Slashdot Mirror

• Study 1
• Study 2
• Study 3
• Study 4
• Bonus article

Let me know when you're done with those and I'll find some more.

And looks like someone already thought of that http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10963-brain-activity-provides-novel-biometric-key.html as is usually the case for most things.

The Cassini spacecraft found something interesting in Saturn's rings.

Wait... what year is this?

I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“

The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.

I think this is also a misunderstanding in terms that people think are used interchangeably. "Global Warming" is solely related to the change in global temperature. Whereas "Climate Change" is related to long term changes in weather phenomenon. Global warming is not climate change - global warming causes climate change.

I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“

The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.

If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010

Incorrect. As already pointed out, some regions of the world may still cool despite the global mean increasing. (Incidentally, "the Hockey stick has been proven wrong" is a myth.

The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic.

So we should always ignore the opinion of the majority of scientists if it disagrees with our personal opinion?

Socialism

... has nothing to do with global warming. (Unless you believe it's all a conspiracy)

I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“

The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.

If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010

Incorrect. As already pointed out, some regions of the world may still cool despite the global mean increasing. (Incidentally, "the Hockey stick has been proven wrong" is a myth.

The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic.

So we should always ignore the opinion of the majority of scientists if it disagrees with our personal opinion?

Socialism

... has nothing to do with global warming. (Unless you believe it's all a conspiracy)

I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“

The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.

If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010

Incorrect. As already pointed out, some regions of the world may still cool despite the global mean increasing. (Incidentally, "the Hockey stick has been proven wrong" is a myth.

The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic.

So we should always ignore the opinion of the majority of scientists if it disagrees with our personal opinion?

Socialism

... has nothing to do with global warming. (Unless you believe it's all a conspiracy)

I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“

The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.

If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010

Incorrect. As already pointed out, some regions of the world may still cool despite the global mean increasing. (Incidentally, "the Hockey stick has been proven wrong" is a myth.

The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic.

So we should always ignore the opinion of the majority of scientists if it disagrees with our personal opinion?

Socialism

... has nothing to do with global warming. (Unless you believe it's all a conspiracy)

I had my first doubts about global warming, when they introduced the term climate change“

The general public/media did not understand that "global warming" refered to the global mean temperature. This meant it was possible for some regions to cool whilst others warmed. Despite this, the myth grew that Any cooling disproves global warming. The change in terminology was a response to this confusion amongst the public, and wouldn't have been necessary if everyone understood "mean warming" actually meant.

If the “hockeystick” were correct, we should have experienced a record-breaking hot climate in every year or at least most years between 2000 and 2010

Incorrect. As already pointed out, some regions of the world may still cool despite the global mean increasing. (Incidentally, "the Hockey stick has been proven wrong" is a myth.

The warm periods, no matter when we talk about humans (medieval warm period, little ice age, etc.) or life in general were always the better periods

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Well, science is not a popularity contest and is also not democratic.

So we should always ignore the opinion of the majority of scientists if it disagrees with our personal opinion?

Socialism

... has nothing to do with global warming. (Unless you believe it's all a conspiracy)

If you want an intelligent assessment from someone who knows the facts, you should go to Brooke Magnanti, PhD (who is smarter than most Slashdot readers).

One correction: The term used in the scientific literature is "commercial sex worker." If she went to work for the companies that made organophosphates, and lobbied to keep them selling dangerous products then she would be a prostitute.

(Although you might argue that charging $31.50 to read your paper is prostitution http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.06.835)

Belle de Jour: On science and prostitution
17:50 20 November 2009
Rowan Hooper

Under the name Belle de Jour, Brooke Magnanti wrote about her experiences as a prostitute for a London escort agency, and her blog became a bestselling book, The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, and a television series.

She has a master's degree in genetic epidemiology and a PhD from the University of Sheffield's department of forensic pathology.

