Glibertarians.com 2017 Archive

Category: Science

  • Why I hate the metric system and you should too: an uninformed rant based on no research whatsoever

    Honestly, I probably wouldn’t hate the metric system if I saw it in isolation.  Yes, it’s a little bit silly, like the tennis scoring system, but it’s just a system of measurement after all.

    It’s the fucking proponents of it I can’t stand.  More specifically, it’s the self-righteous more-sciencey-than-thou “educators” who will voxplain how it’s sooo superior and anyone who doesn’t recognize this is an inbred Luddite.  Before there were vegans, before there was crossfit, there were metric proponents. And even they wouldn’t be so bad if their arguments weren’t completely, absolutely, 100% full of shit.

    Myth #1:  “It’s more scientific”

    First of all, what does that even mean?  Seriously, what?  The closest thing I’ve found to an answer is that “it’s used by more scientists.”  Which is like saying Nathan’s hotdogs are “more medical.”

    Myth #2:  “It’s based on nature, not arbitrary units”

    Holy fuckballs no.  Not even.  Prior to the modern metric system, there was an idea to make a “natural” system wherein the unit of length would be the length of a pendulum with a period of 1 second.  This… is actually a pretty good idea.  And pretty close to a system based on natural laws.  Yes, there is still some arbitrariness involved with choosing the place where the standard will be set since gravity is inhomogeneous, but for the 18th century, pretty good.  This is not what we got.  What we got was a second set of arbitrary units with the pretense of objectivity.  To go into detail relates directly to the objections to:

    Myth #3:  “It’s self-consistent”

    Just stop.  Let’s talk about this “consistent system” for a while, shall we?   The meter, what is it?  “It’s 1/10,000th the distance from the pole to the equator.”  No, it’s not, shut up.  First of all, everything in this “consistent” system is based on factors of 1000.  Except for this, the principal unit of the system, which is mysteriously based on a factor of 10,000.  But of course it isn’t even that since it’s not 1/10,000th of anything, it’s 1/10,000th of a quarter of something.  So it’s really 1/40,000th of something.   What the meter is, is a juggling around with numbers until they could find a unit of measurement that is as close as possible to a yard, and then making a physical, constantly-changing arbitrary standard based on that.  If they weren’t trying to duplicate the yard, they would have made the meter based on some factor of 1000.  If they were determined to use the earth, they could have taken 1/1,000,000th of the circumference of the earth and gotten a serviceable unit of about an inch and a half, or 1/1000th the radius of the earth and gotten something close to 4 miles, but those units are just too weird and exotic and we need to make this change easy for the peasants to digest while we’re force-feeding this change to them and we really need to sharpen the guillotine again and… sorry, I was getting too deep into the revolutionary mindset for a minute there.  Anyway, a meter is a Froggy yard and I don’t care what anyone says they‘re just trying to post-hoc rationalize it.  Now moving on in our “self-consistent” system, we have the base unit of mass, the kilogram.  Does anyone else see the problem here?    We have a base unit… that requires a prefix.  Qu’est-ce que c’est le face-palm en francais?  And again, this base unit which is supposedly (but isn’t – it’s actually a terrible waste of platinum) the mass of a liter of water, which is a cubic decimeter.  A cubic decimeter of water… which is a liter… weighs a kilogram.  I’m so glad this system is so self-consistent.  And the most ludicrous thing about this inconsistency is that these last two are that they are derived units in the first place!  If they were self-consistent, and they kept with water, their base unit of volume would be about 264 gallons and the base unit of mass would be a long ton.  Which is simply inconvenient and puts to lie…

    Myth #4: “It’s easier to use”

    Here’s the speed of light as George Washington would have reckoned it:

    186000

    Easy to recognize, and it’s in miles/second because that’s really the only sensible combination of units to use for speeds like that.

    Here’s the Macron version:

    30000000

    Or is it?  Do I have the right number of zeroes there?  And what units?  I mean km/s would be the analog to mi/s, but since one of the purported advantages to metric is adding and dropping prefixes willy-nilly, they could be anything.  Usually, I see the speed of light given in m/s, but I can toss a random number of zeroes and still be correct as long as I claim to be using a particular prefix-unit combination.  To be fair, there are instances where the metric system is easier to use.  Those instances are when you are:

    -performing a calculation

    -with a pencil and paper

    -with abstracted numbers

    But other than that, nope.  And part of that is because the Top Men promoting the system are promising completely contradictory things.  To claim that you can create a system of measurement based on natural laws that is convenient for humans is that quotidian mix of ignorance and arrogance that has categorized progressive thought since time immemorial.  Repeat after me:  Nature hates you and wants you to die.  Nature is supremely unconcerned about being convenient.  By picking one unit to be human-scaled (the meter) they pretty much guaranteed that any of the other measurable aspects of nature are going to be stupidly awkward when expressed in terms of that unit.  When was the last time you bought a capacitator measured in a whole number of Farads?  A magnet in Teslas?  (People who buy NMRs don’t count.)  If you want to quantify exactly how terrible of an idea it is to try and build a measurement system around the fundamental properties of the universe, take a looky here.

