Skip to main content

NASA global temp record by station
Deadly, extreme weather may be on the rise and Earth's CO2 count remained above 400 ppm for an entire month, for the first time in human history. So it's hard to understand why an editor from Scientific American was warned not to bring up climate change:
The hosts of the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends called Scientific American editor Michael Moyer a “coward” on Thursday after he revealed on Twitter that the network had barred him from talking about climate change a day earlier. ... A study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists earlier this year found that 72 percent of the statements about climate change made on Fox News in 2013 contained misleading information. That’s an improvement from 2012, when only 7 percent of the statements were entirely factual.
  • Neandertals may have died out, but new evidence shows they weren't so slow.
  • Meet the lady behind the shortage of "death" drugs.
  • Five conditions led by heart disease and cancer cause the vast majority of deaths in the US and many could be prevented:
    The death rate from the five major causes varies at least twofold between the healthiest states – such as Colorado, Utah and Vermont – and the least healthy, most of which are found in the Southeast, Frieden said, citing a new CDC study.
  • And the leading cause of death may, in the not too distant future, be even more preventable:
    Scientists successfully restored damaged cardiac muscle in macaque monkeys suffering the after-effects of experimentally induced heart attacks, paving the way to clinical trials. Researchers injected 1bn immature heart muscle cells derived from human embryonic stem cells into each animal’s heart. Over several weeks, the new cells developed, assembled into muscle fibres, and began to beat in correct time. On average, 40% of the damaged heart tissue was regenerated.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by SciTech.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  as a public service... (30+ / 0-)
    'Bad science reporting' poster http://t.co/... http://t.co/...
    @PolSciReplicate

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

    by Greg Dworkin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:03:44 AM PDT

    •  But Greg -- If reporters stuck to those standards, (5+ / 0-)

      there'd be nearly no science reporting at all.

      Number 11 in particular would kill it.  Not nearly enough work done these days to duplicate the results of others.

      And number 2?  Goodness!  Without making any reference to number 4, I suspect the correlation between actual findings and those reported is getting smaller on a daily basis.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:09:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you haven't even mentioned #1 (7+ / 0-)

        which deserves to be #1.

        "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

        by Greg Dworkin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:15:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even the IPCC report healines are sensational (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          Or maybe its just their graphs. Their temperature graph shows that they have extreme confidence by 2050 temperatures will be 2° C by the end of the century 4.5°C and by 2150 over 8°C

          IPCC Report 5 Sea Level Rise graph.

          At that rate over 100 East and Gulf coast cities with populations over 100,000 will be either relocated or sinking beneath the waves by 2050, and by the turn of the century the flooding will be endangering California cities.

          I don't know how we can have even the most conservative of scientific bodies saying that with extreme confidence and not be a little bit worried that civilization as we know it  could be coming to an end a lot faster than we have previously expected.

          Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

          by rktect on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:57:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I dunno. (13+ / 0-)

        #1 I think is one of the least of the media sins, especially since sensationalizing events and headlines is their entire freakin' stock and trade.  I'm just happy if, in the article, they report the actual results, rather then the reporter's opinion of the actual results.

        #3 is perhaps one of the deadliest threats in science reporting.  Shills abound - not just fossil fuel shills. but in nearly every branch of science that can be commercialized.  Their findings are used to "balance" articles or worse yet, published as absolute fact.

        I have got to say, I cheered when Neil DeGrasse-Tyson decided to out and out call out the shills in his new Cosmos, over what was done in Congress to try and keep leaded gasoline.  That's a confrontational approach that's very new in science shows, and one desperately, desperately needed.

        •  Yup. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ArchTeryx, Aunt Pat, palantir

          I don't even mind number #1 that much if it gets somebody to read the articles.

          #3 is bad news, but I suspect it would fade away if more people worked at replicating results.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:30:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  #3 is bad news... (7+ / 0-)

            ...because increasingly, becoming a shill is the only way to make a living in science.  Those of us who graduated straight into the Great Recession are finding it nearly impossible to find a job to do basic research, or even something remotely tangential.  Taking a vow of poverty (or worse) versus making a middle-class living where you can marry your sweetheart and raise a family?

            But the number of corporate scientific positions is growing.

