Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 109

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.

That's speculation. The only KNOWN thing is that the authors of the papers perpetrated fraud to get peer reviewed and published. No research has been done into replicating methodology, experiments, or results.

So if you are agreeing with me, fine. If you are disagreeing with me, try reading what I wrote again.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 2) 109

If a middle school teacher or a museum curator can't manage not alienating people, try employing a magician.

I suggest getting all our science information off of politicians who are paid for their votes and beliefs. Hard to go wrong that way, and its proven by history to be the only sure fire path to the truth.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 2) 109

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself.

So it turned out the papers weren't really peer reviewed at all. So much for science then. Good they were retracted.

Yes, it was good they were retracted. That's science working to expose the people who don't follow the rules.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 109

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.

If they didn't do the peer review, it's probably because the work wouldn't survive it.

That doesn't account for laziness. We don't know if the work itself was bad. I'm suspicious it might be, but it needs reviewed properly.

Climate models are huge and complex, only a few people can truly claim to understand them. They're not lab experiments where you can easily isolate causes and exclude other factors or extrapolate how the ecosystem will respond. There's huge local variations in climate that people use as proof or counter-proof because this year was particularly cold or warm without any validity as a global phenomenon.

Deniers often do claim that the weather outside their window is enough data to refute AGW. I have no doubt that they might have a little problem understanding the modes and the data.

But you and I both know that isn't the real issue. I don't hear anything about radioactivity not being real, and that nucs are some other process is involved. its just accepted. We don't hear much about cosmology, even though it isn't remotely as settled as the greenhouse effect, and there are some pretty active controversies going on, and not many people understand it.

Its money, and who's ox is gored, and who is getting paid for their vote, and inertia, and how somehow the laws of physics has become affiliated with a political party or not. Where once upon a time, not many years ago, the greenhouse effect was believed by most, and how now, scientists are scrambling to save climate data before it is destroyed Who knew that in 21st Century America, that science could become illegal?

That said, just because there's a lot of detail we're working on doesn't mean there's much doubt about the big picture. Take evolution for example, we're still doing tons of research into the exact mechanisms that create and divide species but there's no real scientific competition from creationism or lamarckism that genetics isn't real. "Survival of the fittest" does work as a one-liner summary.

The greenhouse effect is clearly real, if Earth had no atmosphere it would have a surface temperature of -18C instead of +14C.

And yet, people will differ http://blog.nosuchthingasgreen...

So when they're talking about trying to keep the temperature change because of human activity under 2C we're really talking about a <10% change in the effect. We are just a small part of a pretty big puzzle of how this all works.

It is small in some respects, rather large in others. In addition, there are some wild cards such as methane released by warming:

Comment Re:Huh? What? (Score 1) 215

I do not see an adjustment for obesity. People who drink artificially sweetened beverages typically are overweight and therefore trying to lose weight. Other studies have shown that that doesn't actually happen, presumably because it doesn't affect actual caloric intake (i.e., they just ingest more other stuff). So, since obese people are more likely to suffer cardiovascular events, and obese people are more likely to drink artificially sweetened beverages, it stands to reason that artificially sweetened beverages -- of all types -- will be associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular events.

Exactly. And a point that doesn't seem to have been taken into account anyhwhere in the study. That's like a study on the health effects of people who work with radioactive substances, and eliminating radium exposure form the study.

Comment Re:Scott Adams disagrees (Score 2) 109

More immediate funding is at stake, more groupthink applies, it will be decades before others can prove you wrong, and unlike falsified cancer research, people won't die because you misdirected searcher.

There's more money in cancer medication than climate science.

But if you don't want to wait decades, you can simply make a competing model that matches past observations, but predicts a different outcome, and publish it.

Exactly. Now that climate research is being actively suppressed, and even the word is verboten, and the leader of the free world wants the names and workplaces of all of the scientists who don't agree with the USA's now official truth that Climate change is a plot by the Chinese - exactly what awesome advantager to the climate scientists have?

