Before anyone decides to mod me down as a troll, consider that teh denialists still deny when even one of their stalwarts of denial - Exxon - has known for years that AGW was real, but decided on a tactic of "sowing doubt" http://insideclimatenews.org/n... while their own researcers concluded AGW was real.
Not being able to produce credible research to prove their denialism, they are left with a smaller and smaller set of cherrypicking data, character assassination, and the always popular "I looked out the window and its cold today - so much for global warming!"
So in moves remarkably similar to tobacco idustry lawyers managing to deny that there was proof that tobacco caused cancer when there was ample evidence in the 1800's, or creationists claiming that dinosaurs and humans romped merrily together - but nol earlier than 4004 b.c.e. - based on long discredited fossil tracks in places like http://www.talkorigins.org/faq... Paluxy, Texas - Indeed, Ken Hamm's Creationism museum has that as biblical proof of young earth creationism - the denialists are getting backed into a smaller and smaller corner, soon to be left only with fingers stuck in their ears, and chanting "Neener never never - I can't hear you!"
So if anyone has the disproving research I'd love to see it. If not, just mod me down to oblivion, and prove what I just wrote.
Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?
My core use of the internet is mainly science and hobbyist sites. No Facebook, no Twitter, My antisocial media is Slashdot. I've bought from eBay, but not exclusively.
A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.
And that book isn't going to make me look at ads for things I'm not wanting either.
This is not like "Die Internet, DIE!!" What i'm saying is that the standard model of put up a website, get some advertisement network to serve up ads, some innocent, and some malware, is badly broken. You can be served with so much junk, your browser slows to a crawl. You can get malware. You can be ad-stalked, you can get fake drive scans that tell you you have a virus, but don't worry, there's a company that will fix that for you for a fee you can end up with so many toolbars that they take up the entire screen with no room left for content.
If this was just a site or two, not really a problem. But when it's on these so called reputable site served up to you by a reputable ad network regularly and self entitledly demanding that you do it - yes, Virginia, there is a really really bad problem. If I go to a website, and get malware installed on my computer, it's their fault.
It's a world where a colleague found once that a 500 word textfile he needed resulted in 40 megabytes of crap placed on his smartphone. That crap can put you over your cap very quickly, and why should I or he have to pay overages in order to get more ads.
I've got a lot of grandmas running adblockers now. They call me because "My facebook isn't working right." a quick cleanup of the usual ad network installed malware, install addblock +, and they are happy campers. They now know that there are some sites they cannot access unless they turn off the adblocker. They've also been told that if they do, they'll be calling me again in a few weeks.
Ad-blockers are not only for cranks like myself any more. They have escaped into the mainstream. They are more important than anti virus software in keeping your system happy and safe. Without my adblocker, I'm Boom! outa here.
Doe the IAB have a wish for the internet to continue to be viable according to their model? If so, then it is critical that they come up with a paradigm that gets people to accept advertising. The present day Internet is now darn near unusable. The few occasions I have accidentally fotgotten to turn my ad blocker back on, it felt like I was on a 14.4K modem. NO! I did not pay for a fast line to be served that shit sammich.
And on my smartphone, It doesn't take much time to run me over my cap, so I almost never access the internet with it except when on wifi. I don't want to pay overage charges just to get the secret that a Pensylvania housewife found that's driving insurance companies crazy.
So if say Forbes won't let me see their website unless I turn off my adblocker? Sorry Forbes, but fuck you. How many ads will I see if I don't read your pages at all, and how many ads are you going to sell if no one else is looking at your website because you won't let them. I'll just add forbes.com to my hosts file
And if we get to a world where we aren't allowed to use adblockers at all, well, good luck with that. I'll find other things to do with my time.
In the end, I call the shots, not the Amalgamated Malware Providers Association. Your guano is not welcome on my computer.
I have no problem with them looking into the boy's comments either. It isn't infringement. Could even have been a cry for help, and imagine if we ignored a cry for help.
We just had a little incident out here, last month, where some neighbor noticed odd activity around a house but didn't report it because she didn't want to be accused of racial profiling. It made a little stir in the local news. Fourteen people died.
I think that on Slashdot, the crypto-libertarians think that report cards and receipts are an unsufferable invasion of privacy.
It's natural to assume that on a story about the UK in a comment thread about the same story, that the next reply would still be about the UK.
