Slashdot Mirror

Two easier to read commentaries in Nature and Science

Sure, much of the fat epidemic in the US might be because of high fructose, but more likely it's because you eat more sugar and carbon hydrates and less fat. I know many type II diabetics that can stop medication by eating a diet high in saturated fats and low in carbon hydrates (5% carbon hydrates, 20% protein and 75% fat (energy %)). Myself I'm not a diabetic, but when I slowly started getting overweight in my late twenties I changed my diet to the above and I lost the extra weight I had put on in about 4 weeks (maybe 13 pounds).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/291/ 5513/2536
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/taubes.html

"Journals (Science [biggest journal, of the America Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)], and Nature) have prohibited taking OOXML documents, because they do not correspond to existing standards such as MathML and SVG and are not backwards compatible to Word 2003 and previous. Compatibility packs do not even help.[2][3] As Microsoft will stop selling Word 2003 by July 1, 2007[4], this is a very bad precedent for future-proofing documents.

1] http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/docx. dtl "Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new .docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision. Users of this release of Word should convert these files to a format compatible with Word 2003 or Word for Macintosh 2004 (or, for initial submission, to a PDF file) before submitting to Science"

"Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new .docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision."

"Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations, and because the default equation editor packaged with Word 2007 -- for reasons that, quite frankly, utterly baffle us -- was not designed to be compatible with MathML."

[3]http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/04/math-markup -marked-down.html "Math markup marked down"
        http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12608/1023/
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/20 07/06/04/scientists_hold_off_on_that_upgrade_to_of fice_2007.html

Nature's analysis of OOXML:
"We currently cannot accept files saved in Microsoft Office 2007 formats. Equations and special characters (for example, Greek letters) cannot be edited and are incompatible with Nature's own editing and typesetting programs"

[4] http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=519 "July 1: No more Office 2003 for OEMs" by Mary Jo Foley"

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/business_ap plications/the_pointless_office_converter_delay.ht ml "The Pointless Office Converter Delay"

"Two important Microsoft topics--interoperability and Office file formats--intersect on the Mac desktop, and they brutally cross like swords.

Two weeks ago, Microsoft broke a promise made in December: The spring beta release of OOXML (Office Open XML) converters for Mac Office. "

Regardless, George Church of Harvard University questions the need for genome transplantation; instead of starting with a minimal genome, he's making useful chemicals by simply adding customized genes to existing species' genomes.

It's even worse than that to be honest. Experiments like this were how we discovered that DNA was the "transforming principle" in organism life. Basically Oswald Avery took a pathogenic (disease causing) strain of bacteria and isolated the DNA then transfered this to a non-pathogenic strain and noted the associated transferal of traits (the non-disease causing strain became disease causing). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Avery (this was way back in 1928). This is no huge leap as far as I can see. Even less of a leap toward synthetic life than when Venters team synthesized a virus (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/26/1 5440) which I think someone had done before him anyway. Or the time when Celera claimed to out perform the human genome project, when they actually included all the information from the human genome project and even then came out with a lower quality sequence http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/7/4143 .

So basically they've not done much interesting. But hay, they got a Science paper out of it and Venter got to jump up and down and say how great he is. I guess that's what matters. :)

Technologically: transfer of genome from one cell to another has been done on much more complex level: Dolly the sheep anyone (I claim that complexity of eukyotic cell beats the addtional complexity of inserting DNA vs injecting the nucleus)? True, this is the first time I here about researchers that have induced a bacterium to take up the entire genome of another, related bacterium. But it leaves me in utter bewilderment of how that is "transforming"? Bacterias are much less epigenetic compared to higher forms (one obvious result is that bacteria cells are not capable of differentiation), in other words, there genome defines pretty much what they are doing and how do they look. It is amazing of course, how old intracellular proteome of the host (including protein synthesis machinery) coexisted with the new DNA and its products, but the degree of that amazement is seriously dependent on how "related" are the host and the bacteria which DNA was injected. I cannot read Science right now, those idiots require subscription even for News...

