Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: Darwin123 on 15 Jul 2010 17:31 On Jul 15, 5:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:bb309ab8-31c1-4f82-b731-248e91980ffe(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:> "Don" <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > > promotions. > > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being > > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function > > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking > > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled > > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program > > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and > > untrustworthy they all are. > > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always > > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such > > censorship and propaganda invade science. > > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > > science "leadership" and authority. > > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with > > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in > > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never > > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE > > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an > > opposing viewpoint. > > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes > > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the > > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other > > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that > > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure > > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining > > patients. Ain't science great? > > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman > > textbook! > > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next) > > Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as > "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is > essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while > "junk science" consists only of conjecture. > > Don> =============================================== > > Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it > > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much > > for Mars... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars > > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (-63 > > °C; -82 °F), 95% CO2. > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. > > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the > earth. > ======================================== > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide. You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do the calculation for you. The average air pressure at the surface of Mars is 6 millibars, compared to 1013 millibars on Earth. The average percentage of carbon dioxide on Mars is 95%, compared to 0.036% on earth. From this, the partial pressures are easy to calculate. The partial pressure of carbon dioxide on Mars is 5.7 millibars. The partial pressure of carbon dioxide on earth is 36 millibars. So the greenhouse effect, if there is one, is a factor 6.3 greater on earth than on Mars. Of course, I havent made up for the fact that the solar flux is twice as great on Earth as it is on Mars. That is why Mars is colder.
From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 17:45 On Jul 15, 4:31 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 5:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:bb309ab8-31c1-4f82-b731-248e91980ffe(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:> "Don" <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > > > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > > > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > > > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > > > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > > > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > > > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > > > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > > > promotions. > > > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being > > > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function > > > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking > > > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled > > > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program > > > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and > > > untrustworthy they all are. > > > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always > > > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such > > > censorship and propaganda invade science. > > > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > > > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > > > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > > > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > > > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > > > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > > > science "leadership" and authority. > > > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with > > > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in > > > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never > > > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE > > > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an > > > opposing viewpoint. > > > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes > > > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the > > > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other > > > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that > > > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure > > > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining > > > patients. Ain't science great? > > > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman > > > textbook! > > > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next) > > > Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as > > "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is > > essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while > > "junk science" consists only of conjecture. > > > Don> =============================================== > > > Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it > > > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much > > > for Mars... > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars > > > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K (-63 > > > °C; -82 °F), 95% CO2. > > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. > > > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the > > earth. > > ======================================== > > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce > > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that > > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide. > > You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do > the calculation for you. > The average air pressure at the surface of Mars is 6 > millibars, compared to 1013 millibars on Earth. The average percentage > of carbon dioxide on Mars is 95%, compared to 0.036% on earth. > From this, the partial pressures are easy to calculate. The > partial pressure of carbon dioxide on Mars is 5.7 millibars. The > partial pressure of carbon dioxide on earth is 36 millibars. So the > greenhouse effect, if there is one, is a factor 6.3 greater on earth > than on Mars. > Of course, I havent made up for the fact that the solar flux is > twice as great on Earth as it is on Mars. > That is why Mars is colder.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not to mention the fact that there is much more water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere than there is in the Martian atmosphere. This is important because the absorption and re-radiation mechanism of the greenhouse effect involves the interaction of several different contributors (the top two of which on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide). Moreover, since the concentration affects both the absorption rate of light reflected from the surface, and the re-radiation rate to other absorbers, its effect on heating goes like the concentration squared. Finally, the Earth has oceans which continue to feed the greenhouse effect AT NIGHT, because of all the energy absorbed during the day. Thus a high CO2 atmosphere on Mars is not expected to be a case study of greenhouse heating because - the partial pressure of CO2 is so low - the absence of water vapor to absorb (and further re-radiate) the light radiated from CO2 - the lower incident power from the sun - the absence of oceans which would store energy for fueling greenhouse heating at night.
From: Androcles on 15 Jul 2010 18:09 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f315ae91-4b21-4441-bcd5-010458742b05(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... On Jul 15, 5:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:bb309ab8-31c1-4f82-b731-248e91980ffe(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:> > "Don" <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > > promotions. > > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being > > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function > > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking > > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled > > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program > > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and > > untrustworthy they all are. > > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always > > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such > > censorship and propaganda invade science. > > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > > science "leadership" and authority. > > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with > > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in > > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never > > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE > > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an > > opposing viewpoint. > > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes > > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the > > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other > > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that > > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure > > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining > > patients. Ain't science great? > > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman > > textbook! > > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next) > > Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as > "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is > essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while > "junk science" consists only of conjecture. > > Don> =============================================== > > Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it > > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much > > for Mars... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars > > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K > > (-63 > > �C; -82 �F), 95% CO2. > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. > > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the > earth. > ======================================== > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide. You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do the calculation for you. ================================================ You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested, not your prophecies.
