march for science

[cancel2 2022]

The tube in the flask is submerged in the fluid. The end should be above the fluid.

There's that and the fact that a simple glass tube would not work very well at distilling anyway. Also nobody uses Bunsen burners in a lab, far too dangerous and the hate test tube doesn't appear to be that big compared to all the ignorance.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[Bigdog]

March for science? ... more like a parade for Al Gore.

 

[Micawber]

March for science? ... more like a parade for Al Gore.

No more like a march for science and the obverse of that same coin is a march against Trump, because Trump is at war with science.

 

[domer76]

LOL...Tom will get this but can anyone else tell what's wrong with this picture?

Yeah, the tube has to be in the headspace of the erlenmeyer, not submerged.

 

[cancel2 2022]

No more like a march for science and the obverse of that same coin is a march against Trump, because Trump is at war with science.

Trump is against the politicisation of science as is Dr. William Happer of Princeton, his most likely choice for Science Advisor. He is very much cut from the same cloth as that of intellectual colossus Freeman Dyson. Dyson says that climatologists are no Einsteins and he ought to know being a contemporary of his at Princeton.

"Freeman Dyson is a physicist who has been teaching at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton since Albert Einstein was there. When Einstein died in 1955, there was an opening for the title of "most brilliant physicist on the planet." Dyson has filled it.

So when the global-warming movement came along, a lot of people wondered why he didn’t come along with it. The reason he’s a skeptic is simple, the 89-year-old Dyson said when I phoned him.

"I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic," Dyson said.

Dyson came to this country from his native England at age 23 and immediately made major breakthroughs in quantum theory. After that he worked on a nuclear-powered rocket. Then in the late 1970s, he got involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

"I just think they don't understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."

That research, which involved scientists from many disciplines, was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming.

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

"I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."

Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during that decade."

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html


Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[Bigdog]

No more like a march for science and the obverse of that same coin is a march against Trump, because Trump is at war with science.

Some science that liberals deny ...

Human life begins at conception

Scientists have NOT discovered the homosexual gene.

Human Males and Females are NOT 100% interchangeable.

Climate Feedback loops are NOT settled science.

Polar Bears are NOT going extinct because AGW is causing them to drown to death. In fact, Polar Bear populations are doing quite well.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Some science that liberals deny ...

1 Human life begins at conception

2 Scientists have NOT discovered the homosexual gene.

3 Human Males and Females are NOT 100% interchangeable.

4 Climate Feedback loops are NOT settled science.

5 Polar Bears are NOT going extinct because AGW is causing them to drown to death. In fact, Polar Bear populations are doing quite well.

1 There isn't a single gay gene, there are commonalities in the genomes of gay men but social circumstances are just as important as generic disposition.

2 Life starts at conception but it's not human until well into the second trimester.

3 Agree mostly

4 This is most definitely true, as the great Freeman Dyson has stated that clouds are just a fudge factor in climate models. The science behind their formation is not well understood.

5 100% agree, polar bear populations have not only thrived but increased, despite all the bullshit emanating from the likes of Greenpeace.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[Mott the Hoople]

March for science? ... more like a parade for Al Gore.

Hardly and I'm not blaming Trump per se as this goes back to the Bush administration and before. The Republican Party has used Tobacco company methods to attack science and scientists when the findings of science conflict with vested interests and that's hardly just climate change. I can list GOP lead attacks on a host of scientific issues such AIDS research, vaccination, needle exchanges, stem cell research, biological evolution, astronomical beginnings (e.g. Big Bang Theory), reproductive biology, etc.

Now the extremes on the left have science denialist beliefs too those tend to be based on unsupported suspicion of hidden dangers to health such as cell phones causing brain cancer or vaccines causing autism.

However the GOP version of science denialism is more dangerous as they have taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when when science disagrees with ideology.

Much of the current day GOP has adopted authoritarianism that demands conformity and ostracizes heretics who don't conform. This works well in communicating ideology and establishing Party discipline but it alienates diverse thinkers who are the people that solve complex problems and create innovation.

How many times have we seen it in the recent past where GOP politicians have given support to or admitted believe in scientific fact or evidence based public policy only to see their own messaging organs attack them for defying GOP orthodoxy. Remember when John Huntsman ran in the primaries in 2012 and famously stated that the Republican Party can't continue to run from science. GOP voters proved him wrong. He came in dead last the primaries.

This form of science denialism which is based authoritarianism and which attacks the very institutions of science itself is a threat to our nation. Since WWII over half the growth and size of the US economy has been based on scientific and technological advancement. Science and technology have been the most critical element to our national security and military dominance that has resulted in the Pax Americana. Science and technology has played critical roles in our daily quality of life, our health and safety and increased life expectancy. Any attack on our science institutions is an attack not only on those advances but are an attack on our basic freedoms to think creatively and critically.

 

[Granule]

how fucking evil is a party that hates our best information.

