iNow

Lighting rods are curious?

I'd actually be somewhat surprised if journal impact was relevant for what you're doing, Pangloss. Severian is mostly just bragging about how he has to publish in high impact journals only (and, to his credit, his bragging rights are both deserved and earned), since he publishes stuff regarding work he's doing at CERN, arguably one of the largest and coolest science explorations humanity has ever undertaken in our entire history.

No, you frakkin moron! I swear, I might find myself desiring to insult your intelligence if I was willing to spend the time trying to find it. I mean, seriously... I won't insult your intelligence. There's so little of it that it's easier for me to just ignore it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSeriously, though... Norman, the assertions would have to be untrue to be considered slander. In your case, you really don't have to worry. Most of the negative comments directed at you are mere statements of fact... objective observations. Finally, for your reference, it's not even remotely possible that "a site like this" could be sued for slander, since slander pertains ONLY to spoken statements or reports. Perhaps you instead intended to ask about libel, which is specific to written words or images? Damn, this is a fun thread idea. Thanks!

I expected our implementation of nuclear, solar, wind, and other clean/green energy technologies to be a few factors of ten further along than we are. Not sure what I was thinking since our old TX governor was POTUS... with questionable legitimacy.

Ah. That makes sense. Please blame me, though... not the article or its authors. I was just using a common phrase ("power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely") and then added "PROVEN!" as a title to draw some attention to the thread. I see now that I have just made myself one of those awful science journalists who misrepresents facts and misreports what the science actually says. I'm not kidding when I tell you that I'm rather embarrassed, since I have so often derided those exact types of journalists. Anyway, that's my bad. Not related to the article.

You seem to have the basic idea figured out, but quickly... When viewing the forums as a Guest (not logged in), you see the times relative to how the server is setup... whatever the time zone is for the forum itself. However, then when you login, the time is relative to your own user setup. It does not AFAIK grab the time zone from your computer, but instead based on your settings programmed at this page: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/profile.php?do=editoptions

For clarity, npts... Are you referring to the news article I shared, or the actual peer-reviewed publication which the article I shared was summarizing (.doc linked below)? http://stapel.socialpsychology.nl/downloads/Lammers-Stoker-Stapel-Psy-Science.doc Also, regardless... I don't think you're likely to find much (if any) scientific research that claims anything whatsoever in absolute terms. Of the several hundreds of articles I've read through the years, they each (every one of them) tend to hedge their bets a bit and leave room for possible exception/changes... I.e. They speak in likeliness and probabilities, not in definitive absolutes.

qft

It's rough, but you might try google translator: http://translate.google.com

* Personal connectivity and technology became almost ubiquitous (laptops, iPhones, Blackberries, other SmartPhones, etc.) * More political polarization... less gray area on the political spectrum and more absolutist views/ideologies than during the recent past. * Greater prominence of non-believers, more willingness/acceptance for speaking openly in opposition to faith/religion. * Huge scare with the economy (not over... we'll have to be cautious of mid-2010) which brought us closer to the Great Depression than ever before, but last year saw huge growth as a result of huge governmental actions across the globe. * We gave up many of our freedoms in the name of protecting them, and continue to take sub-optimal (fight the last battle, forget about the next) approaches to our security. * Craziness over contestant shows like American Idol. * On a brighter note, huge progress in genetics and the biological sciences.

For context, Jackson... By analogy, you're coming into this discussion holding a deuce/seven off-suit, and you don't seem to realize how weak your hand is. You're playing it like you've got a fullhouse aces over kings, when the rest of us are sitting back quietly playing our straight flush and letting you dump in all of your chips despite having such a losing hand. Relatively soon it will be time for us to show our hands, and you're going to have lost your entire stack unless you wisen up a bit and change your approach. Happy twenty-ten, man. I hope you did better this evening that Darvin Moon did at the final table in the '09 WSOP (translated: I hope your knowledge of poker is better than your knowledge of climate change).