    So what is the metric system if none of those myths?  It’s the product of a decimal fetishist.  Which is frankly a pretty low grade of fetish.  It’s like being preferentially attracted to Americans while you’re vacationing in Prague.  Prague, Czech Republic, not Prague, Oklahoma.  They’re not even pronounced the same.  The metric system was made by shallow-thinking revolutionaries who thought themselves wise.  For them, the decimal system had totemic value, like black guns or Maggie McNeil’s “sex rays.”  Their cook could understand halves and thirds, and quarters, but it took a man of the proper social class to understand 3/10ths.  All the good things about the metric system happen because it’s tied to the decimal system.  Which is also its biggest problem, because the decimal system is pretty crap.  But in one of the most unfortunate examples of existence bias in history, Messrs. Haut-Hommes never considered that maybe the decimal system was what they needed to take forth on the tumbrel.

    We already have the basis of the dozenal system in our language (dozen, gross, great gross) and Glibs of a certain age may remember when multiplication tables ran up to 12.  Those of you with rugrats can let me know if this is still a thing, but freaking muppets were able to recognize the superiority of the dozenal system.  Even metric-loving Eurotards are starting to clue in; though the specific example in that video is also chock-full of existence bias.  Yes, you could keep Arabic numerals and add a couple of symbols, but it really would be better to replace all of the numerals so it would be obvious what system was being written.  That’s a system that would have been an improvement over an older one.  It’s not what the metric system was.   The metric system was a waste of a good opportunity for a bunch of hubristic murderous progressives (but I repeat myself) to make a positive change but couldn’t because they were stupid (but I repeat myself yet again).

    That is why I hate it.  That is why you should too.

     

  • ZARDOZ SPEAKS!

    ZARDOZ SPEAKS TO YOU, HIS CHOSEN ONES. DO NOT FEAR THE SUN DISAPPEARING – ZARDOZ WILL RESTORE IT YOU, HIS CHOSEN ONES…AS TEMPTING AS IT IS TO LEAVE IT HIDDEN AND FREEZE AND STARVE ALL BRUTALS.

    ZARDOZ HAS SPOKEN.

  • Firearms Friday: Long Arms in Low Orbit

    When you first think about it, you probably wonder why you would ever want to take a gun into space. After you think about it a little more, though, you probably wonder why you would ever not want to take a gun into space. Thousands of miles from everywhere, in a hostile environment, with no chance of escape or rescue… sounds like exactly the kind of situation to require some ballistic backup. Whether you need to un-stick a broken escape hatch or simply quell an interplanetary mutiny, a gun is a must have for any space faring humanoid. Okay, in all seriousness, some astronaut crews did take a gun into space, at least for a period of time. They weren’t designed for use during the trip, however. Well, most of them weren’t, anyway. They were for use afterwards. The thinking was that if a capsule went way off course and landed in the middle of bumfuck nowhere the ‘nauts would have a survival weapon they could use to defend from predators and forage for food until the cavalry arrived.

    Jessie NOT hardest hit.
    The Makarov. Great against spies and dissident. Useless against bears.

    Shockingly, the Americans are actually not the most tooled up group of people outside of the atmosphere. I can find no record of NASA issuing or allowing any sort of guns on shuttle missions or the space station. There is a possibility that at one point they were equipped with M6 survival rifles or even Beretta 9mm pistols, but I can’t find any definitive proof of it so your guess is as good as mine. The Russians, on the other hand might as well open up a branch of the NRA on the moon, cause as far as I can tell every fucking manned spaceflight they went on had a gun on board. Originally they started out with Makarov pistols. These reliable little handguns carry 8 rounds of 9×18 (similar to .380) in a very compact package. This went on for a few years, until a mission went a bit off. One of the capsules missed it’s landing area by about 600 miles and ended up in the middle of Siberia. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Siberia, but it’s a bit like Australia or Florida, in that everything wants to kill you. Unlike Australia or Florida, however, most of those things would laugh at you for pointing a 9mm pistol at it before mauling you and eating your steaming intestines like spaghetti while you were still alive and screaming. Thankfully, the cosmonauts survived, and one of them, Alexey Leonov, apparently developed a lasting impression of that particular feeling of terror since he mandated that a new survival weapon be developed for the space program after becoming a major general.