Now that politics and ideology have once again shown that the laws of physics are no match for the triumph of will, in much the same way as communism proved that Lysenkoism was the correct science over thouroughly debunked genetics. Sounds more like the start of a good old fashioned pogrom than the evilz scientizzzs taking over the world.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 4, Informative) 109

If cancer research is affected by incidents like this, what's to say that climate science isn't similarly affected?

Pay no attention to the research assistant behind the curtain!

As long as humans are involved, there will be fraud along the way. But there is one beg difference between science and the religio-political world. We seek out and correct our fraud and errors. And once the fraud is exposed, the perp is a pariah, as opposed to the other world where they are often re-elected or otherwise rewarded.

Its also good to point out that the fraud was in the review process, not the work itself. So the tools that did it were extra stupid in their laziness.

As for AC's hand wringing, climate science is not cancer research, with obscure aspects only a few people know anything about. The physics is out there, the data can be perused by anyone, it's like permanent peer review.

In fact, if we want to see intellectual fraud vis-à-vis climate science, we need only look at the denialists work. We'll have to give some rope here, because denialists tend not to publish actual papers, but "publish" on line denial.

But you do the same process. You look at the claims and walk them back to the source. You look at the graphs and check for accuracy and graphic tricks. You check references - although in denialist work, there are not many. You also check timeliness. In an ongoing field of research like climate science, is the latest data being used?

So AC need not worry, climate scientists are acutely aware of the political scrutiny of their work, and are very very careful.

Comment Re:Non-starter 'flying car' (Score 1) 147

This flying car won't fit in my garage, won't travel down the highway (or any road for that matter), won't land at the grocery store and pick up milk. It only works if you live at an airport and your house backs up to the runway.

Unfortunately, this is going to be like an autonomous taxi. We probably won't be able to get one.

Comment Re:User's need to take responsibility too. (Score 1) 216

The fuck is a coalroller? Why the hell treat me as such for stating an observation of mine?

Coalrolling is an activity performed by some deisel vehicle owners, who alter their (usually trucks) to put out large amounts of smoke when they see people in cars like the Prius, which gets good gas mileage.

Apparently this puts the roller in a superior intellectual place.

I have no idea if you are a coal roller or not - I certainly hope not. But the concept of people going out of there way to use vehicles that put out more pollutants than is legal, just reminded me of the silly practice. Regardless, it assumes that the person in the Prius is some sort of timid thing who will just shy away. The most crazy conservative itchy trigger finger guy I know drove a Prius. He liked the technology. If someone rolled coal on him, they would probably find he took a second amendment solution on them. Sad, yet perhaps fortunately, the tortured soul has passed on.

Why am I even bothering!?


Chillaxe brother, it was mere jest.

I do joke, or at least I will until someone takes a second amendment solution on me.

That was also a joke,

Comment Re:Huh? What? (Score 2) 215

Stevia, Xylitol, and Monk Fruit are not artificial. there are probably some others on your list too but these were the ones I knew of offhand.

I suppose it depends on how you classify natural. Looking up how Stevia is made you put the leaves of the plant in hot water, then pas it through a resin, which traps the glycosides, after which you wash it with alcohol, then heat it to remove the alcohol.

It's natural in the same way that cocaine is natural.

As a side note, Stevia is a member of the chrysanthemum family, which is the source of pyrethrum insecticide. Also a natural substance.

Here's a link about the different alternative sweeteners

We can scare ourselves out of eathing if we try hard enough.

Comment Re: User's need to take responsibility too. (Score 1) 216

Is there something environmentally unfriendly about recycling the phones?

  • Tossing phone in landfill: bad
  • Grinding phone to bits and recycling the metal, plastic, and glass: better
  • Refurbishing phone so it gets a couple more years of use before recycling: best

That would be the ideal situation. It will be years if and until we see that happen, I fear.

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"