            The horrible state of science funding and equally horrible rate at which Ph.D.s are cut loose into this market, though, are very different topics for another day.

            •  This is what is leading the US into its New (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ArchTeryx, dinotrac

              Dark Ages wherein "reality" is fabricated (in the true industrial sense of the word) by the corporate world.  The Asians, particularly South Korea, deserve their ascendancy in science and technology and will soon stop stealing our stuff because it's all AsSeenonTV.

              Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

              by judyms9 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:44:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  That's an awesome poster. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, palantir, DRo, TerryDarc, Elizaveta

      N/T

      I love president Obama!!!

      by freakofsociety on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:52:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In case you'd like to read the poster's comments (5+ / 0-)
        1. Sensationalized Headlines:
        Headlines of articles are commonly designed to entice viewers into clicking on and reading the article.  At best, they over-simplify the findings of research.  At worst, they sensationalize and misrepresent them.
        .
        2. Misinterpreted Results:
        News articles sometimes distort of misinterpret the findings of research for the sake of a good story, intentionally or otherwise.  If possible, try to read the original research, rather than relying on the article based on it for information.
        .
        3. Conflict of Interests:
        Many companies employ scientists to carry out and publish research – whilst this does not necessarily invalidate research, it should be analyzed with this in mind.  Research can also be misrepresented for personal or financial gain.
        .
        4. Correlation and Causation:
        Be wary of confusion of correlation and causation.  Correlation between two variables doesn’t automatically mean one causes the other.  Global warming has increased since the 1800s, and pirate numbers decreased, but lack of pirates doesn’t cause global warming.
        .
        5. Speculative Language:
        Speculations from research are just that – speculation.  Be on the lookout for words such as “may”, “could”, “might”, and others, as it is unlikely the research provides hard evidence for any conclusions they precede.

        6.Sample Size Too Small:
        In trials, the smaller the sample size, the lower the confidence in the results from that sample.  Conclusions drawn should be considered with this in mind, though in some cases small samples are unavoidable.  It may be cause for suspicion if a large sample was possible but avoided.
        .
        7. Unrepresentative Samples:
        In human trials, researchers will try to select individuals that are representative of a larger population.  If the sample is different from the population as a whole, then the conclusions may well also be different.
        .
        8. No Control Group Is Used:
        In clinical trials, results from test subjects should be compared to a “control group” not given the substance being tested.  Groups should also be allocated randomly.  In general experiments, a control test should be used where all variables are controlled.
        .
        9. No Blind Testing Used:
        To prevent any bias, subjects should not know if they are in the test or the control group.  In double-blind testing, even the researchers don’t know which group subjects are in until after testing.  Note, blind testing is always feasible, or ethical.
        .
        10. “Cherry-Picked” Results:
        This involves selecting data from experiments which supports the conclusion of the research, whilst ignoring those that do not.  If a research paper draws conclusions from a selection of its results, not all, it may be cherry-picking.
        .
        11. Unreplicable Results:
        Results should be replicable by independent research, and tested over a wide range of conditions (where possible) to ensure they are generalizable.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – that is, much more than one independent study!
        .
        12. Journals and Citations:
        Research published to major journals will have undergone a review process, but can still be flawed, so should still be evaluated with these points in mind.  Similarly, large numbers of citations do not always indicate that research is highly regarded.  After all the citations themselves could point to bad science.

        Should one wish to purchase said cool poster ($11-39 depending on size) you can visit: http://www.redbubble.com/...

        What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

        by TerryDarc on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:23:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my only problem with this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TerryDarc, wonmug

          is that lack of pirates is a major cause of global warming.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:20:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Clearly. I believe that was point 13 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Greg Dworkin

            which got cut off by my screen capture. Did you see the other very cool science posters at Redbubble?

            What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

            by TerryDarc on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:43:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks DarkSyde (6+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:04:48 AM PDT

  •  Yep Fox Nooz.....call him coward before he beats (5+ / 0-)

    you to it....The Old Limbaugh Ploy.

  •  ... (16+ / 0-)
    Bet you didn't realise just how huge Africa is http://t.co/...
    @HistoricalPics

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

    by Greg Dworkin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:18:49 AM PDT

  •  Dulcis Condimentum Mortem (6+ / 0-)

    Best I can divine, it's "sweet condiment (or taste or flavor) of death".