No worries, my good man. I know where your heart is. line[/hr] Thanks, NeedfulThings. I had a similar thought, but it was so speculative that I really wanted to ping it against the thoughts of others to see if I was alone in that supposition. It appears that maybe I 'm not. However, I'm left wondering what it would mean for an animal to be "corrupt," and how that might manifest.

I'll let someone else address the numerous flaws in your post, Jackson, and I'll limit my response to the last. Yes, plants like CO2, but the CO2 they like also causes temperatures to rise, which they don't like. The challenge is if we add that much CO2 to the earth atmosphere, the warming will be huge, and the heat and change in weather patterns will have more of a negative effect on plants than the positive effect gained from the extra CO2 (not just from temperature, but also in drought and more severe weather overall). In essence, the effect of higher CO2 levels is higher temperatures, more drought, and more severe weather. Higher temperatures alone are enough to negate (and often over-power) any increases in plant growth to which the higher concentrations of CO2 might contribute. More below. http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/1/014002/erl7_1_014002.html For wheat, maize and barley, negative yield impacts for the 1980s and 1990–2002 indicate that recent climate trends have, unless addressed through adaptation measures, suppressed global yield progress for these three crops. Effects are less pronounced for other crops and decades, though with significant yield suppression for soybean and sorghum since 1990, and wheat in the 1970s. All instances of significant yield effects were attributable mainly to warming temperature trends, as precipitation trends had only minor effects on yields (not shown). While small when expressed as a percentage of current yields, the absolute losses in global production due to warming trends since 1981 were substantial. Wheat, maize and barley production in 2002, for example, would have been roughly 2–3% higher without climate trends since 1981. <...> The results suggest that recent climate trends, attributable to human activity, have had a discernible negative impact on global production of several major crops. The impact of warming was likely offset to some extent by fertilization effects of increased CO2 levels. <...> If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops (a yield increase of 17% for a concentration increase from the current 380 ppm to the frequently studied 550 ppm), then the ~ 35 ppm increase since 1981 corresponds to a roughly 3.5% yield increase, about the same as the 3% decrease in wheat yield due to climate trends over this period. Thus, the effects of CO2 and climate trends have likely largely cancelled each other over the past two decades, with a small net effect on yields. This conclusion challenges model assessments that suggest global CO2 benefits will exceed temperature related losses up to ~ 2° warming. Finally, Jackson, I don't care about the politics of the issue. You are directly attacking the science, so focus on that. Your comments about politics are little more than an off-topic red herring and have no bearing on the FACTS which I have been sharing above.

I think I'd prefer to keep this topic related to beings whose existence is empirically demonstrable.

An interesting article will appear in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science. It seems that power does corrupt. I know... I know. You're thinking to yourself, "Gee. Thanks, Captain Obvious." However, the results are still pretty interesting and lend some further insights into the phenomenon. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091229105906.htm 2009 may well be remembered for its scandal-ridden headlines, from admissions of extramarital affairs by governors and senators, to corporate executives flying private jets while cutting employee benefits, and most recently, to a mysterious early morning car crash in Florida. The past year has been marked by a series of moral transgressions by powerful figures in political, business and celebrity circles. New research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University explores why powerful people - many of whom take a moral high ground - don't practice what they preach. Researchers sought to determine whether power inspires hypocrisy, the tendency to hold high standards for others while performing morally suspect behaviors oneself. The research finds that power makes people stricter in moral judgment of others - while being less strict of their own behavior. <...> Through a series of five experiments, the researchers examined the impact of power on moral hypocrisy. <...> Galinsky noted that moral hypocrisy has its greatest impact among people who are legitimately powerful. <more at the link> Part of me considered putting this in the Politics section so we could discuss whether or not we are doomed based on our current power structure in government, but I feel this topic might branch somewhere I cannot foresee and did not want to limit its tributaries. What are your thoughts? Is this phenomenon limited to humans, or common in the animal kingdom? Are there caveats or exceptions? Does supporting research like this offer justification for those who act in such a manner?

