'Science News Cycle'
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jezuch May 20, 2009 2:16 AM EDT |
Regarding recent discussions about honesty in journalism: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 |
| Sander_Marechal May 20, 2009 3:01 AM EDT |
Nice find jezuch :-) |
| dinotrac May 20, 2009 7:27 AM EDT |
It's why we should ban the teaching of science. |
| jdixon May 20, 2009 8:03 AM EDT |
> It's why we should ban the teaching of science. I thought our school system had already done that. |
| TxtEdMacs May 20, 2009 8:21 AM EDT |
dino, In some segments of society and regions of the U.S., that is effectively true. Even in states supposedly with advanced views of education, one finds science instructors at the mid-grades spouting nonsense to avoid offending religious sensibilities. Add political and commercial interests that mine ignorance for their parochial advantage and we have the decline that these perpetrators so willing bemoan. However, not due to their actual causes when fondly held myths are held aloof as the True explanation. And others that should know better are willingly silent or silenced to avoid on the theory it makes their other stances more palatable by the public at large. [Too damn serious*] YBT * Please return to your usual chore of providing me straight lines. |
| montezuma May 20, 2009 8:28 AM EDT |
>It's why we should ban the teaching of science. Nah more like a reason you should not get any news information from Cable News outlets or blogs. Attention seeking infotainment is the problem. |
| dinotrac May 20, 2009 9:15 AM EDT |
Txt - We more often find teachers uncritically repeating political propaganda without criticism. Last I looked, a number of schools had shown or are showing An Inconvenient Truth. I'll bet there are science teachers who tell their students that buying a Prius helps the earth without mentioning the nickel in the batteries. |
| tuxchick May 20, 2009 9:29 AM EDT |
Nickel? What about the lead? |
| dinotrac May 20, 2009 9:51 AM EDT |
TC - I always forget that Priuses have a lead-acid accessory battery. The big battery pack is NiMH, using nickel mined in Canada. |
| hkwint May 21, 2009 3:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'll bet there are science teachers who tell their students that buying a Prius helps the earth without mentioning the nickel in the batteries. I was going to say: "I'm sure FED could use those to make new dollar coins" until I found out both dollars and euro coins are not made of nickel. Only in our country in the past I think, the coins were 99% nickel. So when you see a Prius, that nickel may come from coins which once were in my moneybox when I was a child! |
| dinotrac May 21, 2009 3:37 PM EDT |
Hans -- Only if they used recycled nickel, which they don't! Somebody I know mused on the fact that people will make a point of buying locally grown produce (better for the environment), then buy a car made halfway around the world with a battery pack whose main component was mined and smelted -- or whatever they do with nickel -- shipped halfway around the world, then shipped back!!! Gotta love "It feels good, don't bother me with the logic" thinking. |
| caitlyn May 21, 2009 3:41 PM EDT |
You neglect the fact that all cars have batteries to some degree. You also seem to be discounting the reduced use of fossil fuels. You are also forgetting that batteries can be safely recycled. It's a pity that "An Inconvenient Truth" didn't have more of an impact on some of the people here. There was a lot of very good, and yes, truthful material in there. Could some points be debated? Yeah, sure. The anti-environmental crowd just dismissed global warming without bothering with facts anyway. |
| jdixon May 23, 2009 9:30 AM EDT |
> The anti-environmental crowd just dismissed global warming without bothering with facts anyway. No, they dismissed anthropological global warming. There's a significant difference between the two. And there are facts supporting both sides of the debate. Even the favorite bogeyman of the environmentalists, Rush, admits that global warming was occurring. |
| dinotrac May 23, 2009 9:42 AM EDT |
Caitlyn - I am forgetting nothing of the sort. Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's right. A car's total carbon budget (not to mention overall environmental impact) is a function of manufacture, use, and disposal. Overall, the Prius is a mirage, especially if your driving isn't predominantly stop and go in-town driving. Any number of European diesels (not available in the US, grrrr) would return better economy than the Prius in the type of driving that Americans typically do. The mini comes pretty close. The English enthusiast's show Top Gear did a great, albeit exaggerated, demonstration of this by pitting a Prius against a BMW M3 at a test track. They drove the Prius around as quickly as they could, with the M3 keep pace exactly. End result? The high-performance M3 delivered better mileage than the Prius. The track (or, for that matter, the highway) is not where the Prius buys you any advantage. As to the ":anti-environmental crowd", I don't know who that is, but I certainly would include people who wrap themselves in green without learning the facts. |
| dinotrac May 23, 2009 10:02 AM EDT |
jdixon - Phooey on you for accepting that there is such a thing as an anti-environmental crowd. An anti faux friend of the earth crowd? Maybe. As to anthropological global warming, it seems wrong to be dismissive. Admittedly, even its proponents have gone wobbly and now prefer the meaningless term "climate change". Still, there is much evidence of some "there there", though not the slam-dunk those who fear science would have you believe. Personally, I prefer to apply a variation on Pascal's Wager: If people really are contributing to global warming in a serious way, how bad are the potential consequences? Can we head them off, and, if not, how do we mitigate them? How much will it cost? If the dangers of warming are dire enough and likely enough to be real, and the costs of avoidance/mitigation reasonable enough, then it makes sense to cut greenhouse gases. There is a common interest kicker in all of this: Our need to stop burning petroleum. When petroleum fuels were cheap, readily available, and provided by a number of competing sources, it made sense as a fuel. Last year's price run-up should have demonstrated to everyone that we can no longer afford to depend on petroleum for fuel. Conveniently, many solutions to the petroleum fuel problem dovetail with solutions to the greenhouse gas problem, effectively reducing the cost of limiting CO2 while driving up the benefit. |