Here's the paper. I'm not a cell biologist, but from my limited understanding you're exactly correct.

If _I_ "make the device without the permission of the original patent holder" then it's fine.

Why? It's non-commercial "R&D" use. I (personally) can use the disclosure to create a device for "R&D" as long as it's not used commercially (which might include giving it away as that could cause commercial harm to the patent rights owner or licensee).

This stands in most jurisdictions but the US non-commercial use allowed is very limited and R&D by businesses (which includes Universities in US patent law) is not allowed unless licensed by the patent holder.

There's also the issue of territorial rights. I'm sure you can find somewhere in the world in which even WO patents aren't recognised (ie outside EPO, OAPI, ARIPO, US, etc.).

IANAPA

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/ 5609/1018?siteid=sci&ijkey=kOiAnw9uhtbsM&keytype=r ef

As with all instances of pedantry I'm sure there is an error (at least) in this post!

Show me the money trail. How do you know this?

All I can find because everything else wants you to buy a subscription to view their articles says the budget for science is set to triple over the next ten years

They also go on to say the funds are handed over to the national science foundation who then doles it out to whatever it determines necessary. As far as I know, there hasn't been any budget that goes specifically to physics or particle physics. It has been done this way for the last 25 years that I have payed attention with the exception of earmarking for things like Aids, cancer and global warming research.

Now, the current funding is being spent on global warming and not physics because the doom and gloom is proving more interesting to the NSF then physics is at the moment. This is why whenever someone says Exxon has everything to lose and the global warming scientist have nothing to lose, the counter answer is alway they could lose their funding. If you think the president or congress should provide money singled out for physics research, then suggest that. But don't blame the president for doing something that is a direct result of the researchers now being as creative in making their projects as interesting as the doom and gloom the global warming crowd has. I suggest that instead of requesting funding to monitor the interactions of elements of atoms, you ask for funding to monitor the interactions of elements of atoms in hopes to find a way to fix global warming.

It is like that game "in the bed" were you end every sentence with in the bed. Look at tom run a race "in the bed". Tom was the first to finish "in the bed". Except change the "in the bed" to "for global warming" and you will get all the funding you need. And this isn't the evil politicking of one man causing this. It is the pressures from everyone preaching the end of the world with global warming that is causing the interest to be focused in those areas "in the bed". Man that is a fun game.

Now, keep this in mind, This article describes a situation were some in congress had their priorities in the wrong places on both sides of the isle. But it also describes members of both sides coming around to more sound thinking at the last minute. It also provided an 8% increase in funding which is in line with the presidents stated initiatives he made us aware of in 2006. And again, no one has cut funding to physic research. It is only that the funding is being used differently. You cannot claim a funding was cut when there wasn't a specific allotment by law (entitlement) to them.

Now, if you are confused about NASA funding and the physics research they do, it is two different things. Here is an article describing the problems with funding NASA and come to the exact opposite conclusion you have about Bush not funding anything. It was a republican senator who stood his ground and made sure NASA got all it's funding.

Again, show me the money trail, What beside a few ranting from people who won't verify the misconstrued facts presented to them makes you believe that Bush has it in for physic? I have went above what I would consider necessary to show this isn't the picture. Now show me that I am wrong. Show me that this is more then some political posturing because someone has a stiffy for Bush and thinks everyone will jump on the bashing bandwagon too. I want to see your proof.

It's a fairly general argument, and you're absolutely right that, just like evolution, there's a spectrum of varying theories. The publications that show a low or minimal interaction, really just show that there's at least a low or minimal interaction, but they make no attempt to rule out a stronger interaction (to the best of my knowledge). They say the evidence for a stronger interaction is inconclusive, which certain people in the industry take to mean that AGW isn't real. On the other hand, a relatively recent article in Science demonstrates the validity of some of the previous predictions made using an AGW model.