Is this the first time you have been on the intertoobz? It;s called topic drift, and it's inescapable. And complaints about it are right up there with "its" versus "it's".
Well I have a lot of imagination. Since you're mindlessly supporting a ridiculous situation you must be trying to divert attention away from yourself. Therefore you must have something to hide. Let's investigate that laptop of yours. I mean, just imagine the things you might be hiding!
The moral is, police should have A LOT of reasons in order to investigate you. If any silly hint is enough you get an obscenity.
Way to pin that needle to the edge, way to go apeshit nuts. Now get back to your compound in Idaho, those rabbit holes don't dig themselves you know.
See what I did there, ya paranoid shit?
Schools have always checked into odd statements by children. Whether it's because a kindergarten kid is drawing anatomically correct images of mommy and the dog having sexy time, or some teenager talking about reorganizing the high school with a rifle, you'll have this sort of thing. Nothing new in this at all.
This case goes in the dustbin with cold fusion, Vaccine-MMR-autism, and most of the anti AGW publications.
Sorry pal, but that last one has abundant scientific support and it's the AGW crowd that will be relegated to the trash can in due course.
Citations demanded, pal. You write with great authority, so I'm sure you'll have them, and change my confidence in AGW. I cannot provide any good cites for AGW denier research, so would love yours.
Let us start off with the simplest part. Why does the greenhouse effect, without which we would not exist, fail to exist, at a global scale, and what is the effect that perfectly simulates the greenhouse effect?
Or do you deny that such a thing exists after all?
Second, is what is the difference between Greenhouse gases emitted by human activity and those emitted by natural phenomena like volcanos
Or do you deny that volcano emitted greenhouse gases exist?
You have an exquisite right to your own opinions, Facts however, you cannot pick and choose from. And it might be a good idea to get your science education from scientists, not politicians.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be. None of your examples have anything to do with the UK either.
Do you have children? Although I suspect your transexual dig was directed at Barbara Hudson, When my son was in school, there were cases of white children who would write or draw something, and it would be checked out.
Did someone make this a UK only comment section?
I have no problem with them looking into the boy's comments either. It isn't infringement. Could even have been a cry for help, and imagine if we ignored a cry for help.
I'm pretty sure if the kid was a white transsexual suburban boy he wouldn't be investigated. He only was investigated because he was Muslim and Muslims have a terrorism problem.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Children and their families have long been under scrutiny if the child says or does something in school. Some times it gets goofy, such as when a child draws a picture that causes concern, and it might have only been a character in a video game, but I can tell you, if they suspect malfeasance or abuse, they take a good long look at it.
Reading through them, it's mostly meh for the Uranium - keep in mind that I immediately also brought up other mining operations. Hell, a dam containing non-radioactive but still extremely dangerous heavy metals burst last year in the USA and contaminated a whole river.
I'm not saying that there aren't concerns, but I saw a combination of 'not really any danger from the radioactivity' and outright fear mongering.
I missed a more technical and much more informative link: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uw... . Dismiss it as fearmongering if you like.
Your fixation on radiation noted, but recall that Uranium is a heavy metal as well, and Uranium Oxide especially is quite poisonous in the old fashioned sense - at least it is the most oftne observed poisoning compound of Uranium so if you are trying to diminish the importance of Uranium dumps, you probably shouldn't use Heavy metal waste ponds as an example.
U-238, which is the major unranium isotope, is no less toxic than the other isotopes.
And just so you know, I am pro-nuclear power. But unlike the stereotypical "nothing to see here" slashdotter pro nuc, I do not dismiss people's concerns out of hand. I suspect that most pro nuc slashdotters would accidentally remove themselves from the gene pool in short order. A lot of unstable energy packed in that stuff - which is the very reason it is useful. It can be handled safely, but you gotta respect it. And you have to respect it for all it's qualities.
If we're studying the effects of marijuana use on teens, and ten fucking years have gone by, then what exactly is the probability that these subjects are still teens at the time of the study?
Go ahead, get out your calculator and I'll wait here for your answer.
Sorry dude, but we're sitting around getting baked, and somone stole the fucking Doritos! Not time dude, no time, no....
Haha oh dear. You cite realclimate, an activist scientist site. That tells me immediately you haven't got the first fucking clue what you're on about and proves my point absolutely. Did Michael Mann retract his MWP papers yet? Demonstrated to be utter bollocks. Carry on drinking the cool-aid.
