16 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. What made you change your mind about climate change? I thought you were staunchly against AGW… Just curious.

  4. I found the comments interesting. The criticism toward Mick was very unscientific.

  6. Speaking of “science, I’m not sure where to post this information, but it looks like NASA has now completely gone off its rocker. I mean pushing global warming is bad enough….but THIS???!!!
    “It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.
    Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

  7. Love that flowchart of how science really works — it should be on every labs door. Have had lots of frustrating times during my research career although I was either very lucky or knew what I was doing because every research project I worked on came out fine at the end. It may also have been a case of “creative writing” in that we started doing research on X but found out some really neat stuff about Y and some of the linkages between the two were rather tenuous. Back then I viewed it as serendipity favoring the prepared mind.

  8. The flowchart is great, especially the part about the instrument
    breaking. Apparatus in research labs typically is not
    working – it may be being altered, but often it is under repair
    or being checked for bugs. I have known a spectrometer, used
    for taking the spectra of compressed gases, which functioned
    correctly for about three months out of a 24-month period.
    Well, that was enough for a paper.
    Also, the part about the work already having been done brings sharp
    recollections. I remember suggesting to a friend that we undertake a certain study (statistical mechanics).
    He emailed me, “have you seen such-and-such paper?” When I replied with a string of expletives
    he said, “I suppose that was the intended project?”

  10. Joey – good find, but flawed logic in my view:
    ” . . . take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.”
    Wouldn’t that be a good thing? We should produce more ghg’s and perhaps the aliens will come and save us. (I guess we should find out if they are socialists first.)

  11. A 33 page paper, and the only bits you comment on is the few paragraphs that mention global warming. Talk about a one-track mind.

  12. That’s because the paragraphs that mention global warming are the most likely to be scientifically dubious.

  13. nv53, you must forgive poor Trollex. Trollex doesn’t understand the difference between “science” and “science fiction”. Or even between actual science fiction and really bad, really old, Hollywood b@st@rdiz@tions of early 20th century science fiction written by whacked-out socialist freakazoid H.G. Wells.
    Sorry Trollex, “The Day The Earth Stood Still” is not actually science. And there is no tooth fairy, in case mum didn’t tell you yet.

  14. “That’s because the paragraphs that mention global warming are the most likely to be scientifically dubious.”
    You clearly haven’t read the other 33 pages.

  16. “The other 33 pages are complete nonsense?”
    If you’re not familiar with the concept of a thought-exercise, yeah, I suppose that would be the only way you could classify them. They certainly range from semi-plausible-but-very-unlikely to completely-implausible.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation