Slashdot Mirror

There is a flip-side to organic/local food though - it costs more because it consumes more resources to produce, resources like energy. Perversely, there is significant environmental impact involved in organic/local food production in terms of land usage and fuel consumption. This article has some interesting info about the counter-intuitive costs of buying local.

Your argument does not fly with me. The study is clearly useful, as most (not you, of course) argue that organic is better for your health. It shows that there is "currently" no clear health benefit. Future studies might show this to be wrong, but for now this if scientifically accurate. Check out this podcast about Organic Food Myths, including that organic food is "good" for the environment... http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019

I've not read the first two articles here, but I imagine they'll have referenced much of the information I've seen in the past.

http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1190/news_detail.asp
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162

I've not read the first two articles here, but I imagine they'll have referenced much of the information I've seen in the past.

http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1190/news_detail.asp
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4162

My current science heroes are all grass-roots enthusiasts like Brian Dunning, Phil Plait, Pamela Gay & Fraser Cain, The Skeptical Rogues, Derek & Swoopy and the like.

Listening to all those podcasts and recommending them to all my friends has brought an interest in science out from purely occuring inside my own head into being a regular dialogue with people I know. It also makes you feel like the human race is actually going somewhere, instead of the general impression you get from the mainstream media that we are perpetually circling a gory hate-filled drain.

And, of course my original inspiration that started me listening to all these podcasts, Micheal Shermer, whose book "Why People Believe Weird Things" should be given to every 13 year old as part of their school education.

If I had 500 quid to get to Las Vegas I would love to have gone to this. Defniately doing it next year.

don't forget skeptoid, skepticality and the skeptic zone

Brian Dunning from Skeptoid says no... He is usually well researched. And funny.

So, according to TFA:

"This paper takes advantage of a natural experiment in the state of Indiana to provide the first empirical estimates of D.S.T. effects on electricity consumption in the United States since the mid-1970's"

And:

"The dataset consists of more than 7 million observations on monthly billing data for the vast majority of households in southern Indiana for three years."

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It would seem like they are trying to draw conclusions about the last thirty years from three years of data!

Even if their data is good TFA makes no effort to put the stats into anything resembling a context!

For example, did they mean:

1. We use 1% more energy during DST than the rest of the year.
3. During the changeover from normal time to DST we use 1% more energy.
4. Overall, over the last thirty (or is it three?) years, we now use 1% more energy during DST than our data suggests we might have used otherwise
5. etc

If I could be bothered to read past TFA and look at the original paper I might be able to answer my own questions, maybe, somewhere in between the cool sounding terms like "micro-data", they mention how they took seasonal variation into account, but why ruin a good statistic when we could just emulate our good pseudo scientific friends?

Achille and Giovanni Judica. skeptoid had a good episode about them resently.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

this podcast is always interesting to listen to and has a related episode - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085

Myself, no idea - I don't have remotely enough information to decide. However, I did find the Skeptoid Episode 4111 interesting in that it at least asks the question.

The problem with getting "The Story" on pre-1950 Tibet is that most of the information comes from two groups: The Chinese who wish to paint it as a caste system where the Lama caste mercilously ruled over the population with an iron fist; and the Tibet government in exile who want to paint the Chinese as an oppressive government mercilously ruling over the population with an iron fist.

The closest thing I have found to an independent review is this skeptoid article.

And for laughs, and an opinion not tilted by propaganda from either side, but maybe a little biased, is this Penn & Teller B*llsh*t bit.

The responses to the above from the Free Tibet crowd tend to go something like "But *THIS* Dalai Lama was a good one! He would have ruled with justice and compassion." Well, okay, maybe he really would. But history has shown us pretty conclusively that absolute monarchies tend to have more wicked than wonderful rulers.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4093

There's a thoughtful and entertaining podcast called Skeptoid that offers a skeptical view of pop culture phenomena; but more to the point, there are episodes that teach critical thinking skills.

The host, Brian Dunning, and friends also made a movie called Here Be Dragons: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, offering a nice intro to distinguishing pseudoscience from science. Here's a torrent of the movie in HD in case the site gets creamed.

Good stuff. I recommend both for audiences of any age

The best way is to be exposed to it. For instance, there is a very good series of podcasts from skeptoid.com. Each week he takes a topic, researches it, and presents it well. There are more than 100 now, and they are in easily-digested ten minute chunks.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4093

Skeptoid did a podcast about them a little while back. It's not bad depending on your tolerance for hubris and pretension. It makes a good case for the whole thing being hogwash.

they dont melt anymore

The Living Stones of Death Valley episode (January 2007, link includes transcript) of the Skeptoid podcast describes the various theories, as well as probably the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. An excellent application of scientific skepticism.

The Living Stones of Death Valley episode (January 2007, link includes transcript) of the Skeptoid podcast describes the various theories, as well as probably the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. An excellent application of scientific skepticism.

And here are the links to the Skeptoid podcast:
The podcast proper: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4021
The video mentioned in the podcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1hoiHvOeGc

I need an explanation, that isn't flares, cause that explanation stinks.

Ok, I'll play your silly game if you just want to throw the truth out because you don't like it. It wuz aliens. Seriously, as an ex Gulf War I crew chief on A-10s there is little doubt in my mind that they are flares dropped from A-10s. That is *exactly* what flares look like from a great distance that are dropped from an A-10. The kind of flares I am talking about are not roadside flares but they are much much bigger and brighter and descend on parachutes. They are used to light up a battle field and they do a mighty fine job of it. I saw show on television where they superimposed actual video footage of the lights over a daylight shot of the mountain range from the exact same perspective that the video was shot from. The "lights" disappeared one by one on the video at the same point they would have dropped below the peak of the mountain (the flares were dropped on the other side of the mountain). Really, the glove fit perfectly.

If you don't believe me here is some more:
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2007/j an/m26-005.shtml
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041