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: Androcles on 15 Jul 2010 18:47 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aab675ad-3871-4241-97f5-5c0739a2c5f3(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... 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. =============================================== Whry wourld Ir borther tor cartch yrour mirstrake? I have no proof of your prophecies and neither do you. I ooped, but not too badly. ================================================ You ooped extremely badly, you forgot to provide empirical data. According to your theory temperature is a function of CO2 density. I am trying to provoke you into a hysterical fit. I think that make me a troll, technically. However, I am also presenting relevant facts. So I am not bullshitting you. I am not lying. I am trolling.-- drosen Reference: c3c7693a-2c95-4df0-a488-59119a355e93(a)v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com
From: spudnik on 15 Jul 2010 19:29 yes, but Pascal didn' know about them; hence, the Plenum (or THE vacuum, or massless "corpuscles of light." I mean, "quantum foam" and Zero Pt, Energy ain't Pascal's fault; is they? > The chemistry of partial pressures is pretty old and well established. > It is so because it is thoroughly experimentally tested. --the Queen of the sciences! http://wlym.com --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: eric gisse on 15 Jul 2010 14:12 Benj 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. You say that as if it were a bad thing. > > 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. Again, you say "peer review" and "control of science" as if it were a bad thing. If you don't like editorial control, feel free to post your screed on blogspot, here, or the other various open access journals. I'm sure the corresponding decrease in quality is entirely coincidental. [snip rest, tired of the sarcastic quotes on every other word]
From: Thomas Heger on 16 Jul 2010 00:59 Benj schrieb: > 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. > For me it looks like the 'bad guys' overdone it. One day soon nobody takes a piece of bread from them. TH
From: Vince Morgan on 16 Jul 2010 04:55
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:66e09bb5-b6c9-4699-827c-e8553bf51425(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... 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. And a blind roach living in a cave can be convinced that there exists nothing other than the roaches, and the universal cave. Any number of experiments may be devised to prove it. If a roach of sufficient esteem were to state it as fact, well, then who would dare suggest further investigation is required? If a sceptical roach were to mention that he occasioanaly feels a breeze he would then be required to prove what a breese is first, and of course then the breeze would have to be replicated on demand! The fact that he could not do this is then offered as proof that there is no such thing as a breeze in the whole universe/cave, and that he is clearly fraudelent in his claims about said breeze. Anyone else thereon who noticed a breeze quickly remembers the humiliation of the first skeptical roach who would now be skuttling ahead of Benj's broom at Burger King, if such a place were to exist in caveland. Knowing that everything you were taught works doesn't prove in the least that what you were not taught cannot! This seems to be rather difficult to understand, apparently. The fact is there are anomolies and the establishment has a track record of lambasting, or worse, anyone who will not forget that they do exist. I beleive that Richard Feynman once said "The exception tests the rule."and so, when we have anomolies we, we, ohhh, that's right, we ignore them as measurement errors and lambast the researcher. There is only one reality and that's the universal cave, but some just don't get it. Regards, Vince |