From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 18:16 On Jul 15, 5:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:f315ae91-4b21-4441-bcd5-010458742b05(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 5:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:bb309ab8-31c1-4f82-b731-248e91980ffe(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:> > > "Don" <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > > > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > > > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > > > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > > > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > > > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > > > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > > > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > > > promotions. > > > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being > > > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function > > > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking > > > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled > > > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program > > > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and > > > untrustworthy they all are. > > > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always > > > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such > > > censorship and propaganda invade science. > > > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > > > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > > > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > > > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > > > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > > > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > > > science "leadership" and authority. > > > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with > > > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in > > > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never > > > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE > > > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an > > > opposing viewpoint. > > > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman that CO2 causes > > > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the > > > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other > > > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that > > > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure > > > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining > > > patients. Ain't science great? > > > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman > > > textbook! > > > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next) > > > Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as > > "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is > > essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while > > "junk science" consists only of conjecture. > > > Don> =============================================== > > > Let's fill the atmosphere up with CO2 and test the prophecy that it > > > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much > > > for Mars... > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars > > > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K > > > (-63 > > > °C; -82 °F), 95% CO2. > > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. > > > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the > > earth. > > ======================================== > > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce > > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that > > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide. > > You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do > the calculation for you. > ================================================ > You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the > future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested, > not your prophecies. The chemistry of partial pressures is pretty old and well established. It is so because it is thoroughly experimentally tested. That's what makes scientific models so useful -- you can make predictions you have some confidence in -- without having to test every single instance. This is what engineers rely on. They believe, for example, that Newton's laws work pretty darned well and so they design stuff based on them, and they're ok signing off on the design, without having to actually build it to see if Newton's laws still work before they sign off. PD
From: Darwin123 on 15 Jul 2010 18:28
On Jul 15, 6:09 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:f315ae91-4b21-4441-bcd5-010458742b05(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 15, 5:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > "Darwin123" <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:bb309ab8-31c1-4f82-b731-248e91980ffe(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jul 15, 4:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:> > > "Don" <don.duc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > On Jul 15, 3:04 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > > > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > > > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > > > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > > > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > > > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > > > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > > > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > > > promotions. > > > > Of course, just as "democracy" depends upon the electorate being > > > informed and the major media has been performing a "control" function > > > on information, similar "controls" exist in science. While the talking > > > heads on TV's "60 Minutes" have developed their self-styled > > > "reputation" for "trust" and "integrity", it takes but one program > > > dedicated to "gun control" to prove how purposely biased and > > > untrustworthy they all are. > > > > But one EXPECTS lies and "points of view" such as "my party is always > > > right and yours is always wrong" in politics. The problem is when such > > > censorship and propaganda invade science. > > > > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > > > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > > > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > > > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > > > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > > > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > > > science "leadership" and authority. > > > > The bottom line is the clever destruction of any "real" science with > > > science "journalism" leading the way. Especially hideous is the way in > > > which censorship occurs in secret behind the scenes. There are never > > > any opposing views because opposing views are stripped out BEFORE > > > anything appears. The public never learns that that there even WAS an > > > opposing viewpoint. > > > > Hence if Scientific American tells the science layman thatCO2causes > > > "climate change" or that letting blood removes your "bad humours", the > > > public has no choice but to believe it. Even the EXISTENCE of other > > > points of view are censored out of existence. How wonderful it is that > > > we in "science" can still count on this herd of "leaders" to make sure > > > that doctors never wash their hands when operating or examining > > > patients. Ain't science great? > > > > But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot! I need to go read a freshman > > > textbook! > > > (We'll cover censorship in the textbook industry next) > > > Benji, keep in mind there is "science" and what is popularly known as > > "junk science". The public doesn't know the difference, which is > > essentially that real "science" makes testable predictions, while > > "junk science" consists only of conjecture. > > > Don> =============================================== > > > Let's fill the atmosphere up withCO2and test the prophecy that it > > > makes the whole world warmer. It doesn't seem to have done much > > > for Mars... > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars > > > Annual mean temperatures at the surface are currently less than 210 K > > > (-63 > > > °C; -82 °F), 95%CO2. > > > I'd call that cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey. > > > The atmosphere of Mars is not as dense as the atmosphere of the > > earth. > > ======================================== > > Really? Oh well, let's experiment to test your prophecy and reduce > > the Earth's atmosphere to the same as that of Mars and see if that > > makes the globe warmer with 95% carbon dioxide. > > You were obviously not a chemical engineer. Therefore, I will do > the calculation for you. > ================================================ > You are obviously a clairvoyant spin doctor who can foretell the > future. I was advocating experiment as Donald fuckin' Duck suggested, > not your prophecies. You didn't cartch my mistake. I ooped, but not too badly. I That is 0.036 percent. So it is 3.6 millibars of carbon dioxide on earth, but still 5.7 millibars of carbon dioxide on mars. So the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is 1.6 times greater on Mars than on earth. However, the amount of solar flux is still twice as much on earth as it is on Mars. So earth should still be warmer. |