I have no problem saying their conclusions are not as "hard/concrete " (whatever descriptor you want) as some of the conclusions determined through much more thoroughly controlled experimentation. In no way does this mean that all "inferences" should be treated the same and I agree merely saying "it seems rational" is not enough. Outside of very specific types of research no field operates in a completely controlled experiment condition, it is just not possible. Here is where the science can help guide "inferences" by basing them on knowledge not just from observations but from controlled experimentation. I think another example of this is evolutionary biology. Fossils, geology, species, DNA, animal behavior, etc. were all observed and combined with controlled experimentation (at a extremely small scale that in no way equates to the all of life) to in my mind make evolution a fact as much as there are facts. Now there are certainly debates as there should be about how this all works together, and exact mechanisms at work./n

I will not agree that climatology, astronomy, etc. are not "science." Reading that statement only makes me think of XKCD and old math/physics/chem jokes. In an ideal world every conclusion (controlled testing or otherwise) would be taken on it own merit and examined for possible bias and shortcomings [Here I'm reminded of Feynman's story on the mass of an electron]. When this is done properly, I have no reservations calling a field science. I would hope we never look at something that we don't understand and say, well I cannot do a controlled repeatable experiment, so I can never do "science" in that area. /n

Out of curiosity what are fields/areas that fit your thoughts on "science?"

I complete agree that you cannot perform a controlled experiment on the earth, or in astronomy. The lack of ability to perform a controlled experiment doesn't make it any less of a science or the knowledge gained any less true. At worst, I see it as meaning we need to have a better understanding of how our methods could bias a result(s).

I completely agree that science is filled with both normal politics and what i would call personal politics. This can be a very bad thing when it holds back knowledge. I also see it as a not quite as terrible thing as it encourages people to try to find the flaws in other peoples' work or test a "better" idea.

Please name site an experiment that has "controlled for ALL the variables." I feel we have a "no true Scotsman" argument here.

It is not quite that simple. I have not met a single person who would purpose a wholesale change from pumping CH4 to pumping H2 in the existing infrastructure. The issues are much greater than just steel having embrittlement. There are a whole host of materials in contact with natural gas including plastic and rubbers. Hell you might loose more gas then you get at the end of the pipe. Often, the purposed methodology centers around using a hydrogen loading in the current natural gas stream. The EU has spent billions looking into this: http://www.naturalhy.net/ The basic idea is use a clean/cheap methodology of producing hydrogen (maybe off peak hours of plants - and then pump into the natural gas system.

It has been some time since I was reading up on the project. If i recall there are two huge obstacles. First if you don't take it out of the natural gas (let it go to the home users) not all equipment likes that and some would become non functioning. Secondly there are not cost effective means to get the hydrogen back out before the end user. I was surprised to find out the materials issues were not show stopping.

I like how we accuse most companies of not thinking beyond this quarter and their immediate profits, but when it comes to drug and oil companies they are evil genius that plan for the future and would never cash in on the immediate gains they could get with new ideas/products.

I usually got the Mexican Coca Cola too. It tastes better. About three months ago I got one with my usual order from the taqueria, tasted it and something was just off about it. I checked the bottle and it now states "sugar and/or high fructose corn syrup." It is sad to see the only direct benefit I had disappear.

Wow, I'm familiar with the STM (I have never used one) but I am not familiar with many people have access or use for one. I thought they were used most for more basic surface physics type of work. Perhaps you are thinking of an SEM or STEM which are now quite common (especially the SEM) and used in a variety of fields? If not, what general use does the STM provide for biology?