She currently works at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health and told her agent: "if New Scientist asks for an interview, I'll do it". We did ask.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2009/11/belle-de-jour-on-science-and-prostitution.html

More info on measuring consciousness in the human brain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16775-consciousness-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brain.html

I don't like title case because it adds extra complexity for the author and the reader. The author must be more selective of his title, lest confusion present itself in cases like the /. summary. A writer for a professional publisher would prefer a title such as 'USAF Establishes Falconry to Protect Falcon Wildlife.' It avoids connotation with the USAF 'Falcon' jet aircraft. But a normal sentence is not affected because of the allowable nuance. It's acceptable to write 'USAF establishes falconry to protect falcons.'

I don't agree wrt skimming. That was not the basic intent behind it to my limited understanding.

Try comparing websites to see which you prefer. Scientific American v. New Scientist is the first example that I could think of. I can barely read SA, and I AM an American.

Interesting comment about cities being more subsidized. Do you have any evidence? I think that cities are punitively taxed, yet people still move to them because the benefits still outweigh the extra taxes.

For example:
Urban areas pay more than they otherwise would for telecommunications to subsidize rural connectivity
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/federal-subsidies-for-rural-living/

Fuel used for non-farming purposes cannot claim back tax paid on it. Rebates for an industry primarily situated in rural areas sounds suspiciously like a subsidy to rural areas.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/industries/article/0,,id=98980,00.html

Agricultural subsidies are a giant rip-off for taxpayers, funneling money to the largest producers of wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton. While rural residents are not typically better off for this, there are a lot more urban taxpayers than rural taxpayers.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/rural-subsidies

Large cities often impose an additional sales (or wage) tax in addition to what the state already imposes; rural residents avoid paying those taxes.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxesbycity2005/index.html

Rural areas generally create more CO2 per resident than urban areas, but I feel certain that the costs of CO2 reduction will not be assessed proportionately.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16819-city-dwellers-harm-climate-less.html

As for why urbanites still live in cities, despite all these 'crushing' taxes? One reason might be economic: earnings grow more quickly for individuals who live in cities. The analysis points to the advantages of being close to experience you can learn from.
timharford.com

So this comment might not be conclusive, but at least I have some evidence, rather than just prejudice for holding my opinion.

It's been shown time and time again that urban dwellers have a (significantly) higher carbon footprint because it takes more energy to maintain that way of life.

Now my understanding is the exact inverse.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16819-city-dwellers-harm-climate-less.html
Though I am open to a rational rebuttal. Storm

It's a moot point. Without the country people, the city slickers would last about a week.

I don't see this as a moot point. Any coder worth his salt knows the law of diminishing returns. Making the understanding of where to spend money for best value critical. Between population and carbon footprint per person - this becomes important.
I vote, and I want to have some clue as to where the carbon footprint can best be handled. I don't care to vote for some dolt that is planning the exact opposite.

It's been shown time and time again that urban dwellers have a (significantly) higher carbon footprint because it takes more energy to maintain that way of life.

Now my understanding is the exact inverse.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16819-city-dwellers-harm-climate-less.html

Though I am open to a rational rebuttal.

Storm

It's a moot point. Without the country people, the city slickers would last about a week.

It's been shown time and time again that urban dwellers have a (significantly) higher carbon footprint because it takes more energy to maintain that way of life.

Now my understanding is the exact inverse. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16819-city-dwellers-harm-climate-less.html
Though I am open to a rational rebuttal.

Storm

Seriously, wasn't Putin saying something a few years ago that he would welcome global warming, inasmuch as Russia would benefit due to longer growing seasons, more tractable land, etc.?

Here we go: 'Putin pointed out that "an increase of two or three degrees wouldn't be so bad for a northern country like Russia. We could spend less on fur coats, and the grain harvest would go up".'

According to the article, there was some disagreement if this was just snarky or held a "grain" of truth.