And here you are, with your politics only vision. I give you cites, and you give nothing. Which is not untypical
Show me the science, not your mere rehashed and thourougly debunked political outlook.
And try being civilized in the discussion. Your language makes you look intellectually challenged my chachalaca.
Please don't give us that Popper crap. Journals don't generally publish negative results do they. If you want to get published (and you usually do for career and funding reasons) there's a strong motivation to make sure you show what you set out to show. I would trust an area like physics more though, because it's so competitive and tightly focused. Everything else is up for grabs. Replicability of studies is pretty bad elsewhere.
No sorry, you are simply wrong. Your idea of scientists marching goosestep in lockstep, crushing any dissent, and deciding what the truth is and making certain no one strays from it is a ridiculous completel;y incorrect politically based view brought about by politically based people who simply are incapable of understanding that not everyone thinks as they do.
I've worked with scientists for 30 plus years. None of them fit your mold, and since anyone caught falsifying their research is instantly disgraced. Sometimes with terrible results, as when Yoshiki Sasai, the senior researcher who supervised and co-authored a falsified stem cell research paper, committed suicide by hanging himself. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... Haruko Obokata, the scientist who actually committed the fraud, had her doctorates degree rescinded by Waseda University. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/s...
The Italian group was not found engaging in fraud by politicians, Ir was other scientists who found them engaging in fraud.
The Japanese researcher who committed fraud was not found out by politicians, but by other scientists.
Remote sensing, the open access journal, found itself in a mess after Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell published a paper in it named, "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” which in title alone raised some red flags since scientists seldom name reports that way, but http://www.realclimate.org/ind... It was debunked soon afterwards, retracted, and important questions raised about the impartiality of the journal raised due to it's benefactors.
http://retractionwatch.com/201...
Even a pro AGW paper linking Conspiracy ideation to denials has been retracted, scientists will go after anyone.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/
All of the scientists I have worked with take this kind of stuff seriously. Deadly seriously.
> Mexican rapists crap
Did you even listen to what he actually said?
Or did you just take everyone's word for it?
From Trump's statement:
"When Mexico send's it's people, they're not sending their best, They're not sending you, theyre not sending you, They're sending people that have lot's of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. (sic) They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.
I transcribed that directly from his speech, and it was exactly the same as I heard it when he said it, only differnce was the slup where he said "us" where I saaume he meant to say "them"
So to answer your question, yeah, I heard what he said. He said Mexico is sending Drug dealing criminals and rapists and people with lots of problems to America.
He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.
That's because he's not actually going to get elected. My theory is that Trump is a stooge for the Clinton campaign. He's in the Republican primaries just to sabotage the GOP, but saying increasingly stupid and intolerant stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the population, further damaging the GOP's brand.
I'm completely conflicted on that theory, but regardless, it works out that way. Because for good or ill, the Republican party's pandering to their base - or actually embracing it for all these years, has enabled Trump to spout his completely unsophisticated bullshit that appeals to people with no idea of how things work. The "I'm gonna build a wall along the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it!", and the Mexican rapists crap resonates with stupid people, but his "I'm gonna's" ain't gonna happen unless he somehow assumes dictatorial power.
Mr Trump? Tear down that wall!
Hopefully this year will get the Tea Party to break free of the Republican Party. Then we can get back to allowing normal Republicans and Democrats to run the country, and the kooks can just be loud and annoying, but harmless.
The problem is that Trump says stuff and he means it. He's absolutely right in all matters. He's right even when he demonstrably isn't. He's right even when experts tell him he's full of shit. He's right even if it means reality is wrong. And don't dare tell him he is wrong because suddenly you're an enemy to be demeaned and mocked.
It is a poor man indeed that has that much money, and is so bitter.
I hate conspiracy theories, but if you wanted to suggest that this enfant terrible was a Democrat plant to shatter the Republican party by removing the kooky base they've been cultivating for years, it might not seem that far fetched. The most shocking moment was when he managed to get all the other candidates to pledge support for him if he won the nomination.
"Science" doesn't do shit. Individual scientists are the ones responsible for using it properly, and not just for their own agendas.
Which is - science!