That's censorship, not science.

What is? The truth?

Alternative fuels basically require us to replace every car, truck, and generator in the developed (and the developing) world.

are we causing global warming ? Good question, we're not actually sure, and we don't understand the mechanism behind it (if so, please point to an accurate climate model, we can maybe tolerate 1% error margin, but certainly no more than that)

Furthermore. Climate models currently have (at best) 20% error margin PER YEAR. That means that we can predict what global warming is going to do next year, but after that the error is bigger than the measurement. After 5 years there is no signal left.

Alternative fuels basically require us to replace every car, truck, and generator in the developed (and the developing) world.

are we causing global warming ? Good question, we're not actually sure, and we don't understand the mechanism behind it (if so, please point to an accurate climate model, we can maybe tolerate 1% error margin, but certainly no more than that)

Furthermore. Climate models currently have (at best) 20% error margin PER YEAR. That means that we can predict what global warming is going to do next year, but after that the error is bigger than the measurement. After 5 years there is no signal left.

They're also advocating the some of the most alarmist idiotic rhetoric be toned down.

Warming does not increase storminess or desertification - cooling does. That's one of the most fundamental axioms of meteorology because weather is fundamentally a function of the difference in heat energy between one part of the atmosphere and another.

Defending the Niwa record, Dr Renwick said his organisation was doing as well as any other weather forecaster around the world. He was quoted by the country's leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald as saying: "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: "The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two."

I'm sure you've heard the difference between climate and weather, so maybe you're not making that mistake - but it sure seems like you are. Of course, in your defense, it sounds like Dr. Renwick isn't helping matters.

Anyways, if you want to read up on prediction verification, here's an interesting article.

No, all the serious scientific organizations.

Really.

All of them.

Seriously, for real.

Yes.

All of them.

No, really.

It's true.

Did the message get through, yet? Look, here's a scientific study of the fact that all climate scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/ 5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&store d_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31 /2004

Believe it yet?

It's true.

If you have full text access to Science the relevant article is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/583 1/1585

The differences between Microsoft's proposed open standard OpenXML and IBM/Sun's ODF standard in terms of functionality they're virtually interchangable.

Actually, this is not true. A striking example is the fact that Microsoft Word 2007 uses an equation editor that generates Microsoft's own new equation description language which is not compatible with MathML and cannot be translated into ODF or even into other Microsoft formats except as graphics. As a result, Science magazine is refusing to accept manuscripts containing math generated by Microsoft's new equation editor. Here are Science's instructions to authors.

Where did you pull that 100GPa number from? From what I have read, the theoretical strength is closer to 300GPa.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287 /5453/637

Yes, it will be difficult to produce cables of sufficient quality, but I find it surprising how many people are willing to make such unfounded claims of impossibility. It may not happen in the near future, but if the theoretical strength is even remotely close to reality, the space elevator is basically a certainty.

They are quite cognisant of TeX. There is extensive submission guidlines.

"Please do not send TeX or LaTeX files for your initial submission. Convert the files to PostScript or PDF instead. [Important: Screen legibility of the PostScript or PDF file is essential for rapid and thorough evaluation of your manuscript; please ensure that the .ps or .pdf file you generate from your TeX/LaTeX source does not include Type 3 bitmapped fonts.]

Although we do not accept TeX and LaTeX source for initial manuscript submission, these formats are acceptable for manuscripts that have been revised after peer review. To save time at this later stage, authors using these packages for their initial submission are encouraged to review our instructions for preparing text and tables using LaTeX."