    TP-82, with ammo and buttstock/machete.

    Thus was born the first gun designed to go to space: The TP-82. I will give the commies credit, when they design a rifle they really go all out. The TP-82 is a triple barrel short barreled shotgun/rifle combo. The top two barrels are 12.5x70mm shotgun bore (roughly 38 gauge), while the bottom center barrel is chambered in 5.45×39, the common caliber of the AK 74 assault rifle. The gun has a detachable stock that doubles as a machete (no I don’t know how they fired it without cutting their arms off either) and came with birdshot, rifle rounds, and signal flares. This gun flew with all of the cosmonauts from 1986 until 2007, and even made it into the space station according to rumors. In 2007, Russia announced that there was no more shotgun ammo for the gun and no more could be produced, and the weapon was officially retired, with the cosmonauts returning to a standard semi automatic handgun. Let’s hope their search and rescue response times have gotten better.

    An actual, honest to god, laser gun. Holy. Shit.

    Don’t think for a second that all space weaponry was for boring old hunting and survival, though. It turns out that the reds are much more ambitious than we like to admit, because these sons of bitches went full fucking Moonraker on us and actually developed and fielded laser pistols. That’s right. Laser. Fricken. Pistols. Take THAT, John Browning! They were magazine fed and used flashbulb technology. Their reported function was to disable enemy spy satellites, but it is said that they could burn through a helmet or fry someone’s eyeballs at 60 feet. Whether or not this is actually true or a load of crap is anyone’s guess, but hats off to them for bringing energy weapons into reality.

    And they STILL lost the war! Cucks.
    The R-23 autocannon used on the Salyut space station.

    So, what could top directed energy weapons in space? Oh I don’t know… how about an armed satellite? In the 1970s, the Soviets developed the Almaz program, which launched 3 manned reconnaissance satellites into orbit. These satellites were supposed to monitor comms traffic and do orbital imaging, but don’t think they were just for show either. Each one was fitted with a 23mm belt fed autocannon capable of 2000 rounds a minute. Of course, they didn’t carry very much ammo, but then again it doesn’t take much damage to really wreck your day in space. While they never actually attacked anything (there’s no record of it, anyway) they did successfully remotely test fire the weapon on multiple occasions.

    All of this research has led me to one inescapable conclusion: The Russians will eventually own space and become fearsome interplanetary pirates, while our hopeless and disarmed astronauts fall victim to their merciless supply raids and wanton destruction. If only we hadn’t elected Trump…..

  • Wood Wednesday

    Manchineel tree just chillin’ there all innocent

    Beloved commenter and Glibertarian co-overlord, Brett L., recently shared a fascinating Atlas Obscura link with the rest of the secret Glibertarian cabal that controls your thoughts and feelings and bends the Glibertarian firmament to its slightest whim. Because Florida is America’s Australia, it has the deadliest tree, the  tree whose Spanish names translate to “tree of death” and “death apple tree” The author gives us an appropriately dramatic intro to the tree:

    You might be tempted to eat the fruit. Do not eat the fruit. You might want to rest your hand on the trunk, or touch a branch. Do not touch the tree trunk or any branches. Do not stand under or even near the tree for any length of time whatsoever. Do not touch your eyes while near the tree. Do not pick up any of the ominously shiny, tropic-green leaves. If you want to slowly but firmly back away from this tree, you would not find any argument from any botanist who has studied it.

    And the whole thing gets more entertaining from there. Of special note: the manichneel tree is the deadliest tree in North America, but not the deadliest plant, which apparently goes to the spotted water hemlock…also a resident of Florida, because…Florida.

    If you’re not woke to Atlas Obscura, you probably should be. Click here for their main page.

  • Tuesday Afternoon Links

    Brett is having his wallet molested by a mechanic, so you get links from me today. And none of them are NSFW except maybe this one and that one.

    “Secret” space plane Boeing X-37B

    Spaceplanes, motherfuckers.

    Tunnel at plutonium uranium extraction plant collapses in Hanford (TW:Autoplay video): The AP reports no workers were in the tunnel at the time of collapse. Workers at the site have now been evacuated. Workers farther away were told to remain indoors. Destry Henderson, deputy news manager for the Hanford Joint Information Center, told NBC News. “There are no reports of injuries, no reports of a radiological release.” Gojira hardest hit. (h/t Playa  Manhattan)

    Good Korea elects a new president after forcing their last one into early retirement for being an utter putz. NYT has a great primer on the election and current geopolitical situation in the region. DAEHANMINGUK (대한민국), bitches.