Revere had a good write-up this morning over at Effect Measure. He called attention to many of the limitations with the scanners, and further elucidated how our priorities tend to be incredibly irrational on this topic. A pretty well done piece if you're in the mood for a short read on the topic. http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2009/12/whats_next_we_fly_nude.php What's next? We fly nude? Given the usual response to terrorist threats on airplanes, we expect the latest move to protect us will be to require us to travel nude. OK. Probably not. Republicans are too skittish about public nakedness. They prefer it in the privacy of their mistresses' beds. What we will see, instead, is yet another attempt at a technical fix, spearheaded by high priced security and aviation "consultants." I saw one of them, Mary Schiavo (former inspector general of the Department of Transportation) the other night on the PBS Newshour. She was hawking expensive explosive sniffers for airport check-in, as well as the scanners that undress you without undressing you. That apparently works just fine for prurient Republicans. I'm not an expert on airport security (although I am an expert victim of airport security theater), but I do know something about statistics and probability and can recognize a classic fallacy when I hear one. <...> Those "minor" quibbles aside, let's assume that by investing a gazillion dollars we could deploy some sophisticated technology at every airport within our borders and coming to and from the US that was so accurate it only had a false positive once in 100,000 passengers, i.e., it was 100% sensitive and 99.999% specific. I doubt we can make a machine that accurate, but let's just suppose we could. How many false positives would that produce? According to the Department of Transportation, during the last year there were about 710 million enplanements (US carriers, October 2008 - September 2009; excludes all-cargo services, includes domestic and international). That would produce 7100 false alarms, about 20 a day. How many passengers carrying explosives would the technology pick up? Well, we've had exactly 2 since 2001 (Richard Reid the shoe bomber and the current underpants bomber), or .25/710,000,000 enplanements (it's actually less because enplanements have decreased substantially since 2001). So the probability of an alarm being correct is about 1 in 30,000 or .000033. For that yield there is the cost of research and development of the technology, acquiring and installing it, operating and maintaining it and the extra time of all the passengers. There will also be an effect on air travel generally, stressing an already economically desperate industry. To the extent that increases miles traveled by road, we have to add that cost and the cost in lives of motor vehicle accidents into the mix. Of course there will be those who say it's worth it, whatever the cost in dollars (direct cost, only, estimate of $100 billion; why "no cost too high" should be true for air travel and not health care reform baffles me, but human psychology isn't always rational). But the "worth it" argument is only valid if it worked. As others have said, including Schanz on the PBS Newshour segment, this is essentially a reactive strategy. There's almost always a way -- often an easy way -- around technological fixes like this. They usually involve human engineering exploits, not technological ones. Yet we are the proverbial generals always fighting the last war. Nor is it irrelevant to the cost accounting that there have been two examples in 8 years of passengers carrying explosives aboard airplanes but zero examples of successful detonation. Even when you get the stuff onboard, there seems to be a substantial gap between paranoid fantasy and actual practice.

My apologies. I just didn't think my post was out of line. I should perhaps have responded more clearly to that effect. I agree though that this is all rather unnecessary, off topic, and would prefer to move on so the core discussion can continue. Sorry to the OP and other readers for the distraction. The tone of the discussion has absolutely changed for the better, and that was the goal I'd hoped to achieve.

Cap'n effectively asked me to change my personality and who I am. He did so in response to a pretty light post I made in defense of Martin. I stand by my response, and will continue to do so no matter how many times Cap'n asks me to "Please try to be nicer." Cap'n didn't tell me I'd broken a rule. He told me that my good intentions sometimes have negative impacts. I understand that, but I also won't be changing who I am or how I respond to certain people any time soon. Seriously. Let's put things in perspective here for a moment, shall we guys? This is what I said: If that's over the line, then your priorities are all out of whack. Thanks.