Nature: http://npg.nature.com/nature/submit/finalsubmissio n/SI/index.html
# MS Word document (.doc) (preferred)
# Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)
# Plain ASCII text (.txt)
# Rich Text Format (.rtf)
# WordPerfect document (.wpd)
# PostScript (.ps)
# Encapsulated postcript (.eps)
# HTML document (.htm)
# MS Excel spreadsheet (.xls)
# GIF image (.gif)
# JPEG image (.jpg)
# TIFF image (.tif)
# MS PowerPoint slide (.ppt)
# QuickTime movie (.mov) (preferred)
# Flash movie (.swf)
# Audio file (.wav)
# MPEG/MPG animation (.mpg)

Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/prep_ init.dtl
* .pdf (Adobe Portable Document Format)
* .ps (PostScript)
* .eps (Encapsulated PostScript)
* .prn (Printer file for a PostScript printer)
* .doc (Microsoft Word, version 6.0 and higher) -- note that we cannot accept files in Word 2007 (.docx) format, as explained here.
* .wpd (WordPerfect, version 7.0 and higher)

Science also specifically makes a point to mention:

Also, FTA, the reason that Word 2007 isn't being accepted is:

All the more reason we need to establish reliable mining on the moon. Concentrations on the moon are about 80% higher than on Earth. You know, there is a lot of history ahead of us and maybe Lunar mining would allow future infrastructure that at this point in time boggles the imagination.

My current research is in models of the mammalian brain - specifically the CA3 region of the hippocampus, if that means anything to you. These models are highly non-linear, and yet I'm able to make predictions that can then be verified by experiments with live animals. (I don't actually do those experiments with live animals - others do.) These models further our understanding of the human brain. Would you suggest that I abandon my work because my models are incomplete (they are) and make assumptions based on guesswork (they do)?

As for past predictions, you might be interested in this article from Science.

I don't doubt temperature is increasing. I do doubt the causes of this change. I also doubt the value judgements used that state current global climate is "ideal" and that any change is bad. The whole argument is completely ridiculous.

It sounds to me that you've already convinced yourself. Why do you think that is?

Let me ask you a different question - do you believe that reducing carbon emissions would damage our economy?

>And rising CO2 levels means higher plant growth

Now, I just got to react on this. This claim is NOT true. Or at least. Not so simple.

The effects of CO2 on plant growth are rather complicated, and it depends on the species. And you have to differentiate between growth and yield (I could go on about the details for some pages but I will spare you that). We (IAAPP, I am a plant physiologist) think that an increase alone may have a small net positive effect on the yield (depending on the species, etc). BUT, you also have to take into account the effects of changing soil moisture and especially temperature. All in all, these people think it is highly doubtful that the rising CO2 will do any good for crop yield.

And then we are not even talking about the investments and problems associated with changing crops (due to increasing temperature I hope you like rice instead of potatoes?) and relocating of agriculture to different areas.

Gotta love the Escort Wagon, but it wasn't where Ford made money, so you can't get it now and they are having a hard time moving their previous money makers.

I think we are in agreement that trimming does not help much when one is starting from zero. And, it is this much less than population changes that contribute most to your very large number. This is why shifting off of fossil fuels is so important. Market forces may do a portion of this: you say insurance is at the root of the big 3's problems. It could be that the US will move to a less complex system for health care that will relieve this, and we can then look again at the foresight of putting development efforts towards fuel efficiency. Similarly, really large scale renewables may prove less complex than mining and delivering coal in China, or with a carbon tax imposed on chinese exports, a portion of their power supply will switch over because they'll want to hang onto their labor advantage. These are not easy problems. The industrialized countries are in a better position to move on this now than elsewhere.

1. You talked about "unverified predictions", so I thought this might interest you.
2. Occasionally (often?), I get a bit worked up about this topic and become a little rude. I apologize if I've come off this way. I get a bit frustrated repeating myself, and I sometimes forget that some people genuinely have never heard these arguments before. That's no excuse, just an explanation.

There is no discrepancy. Senator Inhofe assembles a list of crackpots with PhD's. It proves nothing. Have any of these scientists published a paper on climate change? One can find denialists of the theory of gravity, or quantum mechanics. Science is not an opinion poll. There is no controversy in the published literature on climate science. Oreskes surveyed the climate change literature here. She found that out of 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, not one disagreed with the consensus position.