Whatever an individual scientist does, there are others who try to duplicate the results. When no one can duplicate a result, it then becomes a question of Why. Sometimes it's honest mistakes, sometimes out and out fraud.
And the more extraordinary the claim, the closer the scrutiny.
Given that the Italian researchers were making a claim that was opposite of other research, other scientists were going to look into it. And anyone with experience in the field was going to see that the images were manipulated rather extensively.
Fraud, and a foolish one at that.
This case goes in the dustbin with cold fusion, Vaccine-MMR-autism, and most of the anti AGW publications.
It just science being science. We can be wrong, but usually only for a while, and scientists, being skeptikal by nature, can smell fraud a mile away.
The best test I know to see if you are on the political or scientific side is to go to retractionwatch, and if you come away with "scientists are all frauds" you are a political creature. If you come away with "Excellent!" you are a scientific creature.
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Goodie! Fresh meat! You wanted evidence? You can't handle the evidence, And my little chachalaca, I will definitely expect more thasn a one sentence off the cuff dismissal
Heeeeere we GO! Wif cytaytions
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent paper in thte Medical Journal "The Lancet"
The paper had 13 co-authers who ended up repudiating the possibility that MMR vaccines could cause autism.
So what happened Oh yes, we'll go into this, yes we will.. As it turns out, this staretd a little time before, when teh good Richard Barr, a lawyer, met up with the Good Andrew Wakefield. This was a marriage made in heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As well, teh Good Andrew Wakefield recieved 55,000 pounds from other lawyers who were looking for evidence to use in lawsuits agains MMR manufacturers. But don't worry, it must have been on teh up and up because Wakefield kept this a secret from his co-authors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Turns out that the Good Andrew Wakefield and his lawyer buddy had big plans to make a lot of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Eventually, after investigations of manipulation of data, a General medical council investigation and eventual full retraction of the paper by the Lancet,
Just in case you aren't reading the citations, and I don't believe you will: 28 January 2010, the GMC ruled against Wakefield on all issues, stating that he had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant",[13] acted against the interests of his patients,[13] and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research.[14] On 24 May 2010 he was struck off the United Kingdom medical register. It was the harshest sanction that the GMC could impose, and effectively ended his career as a doctor. In announcing the ruling, the GMC said that Wakefield had "brought the medical profession into disrepute," and no sanction short of erasing his name from the register was appropriate for the "serious and wide-ranging findings" of misconduct
Maybe it's a conspiracy. But they removed the deadly autism causing agent from vaccines, that the good Andrew Wakefield said was a cause, and, and, and, didn't change a thing. It might have appeard that it went up, but considering that autism speaks seems to be moving toward a world where everyone is autistic, that data is fuzzy at best, IMO http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
You want credible evidence GMO is bad? Go to home depot and buy a bottle of roundup. Read the warning label.
Until someone can explain with a straight face how Roundup r
So butteflys didn't actually die fro BT crops? Bees are not sick?
In case you haven't noticed, organic farmers spray their crops with Bt. In fact, here's a nice unscientific Food Religion site for you that shows how to properly use Bt on organic plants in your "locally fresh" garden:
BT is considered copletely natural, and is as close to a godsend as you can get. What is tremendous is that it is very specific in what it kills. Mosquitos, fungus gnats, Gypsy moths. Completely harmless to those canary in a coal mine animals, the amphibians.
What is interesting is that there are a few new varieties that will take out the Emerald Ash Borer. http://www.gardensalive.com/pr...
They make a hellava mess. Probably introduced from Asia accidentally, the caterpillars disrupt the flow of water in trees affected.
The one known as BT-G takes out their caterpillars, But like other BT's they are pretty specific, and considered organic.
Slashdot Mirror
Before anyone decides to mod me down as a troll, consider that teh denialists still deny when even one of their stalwarts of denial - Exxon - has known for years that AGW was real, but decided on a tactic of "sowing doubt" http://insideclimatenews.org/n... while their own researcers concluded AGW was real.
Not being able to produce credible research to prove their denialism, they are left with a smaller and smaller set of cherrypicking data, character assassination, and the always popular "I looked out the window and its cold today - so much for global warming!"