Jackson - Unless your argument is that plants are dying in significantly greater number and the overall equilibrium of plant death and CO2 from decay has shifted by several orders of magnitude during the last two centuries (relative to the centuries before), then your suggestion cannot account for the change we are experiencing. Further, you seem to suggest that the plant death resulting from an eruption accounts for 150 times the amount of CO2 than that which came out of the volcano itself. That's simply untenable. It makes no sense. You're arguing that the volcanoes spew huge amounts of CO2 and dust, and also result in plant death, but that plant death accounts for 150 times more than the amount of CO2 which came from the eruption itself. Sorry... No. That's simply not what happens. Plant death certainly plays a role, but if anything, those deaths release only a tiny fraction of the CO2 spewed by the volcano (not to mention that those plants will grow back quickly in the highly fertile soil around the volcano and sequester CO2 as part of their photosynthetic processes). As for the part you didn't understand... Yes, that stuff will absorb and help retain heat which is already in the system, but it will also reflect heat away from outside the system... it will reflect new solar radiation away and prevent it from ever entering. It's like carrying a parasol in the summer. The shade it provides causes you to feel cooler than you would without the parasol (or umbrella). It's the same with the dust which volcanoes release. It shades the surface for a few years, resulting in overall cooling. Check out the albedo link I shared above. It explains it far better than I can. Besides... Caleb specifically suggested that the amount of CO2 released from Mt. St. Helen's was greater than the amount being pushed into the atmosphere by humans. That's simply not true, and even when you add the CO2 from all volcanoes together it is still only 1/150th the amount of CO2 humans are adding.

My sense is that most of the opposition comes from our culture who is ashamed of their bodies and full of ridiculous Puritanical notions about the concept of nudity and/or sexuality. Although, I can see some potential for abuse when folks like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt fly, or someone like Jessica Alba. 60 Minutes did a special on it a while back: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/travel/main3356425.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;videoMetaInfo http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3356675n

Hi Caleb, That is simply not true. When you add together the CO2 which has been put into the atmosphere by volcanoes, the amount adds up to only 1/150th of the amount of CO2 added by human activity (cars, factories, coal burning energy plants, etc.)... and that's adding ALL volcanoes, not just Mt. St. Helen's. Below are two good links which explain this simply if you want to check them out: http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm Also, somewhat non-intuitively, a volcanic eruption tends to actually cool the planet a bit. This is because they release a lot of dust and soot into the atmosphere, and this blocks much of the incoming sunlight. It's like drawing closed the shades on your windows for a while. While CO2 goes up, the larger effect from a volcanic eruption tends to be one of cooling. It's called the "albedo effect." That basically just means that sunlight is being blocked from passing through the dust, and so the earth is overall a bit cooler (despite the extra CO2 which has been added). As I'm sure you know, Caleb, it's a bit more complicated than that. When people call it "global warming," they generally refer to the fact that the average temperatures on an annual basis have been steadily increasing. When we take the average temperature of the entire year, we get a nice normalized number. Then, when we compare that average to the years which came before, we see that the trend is one of warming. There will be slight dips and bumps from year to year, but when we look at several decades we can tell that the temperatures are going upward overall. Now, another factor is that these changes in climate have other effects. For example, ice melts and causes ocean levels to rise. Also, that melting ice causes the warm currents in the ocean to change their patterns. This all has significant impacts on local weather (like ice storms in Texas and California, or droughts in the mid-west, for example). The climate system is a very complex one, and many things happen after even small changes. The simple fact is that we will experience overall more intense weather activity... harsher storms... more intense hurricanes... more drought... raising sea levels... and all of that other scary stuff... but, just because it snows a day or two in Texas or is cold for three days during December in California does not mean that the average annual temperature has not been rising since humans started pumping large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. There are other factors which effect climate, like the sun and even volcanoes, but none of them can account for either the amount of warming we are experiencing nor the speed with which that warming is occurring. Human activity, however, does... and we should be glad about that since it's something we can change... by decreasing the amount of pollution we put into the air, including CO2. I hope that helps a bit with your questions. It's not an easy topic, but it's a very interesting one. Take care.