What standard of proof would convince you? How much evidence do you want? There are mountains of evidence to support the consensus view that the earth is warming, and humans are the cause.

Would you be willing to accept a $1000 wager that GISTEMP will keep increasing? I would gladly wager this sum.

Look at the list of scientific societies on this page. That represents the consensus of tens of thousands of scientists around the globe.

Actually, if you scroll a couple of dozens posts up, you'll probably see half a dozen posts saying exactly that.

Sorry, I didn't think I was responsible for what other people said. Shall I lambast you because of what other people said, too?

I suppose the phrase "nobody said" when defending one's own arguments could be misconstrued to mean "the entirety of humanity agrees with me." I mean, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that, and it's honestly fairly clear I meant myself.

Actually, no it's not. If you mean "I never said that" then you should write "I never said that". Using "Nobody said that" is at best a transparent attempt to use deceptive language to imply there are a lot of other people who share your exact same beliefs. It's a dishonest argument tactic and one which does play much better than your being a fool who doesn't understand that people may legitimately disagree with you.

Yawn. Not by or for me. Exxon isn't paying me any money, and the data I'm reading comes from thermometers. It's kind of hard to bribe a thermometer. Or, didn't you know that weather balloons broadcast their data by radio, and thus couldn't be tainted? Or, has your paranoia gotten so bad that you actually believe the USGS is making faulty hardware to support corporate interests?

Ah, so anyone who disagrees with you must be paranoid and delusional? As far as I can tell you've only ever provided one source for your data. And that's one movie which was incorrectly sourced as "from the BBC" (a well respected organization) when it was from Channel 4 (a much less respected organization). You claim your information comes from thermometers and weather balloons, and we seem to agree on what both sources report. However, your interpretation of the data seems to be very, very different from the consensus opinion.

Again, this is only true if you ignore everything other than the last two hundred years. In the Holocene period we were well over 3500 PPM. In the Mesozoic we generally fluctuated between 1400 and 2100 PPM. You're freaking out over the difference between 295 and 380.

To be clear the Holocene period extends from 10,000 years ago to now. And according to what I've read "This record clearly shows that an atmospheric CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv was the rule during the preindustrial Holocene, including the early Holocene." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/544 6/1815a

The information you might be looking at to get your information might include some ice core samples that were accidentally tainted during collection. Of course, those core samples report a level over 300 PPM not 3000 PPM. Of course, I don't know if you "obviously" meant 350 PPM and were just careless yet again with your arguments. It would certainly help if you ever bothered to link the sources for your outlandish claims.

Jesus god, man, get a sense of perspective. How many times do I have to tell you we're at the bottom of a valley before you quit screaming about how we're going to suffocate a hundred feet up the hill?

I see while you certainly complain loudly about being held to the truth of your own words, you're certainly not above shoving words down other people's throats. According to the charts I linked above, on the wikipedia climate page, we're are at a 140,000 year high, not a low.

The Mesozoic period is, of course, about 140 million to 240 million years ago. More commonly known as "the time of the dinosaurs". We didn't even exist as a species that long ago. Interesting enough there is some research, like this article that indicates high carbon dioxide levels may have ended the Mesozoic with a mass species extinction caused by global warming and CO2 levels. Additionally, there ar

Actually, if you scroll a couple of dozens posts up, you'll probably see half a dozen posts saying exactly that.

Sorry, I didn't think I was responsible for what other people said. Shall I lambast you because of what other people said, too?

I suppose the phrase "nobody said" when defending one's own arguments could be misconstrued to mean "the entirety of humanity agrees with me." I mean, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that, and it's honestly fairly clear I meant myself.

Actually, no it's not. If you mean "I never said that" then you should write "I never said that". Using "Nobody said that" is at best a transparent attempt to use deceptive language to imply there are a lot of other people who share your exact same beliefs. It's a dishonest argument tactic and one which does play much better than your being a fool who doesn't understand that people may legitimately disagree with you.