Actually, there is some evidence that the recent Russian wildfires, while not caused by solar storms, were in fact fostered by jet stream blocking events that seem to occur more often during lulls in solar activity.

1. Hydrogen has lower energy by volume even at quite high pressures - you suffer the same problem as with batteries, the containment system weighs more than the fuel.

Yes, that doesn't work well. Which is why research is being done on better binding agents:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227145.600-chicken-feathers-could-make-cheap-hydrogen-store.html

2. The most common method of obtaining hydrogen today is by cracking natural gas

Which is expensive. Which is why research is important to make that much cheaper:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/2936846

Don't forget that if you make hydrogen generation cheap enough you can have many local plants instead of shipping fuel all over or running more electric lines to hand increased load.

NG is more power dense volume wise, and only slightly less by weight. LNG doesn't require quite the pressure vessel, so probably weighs a vehicle down less as well.

But if you can find a way to get hydrogen out of water that's far more plentiful and easier to create locally.

3. To my knowledge we still don't have a hydrogen tight valve.

Which is why binding solutions are important, so the hydrogen "wants" to stay.

Yes I agree these solutions are still a ways off, but again think of what we might be able to do if the same amount of money was funneled into hydrogen research as we push into battery research today. Not that battery research is not important too, but if you can get hydrogen to work right as a transportation fuel it has a ton of benefits. To me it makes a lot more sense to examine what benefits you can derive from a system when you overcome the limitations, rather than focusing on what limitations a system has today.

Battery systems I think have had a ton of research put into them already, so we can only see marginal gains going forward. Hydrogen still has a lot of research headroom for interesting developments.

I have never seen any creditable study
made up shit on pro gay sites
but the truth is

A plethora of credible studies are available literally at the touch of a button, many of them suggesting a biological component to homosexuality. I suppose your findings are dependent on your definition of credible, and since you declare that you know "the truth", you may not be open to contradictory evidence.

Here are a few I found just now, but I'm sure you can let your fingers do their own walking if you are interested.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/bulgarians/nih-ngltf.html

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Something that will shock Americans: Study found carrying a gun increased the risk to being more than four times more likely to be killed. When the victim had the chance to defend themselves, the odds of being shot were higher.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Also, the big stuff (many of which are rocket stages with some fuel left in them) sometimes explodes: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10979

If we can deorbit even one *before* it explodes, we can cut the number of space debris by hundreds or thousands.

Well, at least someone is making a stand. I really don't understand the push to 3-D. Yes, it's "new" and "exciting" for 7-year olds, but, in my opinion it doesn't add any real value for the rest of us movie-goers. It's just a way to increase ticket prices.

I'm sure at one time the same was said about CGI, color, animation, sound, 2D projection, and uhh.. the stage, if you want to go back a ways.

In case you weren't aware and/or your opinion is not even based on personal experience - filming for 3D encourages creative use of depth of field. You will benefit from this trend even if you watch a 3D movie in 2D, or even if the film was not shot with 3D cameras. Unless you prefer scenes to be as flat as possible, then I'm out of ideas.

Here, a picture says a thousand words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Go watch Despicable Me in 2D. There is the obligatory roller coaster scene, I know.. but there are also plenty of scenes with an incredible sense of vastness that you don't need to literally see in 3D to appreciate. I doubt filmmakers would spend much time on those if it were not even possible to fully visualize them.

Think of the beautiful pictures we can compose with color that wouldn't be very special without. Scenes from a garden maybe? If you reject 3D, what else might you be missing?

This says it better
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19247-innovation-mastering-the-art-of-3d-filmmaking.html

Some conventions are unlikely to survive a transition from 2D to 3D filming. One is a tendency for cinematographers to use a shallow depth of field to ensure that only characters and objects at a certain depth in the scene are in focus, so guiding the audience's attention.

Objects at all depths, within reason, should be in focus in 3D films, as is the case in the real world - so movie-makers need to use different techniques to guide the audience's attention in three dimensions.