| jdixon May 23, 2009 10:38 AM EDT |
> Phooey on you for accepting that there is such a thing as an anti-environmental crowd
ke it the way Americans took the term Yankee Doodle, Dino. I granted the term for the sake of the discussion, Dino. > As to anthropological global warming, it seems wrong to be dismissive. I don't, but the arguments to date haven't been particularly convincing. Some folks have, and I assume it's those Caitlyn was referring to. |
| azerthoth May 23, 2009 12:23 PM EDT |
Just to add fuel to the fire, while the single largest source of global warming pollutants comes from a human industry, it comes not from mechanical manufacture. If you are someone who has wrapped themselves in the 100% green moniker, and you are not a vegetarian your a hypocrite, as the largest single source pollutant is ... you guessed it, cows. |
| dinotrac May 23, 2009 1:03 PM EDT |
azer - I'm never quite sure about cows. For one thing, from a CO2 standpoint, their contribution is dependent on the non-renewable CO2 released in growing feed, etc. etc., BUT as ruminants, their digestive process (belches, by the way, not the other end) gives off a fair hunk of methane, which is something like 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, BUT, unlike CO2 which lingers for a long time, methane breaks down within -- I can't remember if it's weeks or months, but it's a whole lot faster than absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. |
| gus3 May 23, 2009 2:28 PM EDT |
That reminds me, I need to water my CO2->O2 factories today. |
| caitlyn May 23, 2009 3:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:No, they dismissed anthropological global warming. There's a significant difference between the two. And there are facts supporting both sides of the debate. Actually no, not really. There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that a significant portion of global warming is man made. Yes, you can find a few scientists who disagree but their numbers are very small. Of course, if you've already made up your mind you can always find someone to support your position. Quoting:Overall, the Prius is a mirage, especially if your driving isn't predominantly stop and go in-town driving. Again, not so. 70% of Americans do live in major metro areas and their driving is in city traffic and involves a lot of stop and go. For them the Prius does make sense. If you live someplace like rural Montana and do mainly highway driving then the Prius is a very poor choice. I never suggested that hybrids are for everyone or that they are a panacea. Even the most ardent environmentalists will admit they are interim technology at best until alternate fuel vehicles or fully electric vehicles are ready for mass consumption. As you yourself pointed out a Prius (family car) vs. a BMW M3 (itty bitty sports car) on a wide open test track is not a fair test. It's the ideal situation for the M3 and anything but for the Prius. It reminds me of some of Microsoft's studies that claim Windows is more secure, offers better performance, and lower total cost than Linux. For 99% of the people it just isn't true but if you cherry pick your results you can make them say anything you want. Quoting:As to the ":anti-environmental crowd", I don't know who that is, Oh sure you do. It's mostly people on the political right who place short-term economic gain ahead of any environmental concern. It's not the entire political right, of course. There is a growing environmentalism among evangelical Christians in the U.S. who have come to believe that being good stewards of the planet is part of their calling. Quoting:As to anthropological global warming, it seems wrong to be dismissive. Admittedly, even its proponents have gone wobbly and now prefer the meaningless term "climate change". I don't know if it's "going wobbly" as much as admitting that the process is complex and will result in different changes in different places even as the mean temperature of the planet rises. For example, there is concern that if the north polar ice cap melts quickly enough and dumps enough fresh water into the northern oceans the Jet Stream could effectively stop, at least temporarily. That would put the British Isles, France, and much of northern Europe in a deep freeze. Quoting:here is a common interest kicker in all of this: Our need to stop burning petroleum. When petroleum fuels were cheap, readily available, and provided by a number of competing sources, it made sense as a fuel. Last year's price run-up should have demonstrated to everyone that we can no longer afford to depend on petroleum for fuel. Precisely. In addition to the environmental and economic arguments there is also a very real foreign policy and national defense argument for those of us in the West. Much of that oil comes from countries that range from somewhat to overtly hostile nations: Arab countries, Iran, Venezuela under Chavez, etc... We are transferring wealth to those countries at an alarming rate and becoming increasingly dependent on regimes that could cut us off in the event of some sort of conflict. An argument for energy independence can be made in purely conservative terms from a national security standpoint. azerthoth: Oh B.S.! Perhaps we should defoliate the entire planet too since plants emit lots of CO2 at night. Get real! Yes, there are plenty of natural sources of carbon dioxide. The point is that all the crap we spew into the atmosphere, not just carbon dioxide, has negative effects on human health and the health of the planet as a whole. We do have a great degree of control over how much we pollute and we can reduce that amount drastically if there is public will and motivation to do so. |