Yawn. Not by or for me. Exxon isn't paying me any money, and the data I'm reading comes from thermometers. It's kind of hard to bribe a thermometer. Or, didn't you know that weather balloons broadcast their data by radio, and thus couldn't be tainted? Or, has your paranoia gotten so bad that you actually believe the USGS is making faulty hardware to support corporate interests?

Ah, so anyone who disagrees with you must be paranoid and delusional? As far as I can tell you've only ever provided one source for your data. And that's one movie which was incorrectly sourced as "from the BBC" (a well respected organization) when it was from Channel 4 (a much less respected organization). You claim your information comes from thermometers and weather balloons, and we seem to agree on what both sources report. However, your interpretation of the data seems to be very, very different from the consensus opinion.

Again, this is only true if you ignore everything other than the last two hundred years. In the Holocene period we were well over 3500 PPM. In the Mesozoic we generally fluctuated between 1400 and 2100 PPM. You're freaking out over the difference between 295 and 380.

To be clear the Holocene period extends from 10,000 years ago to now. And according to what I've read "This record clearly shows that an atmospheric CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv was the rule during the preindustrial Holocene, including the early Holocene." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/544 6/1815a

The information you might be looking at to get your information might include some ice core samples that were accidentally tainted during collection. Of course, those core samples report a level over 300 PPM not 3000 PPM. Of course, I don't know if you "obviously" meant 350 PPM and were just careless yet again with your arguments. It would certainly help if you ever bothered to link the sources for your outlandish claims.

Jesus god, man, get a sense of perspective. How many times do I have to tell you we're at the bottom of a valley before you quit screaming about how we're going to suffocate a hundred feet up the hill?

I see while you certainly complain loudly about being held to the truth of your own words, you're certainly not above shoving words down other people's throats. According to the charts I linked above, on the wikipedia climate page, we're are at a 140,000 year high, not a low.

The Mesozoic period is, of course, about 140 million to 240 million years ago. More commonly known as "the time of the dinosaurs". We didn't even exist as a species that long ago. Interesting enough there is some research, like this article that indicates high carbon dioxide levels may have ended the Mesozoic with a mass species extinction caused by global warming and CO2 levels. Additionally, there ar

Many mistake global warming correlating with higher CO2 with a global warming caused by CO2. Having perused material on the matter, and discussed it with colleagues who track this, there is no evidence to suggest that higher CO2 causes the global warming we are seeing today.

Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does, however, suggest that something is going on, and offers a good place to start looking. Correlation combined with a good hypothesis backed up by experimentation, does give you a reason to suspect causation.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is *not* debatable, simple physics tells you that (water vapor is to, but we aren't anthropormorphically changing its level like we are with CO2).

Worse is that the lack of balanced scientific debate on the topic, and the number of lemmings who blindingly need to point a finger without any actual evidence, is undermining the ability to observe and make rational opinions.

I have an idea, why don't we let the scientists work on it, and come to a consensus? That way we don't have ignorant (in the non pedantic connotation) slashdotters bitching about a lack of "balance." Oh, right, that's been done.

However, it's Slashdot. It's a populous opinion. Don't take it personal when the lemmings come and mod you down for, God forbid, positing something contrary to the convenience of their finger-pointing! :)

Not sure what that wonderful game has to do with this, but I'm all for early 90's references. Posting contrary ideas is all fine and good, but when the topic is a scientifically determinable question, and you are on the incorrect side, you're gonna catch shit. Arguing that evolution is wrong, or that gravity is only a 'theory' will do the same thing.

-Ted

[update: Damn you, NeutronCowboy, for beating me to the punch. But really, thank you. You have been a lot more elequent than I in this thread.]