So in moves remarkably similar to tobacco idustry lawyers managing to deny that there was proof that tobacco caused cancer when there was ample evidence in the 1800's, or creationists claiming that dinosaurs and humans romped merrily together - but nol earlier than 4004 b.c.e. - based on long discredited fossil tracks in places like http://www.talkorigins.org/faq... Paluxy, Texas - Indeed, Ken Hamm's Creationism museum has that as biblical proof of young earth creationism - the denialists are getting backed into a smaller and smaller corner, soon to be left only with fingers stuck in their ears, and chanting "Neener never never - I can't hear you!"
So if anyone has the disproving research I'd love to see it. If not, just mod me down to oblivion, and prove what I just wrote.
...on a day when there's not a blizzard happening on the US east coast. Global warming my foot!
It's warmer down south than it is in the winter.
Really?
Really.
Are you ready for an internet consisting of only user forums (like slashdot) and the remaining 1000 paid-only sites?
My core use of the internet is mainly science and hobbyist sites. No Facebook, no Twitter, My antisocial media is Slashdot. I've bought from eBay, but not exclusively.
A good chunk of the internet contains low-quality and free content (like those free newspaper stands in downtown). If you want high quality content, go to a bookstore or music store and pay $$$.
And that book isn't going to make me look at ads for things I'm not wanting either.
This is not like "Die Internet, DIE!!" What i'm saying is that the standard model of put up a website, get some advertisement network to serve up ads, some innocent, and some malware, is badly broken. You can be served with so much junk, your browser slows to a crawl. You can get malware. You can be ad-stalked, you can get fake drive scans that tell you you have a virus, but don't worry, there's a company that will fix that for you for a fee you can end up with so many toolbars that they take up the entire screen with no room left for content.
If this was just a site or two, not really a problem. But when it's on these so called reputable site served up to you by a reputable ad network regularly and self entitledly demanding that you do it - yes, Virginia, there is a really really bad problem. If I go to a website, and get malware installed on my computer, it's their fault.
It's a world where a colleague found once that a 500 word textfile he needed resulted in 40 megabytes of crap placed on his smartphone. That crap can put you over your cap very quickly, and why should I or he have to pay overages in order to get more ads.
I've got a lot of grandmas running adblockers now. They call me because "My facebook isn't working right." a quick cleanup of the usual ad network installed malware, install addblock +, and they are happy campers. They now know that there are some sites they cannot access unless they turn off the adblocker. They've also been told that if they do, they'll be calling me again in a few weeks.
Ad-blockers are not only for cranks like myself any more. They have escaped into the mainstream. They are more important than anti virus software in keeping your system happy and safe. Without my adblocker, I'm Boom! outa here.
The problem is that if ads go away, people will need to pay for content.
Good. Then the amalgamated pile of shit that teh intertoobz has become will shrink by quite a lot. Because most of the internet ain't worth shit.
Doe the IAB have a wish for the internet to continue to be viable according to their model? If so, then it is critical that they come up with a paradigm that gets people to accept advertising. The present day Internet is now darn near unusable. The few occasions I have accidentally fotgotten to turn my ad blocker back on, it felt like I was on a 14.4K modem. NO! I did not pay for a fast line to be served that shit sammich.
And on my smartphone, It doesn't take much time to run me over my cap, so I almost never access the internet with it except when on wifi. I don't want to pay overage charges just to get the secret that a Pensylvania housewife found that's driving insurance companies crazy.
So if say Forbes won't let me see their website unless I turn off my adblocker? Sorry Forbes, but fuck you. How many ads will I see if I don't read your pages at all, and how many ads are you going to sell if no one else is looking at your website because you won't let them. I'll just add forbes.com to my hosts file
And if we get to a world where we aren't allowed to use adblockers at all, well, good luck with that. I'll find other things to do with my time.
In the end, I call the shots, not the Amalgamated Malware Providers Association. Your guano is not welcome on my computer.
I have no problem with them looking into the boy's comments either. It isn't infringement. Could even have been a cry for help, and imagine if we ignored a cry for help.
We just had a little incident out here, last month, where some neighbor noticed odd activity around a house but didn't report it because she didn't want to be accused of racial profiling. It made a little stir in the local news. Fourteen people died.
I think that on Slashdot, the crypto-libertarians think that report cards and receipts are an unsufferable invasion of privacy.
It's natural to assume that on a story about the UK in a comment thread about the same story, that the next reply would still be about the UK.
Is this the first time you have been on the intertoobz? It;s called topic drift, and it's inescapable. And complaints about it are right up there with "its" versus "it's".