    Ars longa, vita brevis.

    Know that $20 I owe you? Well, since money equals speech, then speech, of course, must equal money. C'mere and I'll read you the Tao Te Ching.

    by thenekkidtruth on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:18:55 AM PDT

  •  i'm gonna do it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir

    because i feel that it fits.
    i'm not thread-jacking, so don't reply.
    rough graphics with a side of rough photo-narration.
    from guardian-uk. a rare success story. just so you know how hard it can be for one person to do, while at the same time rough graphics showing scary scary details of the world awaiting any fully recovered human, this graphic permits only the strongest and most firmly resolved to even get to the 'word' recovery. strong humans wanted for earth-healing job of bulldog/sheepdog/herders, as other humans are saving as they go, going as they save.

    no rubber meeting no road is hardest way to travel.
    few try. fewer succeed. and some die.

    life yesterday was all the art which i used to see while reading the diaries crafted by that wonder hover-maker, now on a well-earned rest. hope it's R&R.

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:28:41 AM PDT

  •  Why do I (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, palantir, LookingUp, TerryDarc

    Read the comment section of these articles? Feeling very depressed at the idiocy expressed. Almost poetically sad.

    F--- Scott & Fitzgerald

    by henlesloop on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:33:41 AM PDT

  •  take the DKos Science Quiz: (5+ / 0-)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:37:46 AM PDT

    •  The answer to 3. is wrong. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lenny Flank

      It matches the geometry of a Flat Earth, not a spherical earth.

      3. If you fire a rifle bullet straight out horizontally from the top of a tall tower standing on a horizontal surface, and at the very same instant drop an identical rifle bullet from the top of the same tower, which bullet hits the surface first?
      (a) they both hit at the same time
      (b) the one fired horizontally hits first
      (c) the one dropped vertically hits first

      3. The answer is (a). They both hit at the same time. The force of gravity produces a vertical acceleration that is independent of the horizontal. It doesn't matter at what speed the bullet moves horizontally--gravity still pulls it down at the same acceleration (1 "g", or 32 feet per second per second).

      The rifle bullet heads straight out perpendicular to the ground at the building. As it speeds along, the curvature of the earth appears to fall away. In fact, the rifle bullet has to fall further than the dropped bullet to intersect the suface of a smooth patch of earth.

      Ceteris paribus, "c" is correct.

      Yes, this is a very common error.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

      by waterstreet2013 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:56:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know about that... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        waterstreet2013

        ...shell from a rail gun maybe, but from an ordinary rifle? The Earth curves only 8 inches per mile.

        The Mythbusters used a pistol, and over short distances, it's true.

        Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

        by rbird on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:16:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The old 30-06 military round was built (0+ / 0-)

          for accuracy at 1,000 yards. Select for a 20 FP recoil and you get a 165 grain bullet at 2,900 feet per second muzzle velocity.

          Spec's put maximum effective range at 5,500 meters. That's target accuracy firing from a solid mount. No wind.

          Fire a 30-06 from the top of a buildings, maybe 20 meters up, there's no problem to getting the bullet out a couple of miles. The main point of the 30-06 design was that it retained velocity better than earlier bullets.

          Setup is doable.

          "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

          by waterstreet2013 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:03:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that is why it is specified: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BMScott
        fire a rifle bullet straight out horizontally from the top of a tall tower standing on a horizontal surface
        ;)

        In science, this is referred to as a "thought experiment".

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:32:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your "standing on a horizontal surface" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lenny Flank

          statement contains the central error.

          The building can be horizontal to the surface of the earth as measured at a point.

          But there's no such thing available, ever, as a mile-long horizontal flat surface.

          If you go out to the Salt Flat for speed trials, take along a good rifle scope. On a cool clear day you can see the effect of the earth's curve.
           

          "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

          by waterstreet2013 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:37:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  we call this a "thought experiment" /nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            waterstreet2013

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:47:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank God for Yogi Berra.... (0+ / 0-)

              "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

              "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

              by waterstreet2013 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:30:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, so you don't know what a (0+ / 0-)

                thought experiment is.  Or what a theory is. Or how science is practiced.