Because your best information is bad for everyone, including you.

fucking degenerate.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Hardly and I'm not blaming Trump per se as this goes back to the Bush administration and before. The Republican Party has used Tobacco company methods to attack science and scientists when the findings of science conflict with vested interests and that's hardly just climate change. I can list GOP lead attacks on a host of scientific issues such AIDS research, vaccination, needle exchanges, stem cell research, biological evolution, astronomical beginnings (e.g. Big Bang Theory), reproductive biology, etc.

Now the extremes on the left have science denialist beliefs too those tend to be based on unsupported suspicion of hidden dangers to health such as cell phones causing brain cancer or vaccines causing autism.

However the GOP version of science denialism is more dangerous as they have taken to attacking the validity of science itself as a basis for public policy when when science disagrees with ideology.

Much of the current day GOP has adopted authoritarianism that demands conformity and ostracizes heretics who don't conform. This works well in communicating ideology and establishing Party discipline but it alienates diverse thinkers who are the people that solve complex problems and create innovation.

How many times have we seen it in the recent past where GOP politicians have given support to or admitted believe in scientific fact or evidence based public policy only to see their own messaging organs attack them for defying GOP orthodoxy. Remember when John Huntsman ran in the primaries in 2012 and famously stated that the Republican Party can't continue to run from science. GOP voters proved him wrong. He came in dead last the primaries.

This form of science denialism which is based authoritarianism and which attacks the very institutions of science itself is a threat to our nation. Since WWII over half the growth and size of the US economy has been based on scientific and technological advancement. Science and technology have been the most critical element to our national security and military dominance that has resulted in the Pax Americana. Science and technology has played critical roles in our daily quality of life, our health and safety and increased life expectancy. Any attack on our science institutions is an attack not only on those advances but are an attack on our basic freedoms to think creatively and critically.

You trot out the same old tired screed everytime, it is textbook Naomi Oreskes and she is barking mad. Why don't you address the issues raised in my thread?

"A group of prominent US climate experts have told a Congressional committee hearing that climate science is dysfunctional, beset by bias and groupthink, and is using a profoundly unscientific approach. Speaking before the U.S. House*Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Professor John Christy told representatives that “consensus science”, as practiced by much of mainstream climatology, was “not science” at all, while Professor Judith Curry explained that “self-deception” had got the better of far too many climatologists.

Both concluded that there had been a wholesale failure to use the scientific method in climatology, something that could only be put right by the introduction of official “red teams” – groups of eminent scientists, who would be asked to challenge and provide dissenting opinions on official climate assessments.

Professor Christy said: “Congress needs a parallel, scientifically-based assessment of the state of climate science. Many important issues are left out of government-directed climate reports entirely; our policymakers need to see the entire range of findings regarding climate change”

The testimony of all four climatologists who spoke at the congressional hearings, including the dissenting views of Professor Michael Mann, are being republished by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the London-based think tank which seeks to enhance the public debates on climate science and policy."

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=1886024

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[tinfoil]

The flame isn't even under the flask. That's some fine artwork there, Rembrant

 

[tinfoil]

I tried to discuss the science with my best friend's son, a molecular engineer, but I decided it wasn't worth my time to point out the science and the problems with it when he would simply ignore them. If you think, for example, ERSST V4 used in Karl et al 2015, that adjusting buoy temperatures to align with the warm bias of the ship inlet temps is a quality statistical decision, then climate science is for you. The adjustments continue to grow every year. A clear anthropogenic signal in the adjustments.

So your march for science is really a march for confirmation bias

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You trot out the same old tired screed everytime, it is textbook Naomi Oreskes and she is barking mad. Why don't you address the issues raised in my thread?

"A group of prominent US climate experts have told a Congressional committee hearing that climate science is dysfunctional, beset by bias and groupthink, and is using a profoundly unscientific approach. Speaking before the U.S. House*Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Professor John Christy told representatives that “consensus science”, as practiced by much of mainstream climatology, was “not science” at all, while Professor Judith Curry explained that “self-deception” had got the better of far too many climatologists.

Both concluded that there had been a wholesale failure to use the scientific method in climatology, something that could only be put right by the introduction of official “red teams” – groups of eminent scientists, who would be asked to challenge and provide dissenting opinions on official climate assessments.

Professor Christy said: “Congress needs a parallel, scientifically-based assessment of the state of climate science. Many important issues are left out of government-directed climate reports entirely; our policymakers need to see the entire range of findings regarding climate change”

The testimony of all four climatologists who spoke at the congressional hearings, including the dissenting views of Professor Michael Mann, are being republished by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the London-based think tank which seeks to enhance the public debates on climate science and policy."

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=1886024

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

Oh Tom there you go again obsessesing on climate change while ignoring the large number of scientific issues other than climate change that the GOP has ideologically attacked the validity of science. It's not just climate change.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Oh Tom there you go again obsessesing on climate change while ignoring the large number of scientific issues other than climate change that the GOP has ideologically attacked the validity of science. It's not just climate change.

Well maybe you might take it seriously for once? Dismissing criticisms out of hand without even knowing what is going on is ignorant. I am hoping that Trump appoints William Happer as his Science advisor, that man knows his shit!