Well I have a lot of imagination. Since you're mindlessly supporting a ridiculous situation you must be trying to divert attention away from yourself. Therefore you must have something to hide. Let's investigate that laptop of yours. I mean, just imagine the things you might be hiding!
The moral is, police should have A LOT of reasons in order to investigate you. If any silly hint is enough you get an obscenity.
Way to pin that needle to the edge, way to go apeshit nuts. Now get back to your compound in Idaho, those rabbit holes don't dig themselves you know.
See what I did there, ya paranoid shit?
Schools have always checked into odd statements by children. Whether it's because a kindergarten kid is drawing anatomically correct images of mommy and the dog having sexy time, or some teenager talking about reorganizing the high school with a rifle, you'll have this sort of thing. Nothing new in this at all.
This case goes in the dustbin with cold fusion, Vaccine-MMR-autism, and most of the anti AGW publications.
Sorry pal, but that last one has abundant scientific support and it's the AGW crowd that will be relegated to the trash can in due course.
Citations demanded, pal. You write with great authority, so I'm sure you'll have them, and change my confidence in AGW. I cannot provide any good cites for AGW denier research, so would love yours.
Let us start off with the simplest part. Why does the greenhouse effect, without which we would not exist, fail to exist, at a global scale, and what is the effect that perfectly simulates the greenhouse effect?
Or do you deny that such a thing exists after all? Second, is what is the difference between Greenhouse gases emitted by human activity and those emitted by natural phenomena like volcanos
Or do you deny that volcano emitted greenhouse gases exist? You have an exquisite right to your own opinions, Facts however, you cannot pick and choose from. And it might be a good idea to get your science education from scientists, not politicians.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be. None of your examples have anything to do with the UK either.
Do you have children? Although I suspect your transexual dig was directed at Barbara Hudson, When my son was in school, there were cases of white children who would write or draw something, and it would be checked out.
Did someone make this a UK only comment section?
I have no problem with them looking into the boy's comments either. It isn't infringement. Could even have been a cry for help, and imagine if we ignored a cry for help.
I'm pretty sure if the kid was a white transsexual suburban boy he wouldn't be investigated. He only was investigated because he was Muslim and Muslims have a terrorism problem.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. Children and their families have long been under scrutiny if the child says or does something in school. Some times it gets goofy, such as when a child draws a picture that causes concern, and it might have only been a character in a video game, but I can tell you, if they suspect malfeasance or abuse, they take a good long look at it.
Reading through them, it's mostly meh for the Uranium - keep in mind that I immediately also brought up other mining operations. Hell, a dam containing non-radioactive but still extremely dangerous heavy metals burst last year in the USA and contaminated a whole river.
I'm not saying that there aren't concerns, but I saw a combination of 'not really any danger from the radioactivity' and outright fear mongering.
I missed a more technical and much more informative link: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uw... . Dismiss it as fearmongering if you like.
Your fixation on radiation noted, but recall that Uranium is a heavy metal as well, and Uranium Oxide especially is quite poisonous in the old fashioned sense - at least it is the most oftne observed poisoning compound of Uranium so if you are trying to diminish the importance of Uranium dumps, you probably shouldn't use Heavy metal waste ponds as an example.
U-238, which is the major unranium isotope, is no less toxic than the other isotopes. And just so you know, I am pro-nuclear power. But unlike the stereotypical "nothing to see here" slashdotter pro nuc, I do not dismiss people's concerns out of hand. I suspect that most pro nuc slashdotters would accidentally remove themselves from the gene pool in short order. A lot of unstable energy packed in that stuff - which is the very reason it is useful. It can be handled safely, but you gotta respect it. And you have to respect it for all it's qualities.
Citation on the mines causing radioactive contamination?
Ask and ye shall receive. http://www.nti.org/analysis/ar...
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/...
http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/tex...
http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercp...
http://thestarphoenix.com/busi...
http://masecoalition.org/navaj...
http://worstpolluted.org/proje...
http://technology.infomine.com...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://forgottennavajopeople.o...
http://www.sric.org/uranium/do...
https://www.researchgate.net/p...
http://nuclear-news.net/2011/0...
http://thestarphoenix.com/busi...
You'd probably do more damage blowing up a few hundred cartons of cigarettes in a dirty bomb than stolen nuclear waste,
You'd probably be wrong.