Stage plays already provide a solution through the careful use of lighting - an effect likely to be adopted in 3D film-making. So just as the talkies gave way to a period of film noir, perhaps this latest cinematographic innovation will give rise to a whole new wave of moodily lit movies.

The guy is one of the Cyber War nuts 2002 he was running with the business name of Security Posture trying to cater to the conspiracy theory nuts. Everyone already knows that Game Boys emit pilot killing rays.

OMG. Here is confirmable data, streaming in newsfeeds from all over the world, that the LHC is actually involved in a time travel paradox with a Higgs boson it can never create. Eventually the entire site will be nuked from orbit by the Higgs boson, because it's the only way to be sure.

--
Toro

I think you're talking about this (pics).

I'm a bit confused as to what it's what you meant, because while it exactly answers the description of "research based on 'remotest' as defined by time/difficulty of reaching it, rather than plain kilometres, and concludes that the Himalayas wins", it doesn't match "fiendishly hard to find", being the second google result for "remotest place on earth".

Anyway, someone sling a +1 interesting to this poor AC, who's just lost it thanks to me posting this reply.

I think you're talking about this (pics).

I'm a bit confused as to what it's what you meant, because while it exactly answers the description of "research based on 'remotest' as defined by time/difficulty of reaching it, rather than plain kilometres, and concludes that the Himalayas wins", it doesn't match "fiendishly hard to find", being the second google result for "remotest place on earth".

Anyway, someone sling a +1 interesting to this poor AC, who's just lost it thanks to me posting this reply.

You must have seen the news that Dell was shipping a trojan on one (admitted) server Motherboard.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/07/pc-giant-warns-of-hardware-tro.html

The story references a military story, where they talk about developed technologies that deform the wings into limp hanging detritus. That should diffray the issue of wind once attached to a line.

MIT students have actually been developing robot planes like this for years. They can prop-hang and take off vertically. They can hook vertically onto walls. They can fly quickly around indoors. Wind, then, is just one more problem to tackle.

Some of things marijuana helps with are pretty common. If you are one of those who has a hard time letting the idea of marijuana as evil go and therefore think it should require something severe than you are right.

That said, the cannabinoid system is a major body system that touches on large swaths of our physiology. The fact that we have an entire body system regulated by the cannabinoid is a relatively new discovery and regulations + prohibition limits research so the full impact is not yet known.

ADHD, Depression, long term memory problems (everyone knows about the effects on short term memory, what they don't know is that after intoxication marijuana actually stimulates neurogenesis).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8155-marijuana-might-cause-new-cell-growth-in-the-brain.html

Note, the research had to use a synthetic because of the prohibition and regulation of marijuana. There is a request process but in practice, only a DEA funded anti-drug facility is allowed to have research cannabis.

Really it doesn't matter. Any herbal remedy with a long established history of safe use is the criteria for an unregulated herbal supplement under FDA policy. Marijuana solidly falls in this category.

If you don't believe Breashears' photos in this news blurb, try the videos from the Extreme Ice Survey. Or the conclusion based on data from NASA's GRACE satellites that the rate of glacier thinning in the Himalayas is 22 cm per annum. Or visit a glacier and see the signs of retreat for yourself.

You are correct that someone is misinformed here. Alas, my friend, it is not me.

You mean the poor farmer in Bangladesh will experience the same hardship from sea level rise than a Miami millionaire? One loses his livelihood and the other has to move his yacht pier up 3 feet - yes, that seems about the same.

Yes, the 2.8mm/year rate of sea level rise is sure to take away the livelihood of that farmer in Bangladesh... he should start running now, or else he may never escape!!!!!

You don't realize the absurdity of your extremist appeals to emotion BECAUSE YOU DONT EVEN KNOW THE FACTS OF THE VERY SHIT YOUR ARE SUPPORTING.