Bascule is correct. This issue with Acorn totally misses the point. Here's a list of requirements for voter ID and registration: http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/StateRequirementsforVoterID/tabid/16602/Default.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_registration#United_States You can even do it now: http://www.declareyourself.com/

Funnily enough, it's Republican Senator Jim DeMint who has been holding up the Obama appointee for TSA Administrator, and on top of that, Republicans have been opposing funding for the TSA to improve screening equipment and procedures. So, what do they suggest now that this has happened and obtained media attention? Napolitano's head on a spit! Idiots and hypocrites. I'm so tired of this nonsense. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021674.php President Obama nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent and a counterterrorism expert, to head the TSA a few months ago. Southers is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence, and the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events. Two Senate committees considered the nomination, and easily approved Southers with bipartisan support. But the Senate hasn't been able to vote on the nomination because DeMint hates unions, and isn't sure if Southers might allow TSA workers to organize. Without that guarantee, DeMint not only opposes Southers' nomination, but prefers to leave the Transportation Security Administration without a permanent administrator. This realization, in the wake of the attempted terrorism on Christmas, should make DeMint back down. It hasn't -- he still supports blocking Southers' nomination until he knows TSA workers won't unionize. The terrorist threat is bad, but the threat of collective bargaining is the real danger. Also note, congressional Republicans also opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

We may ultimately have to agree to disagree here. In my estimation, the integrity of the vote is not, nor has it ever been, in question. I see this outrage theater being promulgated around Acorn to be in reality a marginal issue, almost entirely limited to a handful of registrations taking place on the fringe, and accounting for (what has to be) less than 0.5 to 1.0% of all votes cast/registrations processed. In short, I think you calling into question the overall integrity of the vote to be inappropriate, but I also understand your position so won't belabor the point. With that said, I'm also inclined to believe (perhaps I'm just hoping, but whatever) that you and I are pretty closely aligned on the rest. We both agree that accuracy is important, and that we should take steps to maximize accuracy of the voting rosters and the authenticity of the names it contains. Further, having interacted with you enough times, I'm inclined to believe that you recognize the importance of suffrage for all, and that it is not your intent to disenfranchise homeless people (even though it might be suggested by your words above). So, if I'm not completely out in left field with this one, my sense is that we mostly agree on the important stuff; I'm just not willing to let such a minor and marginal issue like this Acorn one lead me to question the larger integrity of the vote itself as you seem to be doing to support your argument. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Actually, just FYI... That decision was not unanimous, contrary to your claim. According to your own wiki link, it was a decision with a 6-3 split. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=unanimously unanimous: of one mind; without dissent

Claims of Napolitano being thrown under the bus are exaggerated and sensationalist, at best. She was actually quite accurate and said that the terrorist didn't seem to meet all of the criteria required to go on the no-fly list, but that they were still investigating the details to find out. That whole "still investigating" comment was pretty important. IMO, she was mostly trying to assuage public fears about the safety of air travel as people returned home from holiday vacations during her Sunday morning appearances on This Week and Meet The Press. She also directed her comments very specifically to the response after the attack. I know. I watched her on both shows this morning off my DVR. Anyway, here's the Presidents statement from this morning which you seem to reference above. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/29/president-preliminary-findings-regarding-attempted-terrorist-attack I wanted to speak to the American people again today because some of this preliminary information that has surfaced in the last 24 hours raises some serious concerns. It's been widely reported that the father of the suspect in the Christmas incident warned U.S. officials in Africa about his son's extremist views. It now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community, but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name on a no-fly list. There appears to be other deficiencies as well. Even without this one report there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together. We've achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks. But it's becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have. Had this critical information been shared it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged. The warning signs would have triggered red flags and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America. Note also how the president notes that this information became available during the last 24 hours, and it's been almost 72 since Napolitano did her speaking. Yes, heads will roll and changes will be made, but I can't see where you're getting this "thrown under the bus" mentality. Seems rather premature, but you're potentially aware of something I'm not.