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[cawacko]

fear is the fuel source asshole

If Desh calls you an a*hole you should probably kys

 

[Bigdog]

1 There isn't a single gay gene, there are commonalities in the genomes of gay men but social circumstances are just as important as generic disposition.

2 Life starts at conception but it's not human until well into the second trimester.

3 Agree mostly

4 This is most definitely true, as the great Freeman Dyson has stated that clouds are just a fudge factor in climate models. The science behind their formation is not well understood.

5 100% agree, polar bear populations have not only thrived but increased, despite all the bullshit emanating from the likes of Greenpeace.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

1. You are making a legal distinction between human life and human being. my original statement is scientific fact.

2. Liberals don't believe in "nature vs. nurture" even tho half of pre-Helenisitic Greece was homosexual. They believe it's in the genes. That the homosexual gene was discovered almost 20 years ago.

3. Mostly? ... no matter how much a doctor slices and dices or medicates, they can not turn a human female into a male or vice versus. That is scientific fact.

 

[Bigdog]

Hardly and I'm not blaming Trump per se as this goes back to the Bush administration and before. The Republican Party has used Tobacco company methods to attack science and scientists when the findings of science conflict with vested interests ...

Wait just a minute, Mott. For starters, Bush Jr. learned from the Dems that he could use the CO2 hoax to funnel money to robber baron, green corporate cronies. Bush Jr. became an Al Gorian. Bush Jr. approved more stem cell lines than needed. Leftwingers have small groups that are anti-vaccine, especially associated with the heallthfood industry, a typically leftwing industry which creates many medical myths.

Bush Sr. almost single handedly, ended Acid Rain.

Demcrat Socialists fought Nixon tooth and nail on his pro environmental stances. To the point that Nixon had to use EO to create the EPA because of an OBSTRUCTIONIST socialist democrat congress. Nixon is responsible for the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Marine mammals Act, etc.. Repub TR is responsible for most of our National Parks.

The Al Gorians used Polar Bears as the poster child for AGW to make little children cry. It was a Yuge lie! lie! lie! A British court found Al Gore guilty of lying in his "scientific truth" movie. Never ending Climate feedback loops are not settled science.

 

[tsuke]

does this mean that people in Australia and other places are trying to influence the US?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wait just a minute, Mott. For starters, Bush Jr. learned from the Dems that he could use the CO2 hoax to funnel money to robber baron corporate cronies. Bush Jr. became an Al Gorian. Bush Jr. approved more stem cell lines than needed. Leftwingers have small groups that are anti-vaccine, especially associated with the heallthfood industry, a typically leftwing industry which creates many medical myths.

Bush Sr. almost single handedly, ended Acid Rain.

Demcrat Socialists fought Nixon tooth and nail on his pro environmental stances. To the point that Nixon had to use EO to create the EPA because of an OBSTRUCTIONIST socialist democrat congress. Nixon is responsible for the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Marine mammals Act, etc.. Repub TR is responsible for most of our National Parks.

The Al Gorians used Polar Bears as the poster child for AGW to make little children cry. It was a Yuge lie! lie! lie! A British court found Al Gore guilty of lying in his "scientific truth" movie. Never ending Climate feedback loops are not settled science.

You don't know what you're talking about. The major environmental legislation that were enacted under the Nixon administration had broad bilateral support by both parties and would have been enacted into law even had Nixon opposed them (which he didn't) and vetoed them cause Democrats in Congress had veto proof majorities in both houses of congress on those enacted legislation. Nixon did not enact EPA by EO. He signed the Environmental Protection Act of 1970 into law that was legislated by Congress and which created the EPA. The Cean Air Act was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 but both Acts were legislation enacted by congress and signed into law by the President and not by EO.

To be fair there has been broad bilateral support by law makers of both parties on science policy since World War II until the 90's when the GOP took a gigantic leap to the right and adopted authoritarian policies. Since then there has been a vast number of attacks on the validity of science by right wing politicians on a large number of science issues and not just environmental policy.

 

[Bigdog]

You don't know what you're talking about. The major environmental legislation that were enacted under the Nixon administration had broad bilateral support by both parties and would have been enacted even had Nixon opposed and vetoed them cause Democrats had veto proof majorities in both houses of congress on those enacted legislation. Nixon did not enact EPA by EO. He signed the Environmental Protection Act of 1970 that enacted by Congress and the Cean Air Act was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 but both Acts were legislation enacted by congress and signed into law by the President and not by EO.

To be fair there has been broad bilateral support by law makers of both parties on science policy since World War II until the 90's when the GOP took a gigantic leap to the right and adopted authoritarian policies. Since then there has been a vast number of attacks on the validity of science by right wing politicians on a large number of science issues and not just environmental policy.

I repeat, Nixon was FORCED to use EO to create the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. Don't doubt me. Nixon led the pro-environmental fight, not the obstructionist socialist democrats.

Yeah, one stupid repub congressman thought women could control their reproduction as ducks do. It's not mainstream thought.

The only thing you're bitching about is the Al Gorian hoax, which (an illiterate idiot according to the Left) Bush Jr. bought into.