                But hey, if you want to keep insisting that all those astrophysicists are wrong, then go here to the National Academy of Sciences website:

                http://www.nasonline.org/

                 . . . go to the "contact us" link at the bottom, and tell them all about it.  Anyone who can prove all of astrophysics wrong, deserves a Nobel Prize, and if you can prove to the NAS that they are wrong, I will personally do everything in my power to see that the next Nobel Prize is yours.

                Enjoy.

                :)

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:01:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  One might also quibble with #5. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lenny Flank

      If all I know about a coin is that it produced 8 "heads" in a row, why should I think that it is not two-headed or weighted unevenly ???

      Inductive logic requires evaluating situations based on evidence, which is strongly at odds with imagining that there are governing rules that overwhelm evidence.

      Such a rule is observed here, thinking that a 50:50 condition holds for heads:tails outcomes. The proper tool for physical experiments is inductive logic, not deductive logic. Nailing weak rules is a big part of advancing science and engineering.

      (And #10 has another problem: the Sun is moved by other planets as well as the Earth. There is no such thing as a stable barycenter relative to Earth's orbit. And there is also no mathematics as yet capable of doing the three-body solution (actually more than 8 body) to consider the effects of planets, asteroids, etc. on the Sun or on Earth.

      It's a nicely oversimplified model -- the two-body thingie -- to be sure for illustrating how a stable barycenter would work.)

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

      by waterstreet2013 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:13:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The question is a common example... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lenny Flank, waterstreet2013

        ...of the independence of random events. You have revealed an equally common reaction to random events, the Gambler's Fallacy. Independent random events sometimes yield a chain of results that look connected...but really aren't. No one's cheating and the odds of a tail coming up after the run of heads haven't been increased.

        Why do some casinos display the winning numbers at the roulette wheel on a giant board? Gambler's Fallacy. More people start betting when it looks like a pattern has appeared on the display board.

        I've personally experienced this while playing poker. A thorough shuffle of the deck should yield a random distribution of cards, yet I've seen full houses come up in three separate back to back hands. At 693-to-1 for a single hand yielding a full house, you'd think this is impossible. Nope, just unlikely.

        Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

        by rbird on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:53:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rbird
          You have revealed an equally common reaction to random events, the Gambler's Fallacy. Independent random events sometimes yield a chain of results that look connected...but really aren't. No one's cheating and the odds of a tail coming up after the run of heads haven't been increased.
          And this also illustrates why pseudoscience and conspiracy theories flourishes---people are apt to see connections between dots where there are in fact not any connections--and draw their own fanciful tales as to what it is that connects them.  CT theories flourish upon such reasoning.

          :)

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:36:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your belief in "shuffling" is touching. (0+ / 0-)

          A quick read through Sean Stewart's "Galveston" might help ground that world view.

          "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

          by waterstreet2013 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:48:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  one could also argue that there is a non-zero (0+ / 0-)

        chance that the coin will land precisely balanced on its edge and be neither heads nor tails--or that a bird could snatch it in mid-air and fly away with it, making it neither heads nor tails . . .  therefore the probability of a "heads" is ALWAYS slightly less than 50%.

        ;)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  which is exactly why . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        waterstreet2013
        And #10 has another problem: the Sun is moved by other planets as well as the Earth
        . . . I go on to say:
        In fact, to be really accurate, every object in the solar system, including the Sun itself, revolves around the center of gravity of the entire solar system--a point which lies slightly outside of the Sun's surface. This makes the Sun itself wobble very slightly back and forth in space as it orbits around this common center of gravity. This principle is used by astronomers to detect planetary systems around distant stars by measuring their wobble.
        :)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:39:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which reflects a misapprehension of the (0+ / 0-)

          physics involved and of the nature of the Milky Way and of the universe. What Newton approximated with his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is perfectly good for doing orbits and eclipses and such. But that is not quite the modern model.

          There is no permanent, fixed, settled COG for this solar system. At the very least we sweep up enormous quantities of interstellar dust, for one. The mass of this solar system increases steadily and unevenly.

          Gravity affects everything. Even a single electron at 13 LY distance has an effect through gravity. And gravity is stronger where closer, weaker where further away.

          The fixed COG model is a simplification. Those limitations were rooted out a long time ago. Getting these things right led in part to advances in applications of complexity theory.