| azerthoth May 23, 2009 3:33 PM EDT |
who said anything about co2? thats not the most effective green house gas by about a factor of 10. *edit* http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2004/es399/lec02.html */edit* |
| dinotrac May 23, 2009 3:41 PM EDT |
Caitlyn - I think you misread azer's comment. Cows really, really are a problem. Not only are they fairly expensive in terms of how much grain it takes to create a pound of meat, (or half a kilogram in the rest of the world) but their digestive process gives off bunches of methane. Agricultural scientists are studying different kinds of feed to cut down the methane emissions. Honest. As to the Prius: I'm sure it's a good choice for some people with certain driving habits who don't much care for cars. Personally, I would take a Mini over a Prius any day. But -- you said something that ain't quite right. It's very different to say that somebody lives in a metropolitan area than to say they do mostly city driving. I live in the Chicago metropolitan area, and we need to travel all of 2 miles to be in corn and soybean country. Nearly 50% more people live in suburbs than in cities, and the remainder live in rural areas. Suburban driving can look like city driving and it can look like rural driving, depending on the road and the time of day. |
| jdixon May 23, 2009 6:21 PM EDT |
> There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that a significant portion of global warming is man made... Neither overwhelming nor consensus, IMO, but that and a credit card will get you a cup of coffee. In any case, good science does not depend on consensus. > Of course, if you've already made up your mind you can always find someone to support your position. Yep. :) > There is a growing environmentalism among evangelical Christians in the U.S. who have come to believe that being good stewards of the planet is part of their calling. Christian (typo corrected) have always believed that. At most, it's their understanding of what being a good steward is that has changed. > I don't know if it's "going wobbly" as much as admitting that the process is complex and will result in different changes in differe.nt places even as the mean temperature of the planet rises. It can also be reasonably modeled, as "Sorry, but we only a a very limited clue as to what we're doing here, and everything we tell you today may be proven completely wrong tomorrow." > Precisely. In addition to the environmental and economic arguments there is also a very real foreign policy and national defense argument for those of us in the West. Agreed completely. > Oh B.S.! Exactly, though in this case more so flatulence. And, of course, the cows contribute too. It is a serious concern. |
| caitlyn May 23, 2009 7:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:In any case, good science does not depend on consensus. Perhaps not but the top scientists in the field all seem to believe that global warming is real. Quoting:Christian have always believed that. At most, it's their understanding of what being a good steward is that has changed. I thought that's what I said. Quoting:It can also be reasonably modeled, as "Sorry, but we only a a very limited clue as to what we're doing here, and everything we tell you today may be proven completely wrong tomorrow."' Only in the imagination of conservatives spinning right wing talking points. You'll be pleased to know that I haven't eaten beef since 1984. I also far prefer soy milk to cow's milk. |
| dinotrac May 23, 2009 9:46 PM EDT |
>You'll be pleased to know that I haven't eaten beef since 1984. Don't make no never-mind to me, but I'm sure that a cow is thinking kind thoughts about you as I type. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 24, 2009 12:05 AM EDT |
You know, Taser's only work if I'm in the same room as you people...darn it! ;-) |
| caitlyn May 24, 2009 12:30 AM EDT |
dino: I wonder if it's one of those feral cows on Akutan Island in the Aleutians. Those are free as in freedom cows. They won't ever be hamburger. hkwint: If wearing socks makes me a commie what does wearing the beige slacks I wore today make me? They were made in Jordan. |
| montezuma May 24, 2009 8:15 AM EDT |
Scott,
Here's a suggestion which is constructively meant: Get rid of your TOS re political discussion. It seems to me that a large percentage of your regulars here are just itching to introduce political agendas whether it be Libertarian or liberal. This thread is a classic example. Seems to be the nature of linux types to be strongly opinionated whether we or you like it or not. Perhaps you should open a subforum for political discourse and dump all threads that veer OT into this area into that arena. It would simplify my reading of this site that's for sure. |
| dinotrac May 24, 2009 9:23 AM EDT |
Hey look, this one started out that way.
Anybody who claims they expected to find lots of linux stuff in this thread is lying. OTOH -- I'll bet you could make a really cool cow management system with Ror on Apache through Passenger on a Linux server. Run it on MIPS or atom or something like that, and get some green appeal while you're at it. |
| caitlyn May 24, 2009 9:45 AM EDT |
I have a different suggestion than Montezuma. ENFORCE THE TOS! I would NEVER have gone political but the thread turned into two people posting right wing talking points feeding off one another. I couldn't let that sort of nonsense go unanswered. |
| dinotrac May 24, 2009 9:51 AM EDT |
Right wing talking points?
Sigh. The 1984 crowd strikes again. Am torn. Would rather see the TOS enforced than to see Lxer become just another enclave for Big Brother 2009, but shutting off discussion just hands the game to BB. |
| jdixon May 24, 2009 12:30 PM EDT |
> You know, Taser's only work if I'm in the same room as you people...darn it! Now Scott, I've been playing nice. :) |
| azerthoth May 24, 2009 12:41 PM EDT |
nevermind |
You cannot post until you login.