13 Things That Do Not Make Sense

thpr writes "New Scientist is reporting on 13 things which do not make sense. It's an interesting article about 13 areas in which observations do not line up with current theory. From the placebo effect to dark matter, it's a list of areas in need of additional research. Explanations could lead to significant breakthroughs... or at least new and different errors in scientific observations. Now there are 20 interesting problems for Slashdotters to work on, once you combine these with the seven Millennium Problems!"

Comments

You are your own worst enemy

[ianscot]

Except intellegence for all over the world said thier (sic) was...

Does anyone remember hearing the French guy at the UN security council, Villepain, saying that that WMD evidence wasn't convincing? Remember how those dastardly French folks were saying that going to war was precipitate, and that Bush was "following the logic of war" rather than exhausting the inspections regime -- which turns out to have worked, gutting Saddam H's weapons programs?

Do you remember how Colin Powell had to go before the security council and give a big presentation about all the rock solid evidence we said we had -- to convince the world? Sound familiar? Do you maybe recall how he later had to recant that testimony and apologize to the world for it? Is any of this ringing a bell? If intelligence "for all over the world" (yeesh) said this, why were Bush and company finding it necessary to go to those measures?

Fox News is not the only source of information about world opinion. You might want to look into a few other propaganda spigots, at the very least.

Most of the stuff was removed days before and while multi-nationalal (sic) troops where attempting to secure them.

This is my very favorite argument made by dipshits (excuse me) who try to cling to those pre-war arguments. Gee, um, if the war resulted in huge stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction disappearing from where we supposedly knew they were, and if they're now in Syria or within Iraq's borders in a situation where insurgents are basically able to move at will within a "weak state" -- then doesn't that mean the entire war was a colossal failure at accomplishing its professed goals??? Because I don't remember Bush and his loyalist cadre of junta leaders saying they wanted to scatter the WMDs to the terrorist winds... Do you?