You do *not* get to have the last word. Everyone here is mostly trying to have a civil discussion with you. But so far, all you've done is insult and intimidate your critics. You say I don't provide any references or resources. I need to cite only one:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686

Oreskes has sampled almost a thousand seperate scholastic studies across multiple disciplines. and there was *NO* direct dissent. This is a far cry from the "gobal warming hoax" you claim. These researchers are serious scientists. They only responsibility they have is to their own designated area of research.

What have you done? Aside from providing a link to that god-awful documentary and a reference to "the global carbon cycle" at the Umich website cited by one of your critics, you have produced absolutely squat. I have gone through all your comments and as of 2 PM PDT, everything you've expressed so far in reply to those in this discussion thread has been a whole bunch of hand waving, groundless assertions, or evasive facts. You're quick to dismiss the references provided by others but other than just those two citations, I can't find any other sources despite your repeated assertion that you have indeed provided references. In reply to my earier comment, you mention:

ice record
CO2 sedimentation
weather balloons
atmospheric temperature gradient
oceanic outgassing measurements
the CO2/temperature correlation
(basic common sense)

saying doesn't make it so. where is the reference to back up your position? Where are the figures and charts from studies that use these methods to disagree with the conclusions of our current understanding of global warming? I think your engaged in this exchange just for the sake of arguing without any genuine intention to enlighten or be enlightened. Some of what you say just makes absolutely no sense. "realistic data that predates animal life"????? "wholesale rape of baby seals."??????

In light of such bizarre comments, I am left with no alternative but to urge you to stop bothering the nice folks at slashdot and don't skip out on your medications.

this should not be modded funny at all. In Germany they may yet be save (although, I think it is a gross misconception that you would magically cure the flu with some global warming, but that is another topic), but there are far far worse diseases in the _warmer_ part of the world.

This is a Science paper about the predicted spread of malaria due to global warming. I am aware of the fact that not all scientists agree on whether or not and how much malaria, dengue, cholera, etc will increase, but to claim that warming is good because it saves us of the flu is a ridiculous argument. Of course, that is what you would expect from a paper like the one it appeared in :)

Actually we are responsible for the outcome of computer programs. In structural biology several major breakthrough structures were withdrawn with a high profile apology from the investigator. ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/580 7/1856 ) because the software they used changed the 'hand' of the data. Something the old timers thought about all the time that is hidden in the black boxes under the pretty GUIs we use these days.

Duke out

I guess I don't see the problem. Are there quality control problems with these lengths (eg, many flaws for the length)? They seem sufficiently long even with a weakly bonding resin. I don't see the reason one couldn't make an adequate space tether from Earth to past geostationary with these lengths. For example, in the paper, "Direct Spinning of Carbon Nanotube Fibers from Chemical Vapor Deposition Synthesis" by Ya-Li Li, Ian A. Kinloch, Alan H. Windle, they claim to (among other things) spin a thread with mostly 30nm single-walled nanotubes with an aspect ratio of ~1000. That means that the individual fibers were around 0.03 mm in length (if I understand the meaning of aspect ratio correctly). Tensile strength was somewhere around 0.1 to 1 GPa, far shy of the space tether's need for tensile strength of 65-120 GPa with density of graphite. The current fibers are about 600 times the length and as I understand it, the key constraint with the spun fibres was the weak binding between adjacent nanotubes. A length 600 times longer should naively have 600 times the binding energy between nanotubes (somewhere around 60-600 GPa compared to the nanotubes' tensile strength of up to 120 GPa). So that sounds to me like a thread spun with these far longer tubes will instead be limited by the strength of the nanotubes rather than how well they stick to each other. And that there is little benefit to creating even longer nanotubes.

Also, from the research note, they only simulated a neuron firing rate of 1Hz. I don't know much about mouse brains, but I know that's nowhere near the firing rate found in mammal brains.

New physics knowledge will emerge from this work. But its appeal to the U.S. Congress and the public has been based largely on its potential as a carbon-sparing technology. Even if a practical means of generating a sustained, net power-producing fusion reaction were found, prospects of excessive plant cost per unit of electric output, requirement for reactor vessel replacement, and need for remote maintenance for ensuring vessel vacuum integrity lie ahead. What executive would invest in a fusion power plant if faced with any one of these obstacles? It's time to sell fusion for physics, not power.