No, you don't know the facts of the "shit" you are supporting. To start with, Bangaldeshi farmers can't start running because they live in one of the most densely populated areas on earth and the national boundaries there have been drawn in the 20th century to stop traditional migrations. And while 2.8mm/y may sound like nothing, try to remember that a) it has been going on for decades, b) that projection is probably too low and c) it is already causing serious problems in low-lying island nations such as Tuvalu and the Maldives as well as in Bangladesh itself.

So get your head out of your fat Western ass and start paying attention.

...and as long as we can tax you so that you never get to keep even 50% of what you earn, Al Gore is happy! His family ran out of dead Kulaks to exploit so they need your property now. Pass the carbon credits!

You mean the poor farmer in Bangladesh will experience the same hardship from sea level rise than a Miami millionaire? One loses his livelihood and the other has to move his yacht pier up 3 feet - yes, that seems about the same.

Yes, the 2.8mm/year rate of sea level rise is sure to take away the livelihood of that farmer in Bangladesh... he should start running now, or else he may never escape!!!!!

You don't realize the absurdity of your extremist appeals to emotion BECAUSE YOU DONT EVEN KNOW THE FACTS OF THE VERY SHIT YOUR ARE SUPPORTING.

No, you don't know the facts of the "shit" you are supporting. To start with, Bangaldeshi farmers can't start running because they live in one of the most densely populated areas on earth and the national boundaries there have been drawn in the 20th century to stop traditional migrations. And while 2.8mm/y may sound like nothing, try to remember that a) it has been going on for decades, b) that projection is probably too low and c) it is already causing serious problems in low-lying island nations such as Tuvalu and the Maldives as well as in Bangladesh itself.

So get your head out of your fat Western ass and start paying attention.

This is a standard list of objections, all of which are addressed by every "top ten climate myths" list every science magazine has ever published.

For example, here's the New Scientist (the UK equivalent of Scientific American) list:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

It answers all your points (I think) and several others as well.

For anyone interested in seeing what the results of this technique create, check out the NewScientist article that covers the same topic:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19181-growyourown-approach-to-wiring-3d-chips.html

Sigh. Do I have to explain this in small words?

It says it right there in the bit you quoted: marriage is an institution designed to build families. Just because a couple doesn't plan on building a family doesn't mean that they shouldn't be encouraged to do so.

Now I already know where this is going to go. You're going to suggest that gay couples can have children via adoption or other means.

So any heterosexual person that is unable to have children (say the man had testicular cancer and now can't get her pregnant) should not be allow to marry? Same level of reproduction as a homosexual couple.

Well, that's nice, but studies have conclusively proven that children do best in stable, nuclear families. We shouldn't be encouraging people to bring children up in bad situations.

Total hate mongering bullshit.

Which is why marriage, as an institution, is designed to help create stable family units that bring children up in the best manner possible.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean we should make it demonstrably worse.

And yet for many families, marriage is an 'institution', just like a prison institution due to abusive parents that people demand must stay together 'for the children' which only makes it a horrible place to be for the children.

Probably because it's dangerous to pick on serial killers as a group.

"We call this one the "Genetic Researcher Decapitator".

Also, genetics does not work that way. Either you're an epically great troll or you simply didn't take any biology at any time in your life.

So you are saying gene therapy never works to cure anything? Lets look into that,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-28-bubble-boy-gene_N.htm
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/colortherapy/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/28/gene_therapy_gets_closer_to_a_cure/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7003-gene-therapy-is-first-deafness-cure.html

So what you are saying is you'd rather continue to leave people hopelessly disabled rather than attempt to find a gene therapy? And as far as fetuses go, you can screen every fetus and guarantee that the fetuses born don't have the gene.

Indeed, either they now have it wrong, or they did less than a century ago, when they concluded that the trend was towards "cooling".

Myth: In the '70s, the best scientific knowledge indicated that the Earth's climate was headed for a trend of long-term cooling, rather than warming.