If we're studying the effects of marijuana use on teens, and ten fucking years have gone by, then what exactly is the probability that these subjects are still teens at the time of the study?
Go ahead, get out your calculator and I'll wait here for your answer.
Sorry dude, but we're sitting around getting baked, and somone stole the fucking Doritos! Not time dude, no time, no....
Please don't give us that Popper crap. Journals don't generally publish negative results do they. If you want to get published (and you usually do for career and funding reasons) there's a strong motivation to make sure you show what you set out to show. I would trust an area like physics more though, because it's so competitive and tightly focused. Everything else is up for grabs. Replicability of studies is pretty bad elsewhere.
No sorry, you are simply wrong. Your idea of scientists marching goosestep in lockstep, crushing any dissent, and deciding what the truth is and making certain no one strays from it is a ridiculous completel;y incorrect politically based view brought about by politically based people who simply are incapable of understanding that not everyone thinks as they do.
I've worked with scientists for 30 plus years. None of them fit your mold, and since anyone caught falsifying their research is instantly disgraced. Sometimes with terrible results, as when Yoshiki Sasai, the senior researcher who supervised and co-authored a falsified stem cell research paper, committed suicide by hanging himself. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... Haruko Obokata, the scientist who actually committed the fraud, had her doctorates degree rescinded by Waseda University. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/s...
The Italian group was not found engaging in fraud by politicians, Ir was other scientists who found them engaging in fraud.
The Japanese researcher who committed fraud was not found out by politicians, but by other scientists.
Remote sensing, the open access journal, found itself in a mess after Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell published a paper in it named, "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” which in title alone raised some red flags since scientists seldom name reports that way, but http://www.realclimate.org/ind... It was debunked soon afterwards, retracted, and important questions raised about the impartiality of the journal raised due to it's benefactors. http://retractionwatch.com/201... Even a pro AGW paper linking Conspiracy ideation to denials has been retracted, scientists will go after anyone.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/ All of the scientists I have worked with take this kind of stuff seriously. Deadly seriously.
> Mexican rapists crap Did you even listen to what he actually said? Or did you just take everyone's word for it?
From Trump's statement: "When Mexico send's it's people, they're not sending their best, They're not sending you, theyre not sending you, They're sending people that have lot's of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. (sic) They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.
I transcribed that directly from his speech, and it was exactly the same as I heard it when he said it, only differnce was the slup where he said "us" where I saaume he meant to say "them"
So to answer your question, yeah, I heard what he said. He said Mexico is sending Drug dealing criminals and rapists and people with lots of problems to America.
Any other questions?
If he pulled off half of what he claims, he would be 10x better than any previous candidate.
So simple, so easy. You like dictatorial powers? I have to admit, it would be small government.
He is not actually going to build that wall on the Mexican border, and whatnot.
That's because he's not actually going to get elected. My theory is that Trump is a stooge for the Clinton campaign. He's in the Republican primaries just to sabotage the GOP, but saying increasingly stupid and intolerant stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the population, further damaging the GOP's brand.
I'm completely conflicted on that theory, but regardless, it works out that way. Because for good or ill, the Republican party's pandering to their base - or actually embracing it for all these years, has enabled Trump to spout his completely unsophisticated bullshit that appeals to people with no idea of how things work. The "I'm gonna build a wall along the Mexican border, and make Mexico pay for it!", and the Mexican rapists crap resonates with stupid people, but his "I'm gonna's" ain't gonna happen unless he somehow assumes dictatorial power.
Mr Trump? Tear down that wall!
Hopefully this year will get the Tea Party to break free of the Republican Party. Then we can get back to allowing normal Republicans and Democrats to run the country, and the kooks can just be loud and annoying, but harmless.
The problem is that Trump says stuff and he means it. He's absolutely right in all matters. He's right even when he demonstrably isn't. He's right even when experts tell him he's full of shit. He's right even if it means reality is wrong. And don't dare tell him he is wrong because suddenly you're an enemy to be demeaned and mocked.
It is a poor man indeed that has that much money, and is so bitter.
I hate conspiracy theories, but if you wanted to suggest that this enfant terrible was a Democrat plant to shatter the Republican party by removing the kooky base they've been cultivating for years, it might not seem that far fetched. The most shocking moment was when he managed to get all the other candidates to pledge support for him if he won the nomination.