Lackner favors sequestration through mineralization, converting silicates to carbonates. This is exothermic and provides carbon storage time scales of 10^5 years. It closely mimics the geological carbon cycle which we are out pacing with our carbon extraction. I find his giude to CO2 sequestration http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/300/ 5626/1677 to be quite useful.
--
Get off carbon http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

This article points out that carbon can be sequestered in soil with the right mix of plants. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314 /5805/1598. Those plants can at the same time be used to make fuel.
--
Get off carbon: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Seems unlikely. If you read the actual WHOI paper (here), you'll find that there are a wide class of PBDE-like compounds produced in many aquatic species, e.g. sponges, algae, and worms (methoxy-PBDEs). This is what the paper is about, NOT about C-14 in PBDEs in whales. The paper makes the point that these MeO-PBDEs are bioactive, and that C-14 may be a good way to distinguish industrial vs. natural sources of brominated compounds in animal flesh. It does NOT suggest that whales contain naturally-occuring PBDEs, just that they contain a related, biogenic compound which is also bioactive.

Collagen proteins are also highly conserved. For example, the sequence identity for collagen {alpha}1 type 1 ({alpha}1t1) from human (Homo sapiens) to frog (Xenopus laevis) is 81%, and the sequence identity between human and bovine (Bos taurus) is 97%, an extraordinarily high similarity.

A BLAST alignment and similarity search (23) of the five T. rex peptides from collagen {alpha}1t1 as a group against the all-taxa protein database showed 58% sequence identity to chicken, followed by frog (51% identity) and newt (51% identity).

Collagen proteins are also highly conserved. For example, the sequence identity for collagen {alpha}1 type 1 ({alpha}1t1) from human (Homo sapiens) to frog (Xenopus laevis) is 81%, and the sequence identity between human and bovine (Bos taurus) is 97%, an extraordinarily high similarity.

A BLAST alignment and similarity search (23) of the five T. rex peptides from collagen {alpha}1t1 as a group against the all-taxa protein database showed 58% sequence identity to chicken, followed by frog (51% identity) and newt (51% identity).

If you're interested in the nitty-gritty details, go to http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/macaque/ . The entire special issue, including the research articles, is free for all.

And if you're not into reading scientific papers, there is an "interactive poster" with videos for the common man.

From the website
"In the 13 April 2007 issue, Science unveils the genome sequence of one of biology's most important model organisms -- the rhesus macaque monkey (Macaca mulatta). In Science, a Research Article and four Reports, as well as two News stories, detail the biomedical and evolutionary insights gained from the macaque genome, only the third primate genome to be completed after human and chimpanzee. Online, an interactive poster enhanced with images, discussions, and videos explores the significance of the rhesus macaque and its draft genome sequence to studies of primate biology and evolution. Accompanying the online feature is an educational resource for high school biology teachers, which includes teacher background information, a lesson plan, and student worksheet."

(sorry if this has already been mentioned. I checked but didn't see it)

The reason you don't see a list of scientists on the other side on Wikipedia is because it is a cast of thousands.

Very few of the people on the list are statisticians or physical climatologists.

The set is certainly non empty, but that bunch are pretty much more prominent in the politics than in the science.

See Oreskes 2004 for more.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/293 /5535/1639

1. In consideration of publication in SCIENCE of the work currently titled _________________(the "Work") and authored by ___________ ("Author"), the sole and exclusive, irrevocable right is hereby granted to AAAS to publish, reproduce, distribute, transmit, display, store, translate, create derivative works from and otherwise use the Work in any form, manner, format, or medium, whether now known or hereafter developed, throughout the world and in any language, for the entire duration of any such right and any renewal or extension thereof and to permit/sublicense others to do any or all of the foregoing as well.