Fact: The 1970s global cooling scare was little more than a runaway media circle jerk.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus (PDF)

A more TL;DR-friendly article on the topic

From the article:

During improvisation, the highly trained music majors used their brains in a way the nonmusicians could not: they deactivated their right-temporoparietal junction. Normally, the r-TPJ reads incoming stimuli, sorting the stream for relevance. By turning that off, the musicians blocked out all distraction. They hit an extra gear of concentration, allowing them to work with the notes and create music spontaneously.

This reminds me of a recent article about lucid dreaming:

People who focus single-mindedly on a task during the day, be it a computer game or playing a musical instrument, are more likely to experience lucid dreams

I'm more a musician than a gamer, but I occasionally play a fast-paced classic such as Llamatron, in order to get into a particular kind of focused mood. For example, after a lazy day, I might use the game to crank up my brain for some academic work that needs to get done. Playing music gets me into a different kind of focus, more relaxed usually, but the end result is mostly the same.

So perhaps creativity has a lot to do with the ability to focus, and it is easy to see why it has become more difficult in the recent decades. The article talks about divergent and convergent thinking, which to me sound like a metacognitive skill, an ability to direct your thinking.

On another note, before reading the article, the summary gave the idea that CQ levels are falling as IQ rises. This was not as straightforward as described in the article, but I still cannot help thinking that people are becoming more computer-like.

I wonder if they have thought of combining this with the smog busting paint previously discussed here?

The Telegraph - 2nd March
New Scientist - 2nd March
Fox News - 2nd March
Popsci - 3rd March
Huffington Post - 2nd March
The Economist - 22nd April
The Daily Mail - 2nd March
Time - 10th March

Etc etc.

The word you're looking for, and the one missing from the helium.com piece, is clathrate a naturally occurring lattice or cage construction consisting of two disparate molecules.

Methane clathrate, prevalent at ocean depths, and in areas with low temperatures, is commonly known as the ice that burns.

It's also being touted as the new alternative energy source, with Russia, Korea, and many others seeking ways to extract this resource before rising temperatures release it naturally.

The only rub is that clathrates are highly unstable, and it doesn't take much to break the lattice, releasing both molecules, oft times quite explosively.

Truth be told, when DWH blew, the first thing that crossed my mind was that they'd accidentally released a pocket of clathrate and that set this whole disaster in motion.

New Scientist had an excellent article on this subject last June, unfortunately it's not made it past the pay wall to be cited.

The word you're looking for, and the one missing from the helium.com piece, is clathrate a naturally occurring lattice or cage construction consisting of two disparate molecules.

Methane clathrate, prevalent at ocean depths, and in areas with low temperatures, is commonly known as the ice that burns.

It's also being touted as the new alternative energy source, with Russia, Korea, and many others seeking ways to extract this resource before rising temperatures release it naturally.

The only rub is that clathrates are highly unstable, and it doesn't take much to break the lattice, releasing both molecules, oft times quite explosively.

Truth be told, when DWH blew, the first thing that crossed my mind was that they'd accidentally released a pocket of clathrate and that set this whole disaster in motion.

New Scientist had an excellent article on this subject last June, unfortunately it's not made it past the pay wall to be cited.

Since we're on the topic, I'll tell you what the biggest weakness is of the IPCC report WGI (which is more reliable): it doesn't establish anywhere that computer models are accurate. This is understandable, because really they aren't. Unfortunately so much of the case for global warming comes from computer models. If you take away their predictions, then most of the serious problems of global warming go away.

Sorry, that myth has been comprehensively debunked. Here is one of many debunkings written by climate scientists:

climate-myths-we-cant-trust-computer-models

The climate models I am running on climateprediction.net begin in 1820. They do that to correlate the various models with the climate record since 1820. Only models that show a good correlation are used to predict the future. There are plenty of links on the site showing this correlation, take a peek.

