment one stops doing science, and begins to preach to the masses, one is no longer a scientist, but a politician.

Really? Who "pointed this out"? Passing along scientific findings to "the masses" is what we call education. Interesting that you detest that. It explains a lot about your post.

Or, a priest of the new religion of Global Warming.

Thanks for tipping your hand - your mind is closed, and you blame others for your ignorance.

Comment: Re:Finlandization... (Score 1) 138


It is hard to believe that a near miss by a SAM would be given less attention by the captain than a malfunctioning coffee maker and even harder to believe that this incident was not reported. If a SAM exploded 20 seconds away from my DC-10 full of passengers whose lives I'm responsible for that would sure as shit get my attention if I was the captain and you can bet your bottom dollar I would report it to somebody....

It really is hard to believe, yes. For example, let's say it is the inclination of the pilot to day "we're okay" let's just forget about it. Does he know the airplane suffered no damage at all? How? When the plane goes in for maintenance are there going to the mysterious fragment holes in the tail or wings? These might endanger plane safety, and even if not the unreported incident that created them would end his career. Is he and the copilor going to bet that the plane really is unscathed?

What about the passengers? A warhead detonating nearby would be noticed by them. What happened to their reports/complaints?

Comment: Re:the 1% trying to rewrite history (Score 1) 362

Amazing how people think there's an amount of money beyond which you can't spend.

I could spend $80 billion in a few years (a decade at most). I'll have islands (perhaps Ireland itself :) that I'll own...

That is called real estate investing. It is not spending. You still have the original asset in a different form.

Comment: Re:Yay big government! (Score 1) 310

Business does have the power to drop an enormous lawsuit on you and force you to wipe out your life savings trying to defend yourself, and if a judgment is obtained due their immense advantage in resources, they can attach your salary and assets for life.

They also have the power to put false information of your credit history, which is virtually impossible to expunge, and thus ruin your ability to buy a home, or a car, or a loan for any other worthy purpose, or even rent an apartment and even to deny you a job (since prospective employers invariably run credit checks).

Other than that, no power to ruin your life at all.

Comment: Re:This does not disprove Sasquatch (Score 1) 198

True, it does not disprove Sasquatch - but it also does nothing to support it.

And on that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing, that is in fact an informal fallacy. Absence of evidence (if you have actively been seeking to collect evidence with tools capable of doing so) absolutely is evidence, but not "proof", of absence in every branch of science.

If you go to a doctor and get a biopsy looking for cancer, and no cells are found, that is absolutely a valid indicator that cancer of they type being screened for, is not present (though the tests can fail sometimes to detect it when it is).

Environmental DNA/RNA sampling is a very powerful technique to detect the presence of species that are difficult to observe. Almost any physical remain left by an animal, even extremely small samples (feces, blood, saliva, hair, skin, tooth, nail, etc.) will allow detection of its DNA to be matched against libraries to determine its phylogenetic grouping, and species identity if known.

If over a reasonable amount of time no one can produce a sample bearing the DNA of a novel creature, then it cannot reasonably be supposed to exist.

Comment: Re:Wind chill on a space suit? (Score 1) 110

by crunchygranola (#47213789) Attached to: There's No Wind Chill On Mars

Wind chill works because of evaporation on the skin, right?

Wrong. The phenomenon know as "windchill", and is represented by "windchill factors" and such, has nothing to do with evaporation. It is the effect of forced convection on heat removal, the windchill tables were generated by examining the removal of heat from a dry cylinder. Evaporative cooling is an entirely separate phenomenon.

I don't think anyone is going to be walking around on Mars outside a biosphere, in a T-shirt. If you're wearing a space suit, wind chill is totally irrelevant or am I missing something?

Does your space suit need to only provide pressurized air, or must it be a parka too? This is an important question for designing and wearing the darned things.

According to the actual paper (TFP) on Mars (at -60 C) the subjective temperature in still air is equivalent to only -8 C on Earth. This is because the air is too thin to remove much heat, wind or no. BTW -- "still air" is actually only an ideal limiting case of windchill, when air speed is zero and you are yourself are not moving. Genuine still air is a very rare in the open in nature.

It looks like Mars is something like a happy medium in terms of air pressure for a really, really cold place. In a hard vacuum the loss of heat from your body through radiation alone is a problem, getting rid of the heat your body and equipment produce is a problem in orbit. On Mars the air is thin enough that it has limited ability to remove heat, enough to prevent over-heating, but not too much. Space suits use evaporating water to dump heat form the suit.

Comment: Re:But... (Score 1) 490

Asks the German citizens who were told to register their firearms, but not to worry at all about the government ever showing up to collect them. Then the government showed up to collect them....

Now if only this were true rather than what it is - a lie.

Hitler actually relaxed gun laws, making them much easier to get.

Comment: Re:so apple and samsung should just research it al (Score 1) 131


Along with the actual definition of "rent-seeking". Rent-seeking is when one spends wealth on lobbying to increase their share of some limited resource, without creating anything of value in return. The closest the term comes to patents is when a patent troll buys patents to increase its chances of winning a lawsuit, but even that's a stretch, because the purchase isn't lobbying. ....

Despite the poorly written lead-in sentence to that Wikipedia article, "rent seeking" is not limited to political lobbying, that is merely a common example of rent-seeking. Regulatory capture, in which regulators expect to be rewarded by industry after they leave their regulatory role is rent-seeking via quid-pro-quo, not lobbying, for example. It is the act of obtaining wealth by gaining control of a limited resource, not through productive activity, is rent-seeking, no matter how it is carried out, so yes, patent troll portfolios are rent-seeking without being any king of stretch.

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!