Because that just siphons off voters.
"Science" doesn't do shit. Individual scientists are the ones responsible for using it properly, and not just for their own agendas.
Which is - science!
Whatever an individual scientist does, there are others who try to duplicate the results. When no one can duplicate a result, it then becomes a question of Why. Sometimes it's honest mistakes, sometimes out and out fraud.
And the more extraordinary the claim, the closer the scrutiny.
Given that the Italian researchers were making a claim that was opposite of other research, other scientists were going to look into it. And anyone with experience in the field was going to see that the images were manipulated rather extensively.
Fraud, and a foolish one at that.
This case goes in the dustbin with cold fusion, Vaccine-MMR-autism, and most of the anti AGW publications.
It just science being science. We can be wrong, but usually only for a while, and scientists, being skeptikal by nature, can smell fraud a mile away.
The best test I know to see if you are on the political or scientific side is to go to retractionwatch, and if you come away with "scientists are all frauds" you are a political creature. If you come away with "Excellent!" you are a scientific creature.
The Internet of Brains! Wonder if they have an adblocker for this yet?
Being anti GMO is every bit as nonsensical as being an anti-vaxer.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Goodie! Fresh meat! You wanted evidence? You can't handle the evidence, And my little chachalaca, I will definitely expect more thasn a one sentence off the cuff dismissal
Heeeeere we GO! Wif cytaytions
In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a fraudulent paper in thte Medical Journal "The Lancet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The paper had 13 co-authers who ended up repudiating the possibility that MMR vaccines could cause autism.
So what happened Oh yes, we'll go into this, yes we will.. As it turns out, this staretd a little time before, when teh good Richard Barr, a lawyer, met up with the Good Andrew Wakefield. This was a marriage made in heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As well, teh Good Andrew Wakefield recieved 55,000 pounds from other lawyers who were looking for evidence to use in lawsuits agains MMR manufacturers. But don't worry, it must have been on teh up and up because Wakefield kept this a secret from his co-authors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Turns out that the Good Andrew Wakefield and his lawyer buddy had big plans to make a lot of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Eventually, after investigations of manipulation of data, a General medical council investigation and eventual full retraction of the paper by the Lancet,
And in 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just in case you aren't reading the citations, and I don't believe you will: 28 January 2010, the GMC ruled against Wakefield on all issues, stating that he had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant",[13] acted against the interests of his patients,[13] and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his controversial research.[14] On 24 May 2010 he was struck off the United Kingdom medical register. It was the harshest sanction that the GMC could impose, and effectively ended his career as a doctor. In announcing the ruling, the GMC said that Wakefield had "brought the medical profession into disrepute," and no sanction short of erasing his name from the register was appropriate for the "serious and wide-ranging findings" of misconduct
Here's a pdf of their findings https://web.archive.org/web/20...
Now I betchya you are just about sick and tired of Wikipedia citations aintchya? http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBl...
Maybe it's a conspiracy. But they removed the deadly autism causing agent from vaccines, that the good Andrew Wakefield said was a cause, and, and, and, didn't change a thing. It might have appeard that it went up, but considering that autism speaks seems to be moving toward a world where everyone is autistic, that data is fuzzy at best, IMO http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
There's all of about zero credible scientific data against it.
You want credible evidence GMO is bad? Go to home depot and buy a bottle of roundup. Read the warning label.
Until someone can explain with a straight face how Roundup r
So butteflys didn't actually die fro BT crops? Bees are not sick?
In case you haven't noticed, organic farmers spray their crops with Bt. In fact, here's a nice unscientific Food Religion site for you that shows how to properly use Bt on organic plants in your "locally fresh" garden:
http://www.motherearthnews.com...
BT is considered copletely natural, and is as close to a godsend as you can get. What is tremendous is that it is very specific in what it kills. Mosquitos, fungus gnats, Gypsy moths. Completely harmless to those canary in a coal mine animals, the amphibians.
What is interesting is that there are a few new varieties that will take out the Emerald Ash Borer. http://www.gardensalive.com/pr...
They make a hellava mess. Probably introduced from Asia accidentally, the caterpillars disrupt the flow of water in trees affected.
The one known as BT-G takes out their caterpillars, But like other BT's they are pretty specific, and considered organic.