          "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

          by waterstreet2013 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:08:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  but the sun DOES revolve around the center of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            waterstreet2013

            gravity of the entire solar system.  Whether we can calculate it or not.  (shrug)

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:48:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're trying hard. Problem is, there is no (0+ / 0-)

              fixed center of gravity for this solar system.

              It changes and moves both continuously and irregularly in substantial ways. Exogenous matter is accreted to the system in significant tonnages.

              "Thought experiments" are not tests of real systems.

              Yogi Berra wins every game.

              "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

              by waterstreet2013 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 04:40:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you are quite simply wrong (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                waterstreet2013

                The sun revolves around the center of gravity of the solar system.  So does everything else in the solar system.

                When it moves, the sun moves with it.

                That is reality.

                Period.

                "Thought experiments" are not tests of real systems.
                Bu they do illustrate the principles of physics.

                Principles which alas you fail to grasp.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:50:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "You fail to grasp" is silly. (0+ / 0-)

                  The solar system is not a closed system. Not even close.

                  It is part of the Milky Way and it picks up large quantities of interstellar dust. The model you insist reflects reality ignores both factors.

                  COG for our solar system is never fixed.

                  Straining logic to support a thought experiment ??? Claiming that a simplified thought experiment represents the whole of reality?

                  You can do better.

                  (I'm trained for engineering math. Couple degrees. And decades of amateur astronomy.)

                  "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Paul "False Prophet" Ryan von Koch

                  by waterstreet2013 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:11:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  none of that is relevant (0+ / 0-)

                    The sun revolves around the center of gravity of the solar system. No matter where it is,m no matter how it moves, no matter how it is determined, the sun revolves around it.  Period.

                    If you disagree, then let's take this one baby step at a time, and teach you some basic physics:

                    First question:  How do astrophysicists detect the presence of exoplanets around other stars?

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:13:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  ps--this is where you are wrong: (0+ / 0-)
                    Straining logic to support a thought experiment ???
                    A star's orbiting the center of gravity of its system is not a thought experiment---it can be, and has been, directly measured. You already know that, if you can answer the question I just asked you.

                    And if you can't answer the question I just asked you, then learn enough astrophysics to answer it.

                    PS--glad you're an engineer. Glad you read some astronomy books.  The astrophysicists will still laugh at you if you try to tell them that (1) there is no center of gravity for a star system, and (2) the star does not orbit it. And they'd be entirely correct.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:19:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Fox & Friends...why? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, palantir

    This might the most willfully ignorant and stupid show on television. Brian Kilmeade is likely an idiot so I somewhat excuse him his low IQ prattling but Doocy is clearly a paid spokesman for lies. Whoever the woman is on the show is there for one reason and one reason only.

    Why anyone would go on this program, even if invited, is beyond my understanding. Nothing sentient can come from any association with this program.

    And as the song and dance begins, the children play at home with needles, needles and pins.

    by The Lone Apple on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:49:36 AM PDT

    •  Science Missionary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Lone Apple

      To the heathens. I would hope that a) Michael Moyer would not have gone on F&F if he'd known up front that there were off-limit topics and b) he'll not make the same mistake again.

      He could have slipped in a few well-chosen comments about the science behind climate change when on the air just to twit them. Still it's been a good discussion on their (F&F's) basic dishonesty.

      Kudos, btw, to Neil deGrasse Tyson for his profoundly scientific show and sticking it to the climate deniers, anti-evolution, anti-science crowds past and present - this show on Fox as you must know. Wonder how that happened?

      What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

      by TerryDarc on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:11:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  China and US close to CO2 agreement? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, palantir, LookingUp

    I saw this in last week's FT, but have seen nothing mentioned in the US papers:

    High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/...

    But the pair (US and China) have recently begun detailed discussions about the sensitive issue of their respective carbon-cutting goals as world leaders try to seal a global climate deal in Paris next year that will hinge on a US-Chinese agreement.

    Xie Zhenhua, China’s chief climate negotiator, told the Financial Times that Beijing’s “down to earth” talks with Washington were paving the way for “China and the US to build a new big country relationship”.

    “We should be confident that the Paris meeting will not be another Copenhagen,” he said, explaining that the air pollution choking China’s cities now made it “a must” for Beijing to build a greener economy, regardless of outside pressure.