An accidental explosion in a German physics lab has led to the identification of a superpowerful explosive. The substance - an exotic form of silicon - releases seven times as much energy as TNT, and explodes a million times faster.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1103-superpowerful-explosive-arrives-with-a-bang.html

cool stuff.

There is none. That is, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations have caused the earth to warm in the past. There are correlations between CO2 and warming, but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.

This argument has been debunked time and time again.

You have mis-characterized what I said AND what your article claims. I never said that the timing "disproves the link" - only that there is no evidence of increased CO2 concentrations causing subsequent temperature increases.

The article you linked to confirms that fact. So, no, it is NOT "debunked". Why would you make that kind of claim?

There is none. That is, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas concentrations have caused the earth to warm in the past. There are correlations between CO2 and warming, but they have been an increase in CO2 after a period of increased warming, not the other way around. Of course, it makes since that it can happen, there is just no evidence that it ever has.

This argument has been debunked time and time again.

Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, although they had to grind it anyway after it had cooled down (three months later).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13606-giant-telescope-project-begins-with-a-spin.html/

Except it really doesn't work. We've tried.
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/05/08/newsflash-dumping-iron-filings-into-ocean-wont-reduce-co-sub-2/

It had been proposed sometime ago that geoengineering might help fight global warming. One plan in particular that drew a lot of attention was the dumping of hundreds of tons of iron filings into the ocean. Through wave action, the seas absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and the theory went that iron dumping would encourage phytoplankton population growth which would, in combination with zooplankton, take in CO2 and deposit it on the bottom of the briny deep. ... ...
While it seems that impressive bio-blooms could be created, much of the zooplankton poop and other carbons bits didn't create the strong sedimentation effect expected on the briny bottom.

Other stories here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16390-climate-fix-ship-sets-sail-with-plan-to-dump-iron.html

I don't know why you're taking medical advice from a physicist though.

Because I'm not arguing that children that live closer to power lines don't have higher likelyhoods of developing leukemia. I'm arguing that EMF is not the cause, and physicists are infinitely more qualified to speak on that matter.

As stated here, "there is no biological mechanism to explain the higher risk". Correlation does not imply causation, and in this case there is a very very notible absense of scientifically sound proposed mechanisms for causation.

If you want to play this just by references, then here you go. Courtesy of the paper I previously linked to you, I'd suggest actually reading it instead of dismissing it for being writting by a physicist (what could a physicist possibly know about EMF after all?). I think this trumps some article in Times..., have fun:

1. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:273-284, 1979.
2. Brodeur P. Currents of Death: Power Lines, Computer Terminals, and the Attempt to Cover Up the Threat to Your Health. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989.
3. Brodeur P. The Great Power Line Cover-Up: How the Utilities and Government Are Trying to Hide the Cancer Hazard Posed by Electromagnetic Fields. (Little-Brown, 1993, hardback). There is also a 1995 paperback edition.
4. PBS Frontline. Currents of Fear. Program #1319, originally aired June 13, 1995.
5. Davis JG and others. Health Effects of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1992.
6. Park RL. Review panel exonerates low frequency electromagnetic fields. What's New, Nov. 20, 1992.
7. American Physical Society, Executive Council Statement, April 23, 1995.
8. National Research Council Committee on the Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on Biologic Systems. Possible Health Effects of Exposure to Residential Electric and Magnetic Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997. [Press release] [Complete book]
9. Linet MS and others. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1-7, 1997.
10. Campion EW. Power lines, cancer, and fear. New England Journal of Medicine 337:44-46, 1997.
11. Day N. Exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of childhood cancer. Lancet 354:1925-1931, 1999.
12. Adair RK. Constraints on biological effects of weak extremely-low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Physics Review A43:1039-1048, 1991.
13. Savitz DA and others. Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to 60-Hz magnetic fields. American Journal of Epidemiology 128, 21-38, 1988.
14. Gurney JG and others. Childhood cancer occurrence in relation to power line configurations: A study of potential selection bias in cas