    Todd Stern, US climate envoy, confirmed there was a new level of intensity in the talks, launched last year shortly after John Kerry, a veteran climate champion, became US secretary of state.  “The pace of our co-operative efforts is increasing and I think they hold a lot of promise,” Mr Stern said.

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:58:50 AM PDT

  •  Neans ability to think in symbols and abstractions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir

    still seems fundamentally different than ours.
    There has to be a reason for the dearth of Nean art (rare or nil, depending who you read). I dont buy 'explanations' like 'oh we just havent found it' or 'well, we just dont recognize it" (what the heck does that even mean?).
    Humans seem to have been drawing pictographs of things they saw or imagined as long as theyve been recognizably human. The Neans were fundamentally different. You can even see it in the differences between our burial rites and theirs
    Of course, you could say our hard wiring to think in this way hasnt always been a good thing either. But its an essential part of what makes a human being.

  •  I could, perhaps, be a bit more impressed IF, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    geez53, TerryDarc, Lenny Flank

    there weren't so many "Snake Oil Remedy" ads all over The Daily Kos., most, if not all, mere scams, to get people, such as the elderly, arthritis sufferers, etc., to open their debit-card bank accounts to a monthly gouge for stuff their local "natural foods store" sells already for about 1/3 the cost.  

    Not that I have anything against people taking horse capsules full of ground up weeds, in hopes of at least psychosomatic relief from ills and ailments.  BUT!  I do think a "14 Day Free Trial" - with the pills arriving somewhere around day 6, or 7, AFTER the "free trial" is supposed to begin - really should be at least 14 days; before the snake-oil peddler takes some $70.00 out of one's account for the "monthly" bottle that is hooked into the scam.

    And, when one does go to cancel the whole shebang, the spate of "special offers", to keep the snake-oil peddler's hands in the till - and the debit-card alive for further siphoning off of funds - does make one wonder.  IF the junk was really vendible for $30.00, or so, a month in the first place . . . well. . . ?

    But, that's good old-fashioned entrepreneurial "free enterprise" I guess.  And CAVEAT EMPTOR is still the basic rule of life there.

    And then, of course, we have Brigham Young University's insistence on the - totally imaginary notion - or having produced "cold fusion".  Ain't modern "science" just graaaaaaaaaand!  That whole subject reminds me of Mark Twain's squib about, " . . . such a wholesale return of conjecture on such a trifling investment of fact."

    •  stop being a old grouch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      waterstreet2013

      oh, wait...

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:25:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would be interesting to run malware detection (0+ / 0-)

      after visiting one of those Koch Bros. inspire POS websites selling "ground up weeds".

      What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

      by TerryDarc on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:53:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  to be fair, DKos has no control over what ads run (0+ / 0-)

      here. So it's not our fault if the quacks advertise here.

      What disturbs me more, though, is the contingent of loonie fringe anti-sciencers we have here at DKos.  In any diary mentioning "vaccines" or "GMOs" or "Fukushima" or "alternative medicine", it's a certain bet that our resident crackpots will come charging in to tell us all about how science is part of the big evil corporate conspiracy blah blah blah, and regale us with all sorts of silly nonsense--everything from "vaccines cause autism" to "GMOs cause cancer" to "the whales are fleeing to California to escape the Fukushima radiation" to "homeopathic medicines will cure your illness". Heck, I've even seen flying saucer kookers blithering about the missing Malaysian airplane.

      It's embarrassing to see all that drivel here in the "reality-based community".

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:12:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    judyms9, geez53, TerryDarc, tlsmith, Sonnet, wonmug

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

    by Greg Dworkin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:26:38 AM PDT

  •  Overheard dinner conversation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenotron

    Last night, I took my family to dinner.  At a table behind me, I could hear another family talking (apparently) about the Cosmos TV series.  They said they didn't believe any of the science because scientists don't believe in the Bible, and how could they know about events that happened millions of years ago since they weren't there.  My eyes rolled back in my head so far that it almost squashed my brain.  Also, how could Moses know how the world was made?  He wasn't there to see it.  I wish evangelical Christians realized that the Bible was never meant as a scientific textbook.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site