    When all you have is hunger all news looks like a food pun

    Good Gravy: Trump is Poutine his Chips on the Table to Cover the Kurds

    Sessions to review Obama-era policies on drug-crime sentencing “If new charging instructions are implemented, it would mark the first significant move by the Trump administration to bring back the drug war’s toughest practices — methods that had fallen out of favor in recent years as critics pointed to damaging effects of mass incarceration.” (h/t OMWC)

  • Space Law

    Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.

    Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

    Of all the great adventures that humanity can embark on in the near future, none has captured the popular imagination quite like space exploration. Since before the time that humanity launched the first artificial satellite, we have dreamed of what it might be like to set foot on other worlds. Where dreams lead, however, the bureaucrats are sure to be lurching close behind. Passing judgment and crafting policy has long been the pleasure of the professional statist. In man’s adventure into space, such a creature was given a rare gift: A virgin field, unframed by any law save those of nature. Before even the first V-1 was launched, there were those who contemplated both exploration and policy.  Theodore von Kármán, one of the founders of Aerojet, an early rocket company, had this to say in 1942, just after the incorporation of the company, “Now, Andy, we will make the rockets – you must make the corporation and obtain the money. Later on you will have to see that we behave well in outer space…After all, we are the scientists but you are the lawyer, and you must tell us how to behave ourselves according to law and to safeguard our innocence.[i]” There were, at that time, no laws on the books to describe allowable action, inactions, and responsibilities that would accompany space flight. But in the next two decades, such a field would develop.  Andrew Haley would be one of the main crafters of space law[ii], even coining a term for it, ‘metalaw.’

    The laws that would be crafted were largely a creation of their time when the UN was paralyzed between cold warriors. As such, they are imbued with a certain neutrality and compromise. The most famous and overarching of these regulatory documents was the 1967 ‘Outer Space Treaty.’ This treaty laid down some basic conventions which are still honored today, such as Article V forbidding the placement of WMD’s in orbit, on the Moon, or in any sort of stationary platform or satellite. There are gaps, though; the treaty mentions WMD’s but not conventional weapons, so in theory, orbital bombardment is still allowed. Another gap in the treaty, one that is becoming increasingly relevant, is the use of resources in space. At the time the treaty was written, the idea of commercial entities who could perform their own launches or exploit resources was inconceivable. Now there are at least eighteen competing commercial space companies. That’s only counting ones working on launch vehicles. There are many other companies that specialize in other areas and more being created every day. That would come as a grand surprise to the many bureaucrats who were stuck in a binary view of policy, who could never imagine advances beyond what they saw before them. Even more pressing today: the treaty does not allow any nation to claim territory in space. The moon, asteroids, and all other stellar bodies are seen as communally owned and for the benefit of all mankind[iii].  That might come as news to the several space mining companies that are looking to exploit the potential trillions of dollars of precious metal and rare earth elements that are locked in the numerous asteroids in the solar system[iv].

    Indeed, as much the way that regulators were unable to predict the rise of disruptive technology online or in new media, they were equally unable to foresee the rise of a whole industry based around the idea of exploiting the resources present in the solar system and beyond. In attempting to placate the powers of the time, they left no room for innovators to build on the fantastic possibilities of space exploration. This has meant that those who wish to dream of riches from beyond the world must go to antiquated documents written in a time before we had even set foot on the moon. Even when the push against regulation comes, one must also wonder how hard the early pioneers of space exploitation will try to close the door behind them in order to throttle competition. In a truly free market, companies would not have to go hat in hand to the national regulators to get launch permission, then comb the international laws looking for a loophole to exploit in their quest for mineral exploitation. Rather, it would only be a matter of capital investment and an entrepreneurial spirit that would lead the way. Of course, as the race for asteroid wealth increases pace it is certain that some enterprising person will find a way around the laws, even if it means approaching their state looking for succor to reach around international regulations.

    Space is big, but governments currently control the sky that separates us from heavenly riches. There will undoubtedly come a time when the exploitation of space resources becomes a common practice. It is important for the allies of economic liberty to push for the reforms needed to open up a truly free market, so when that success comes, it will be that much harder for the bureaucrats to take the credit for the success that their laws would have nearly strangled in the crib.

    ________________________________________________
    [i] Andrew G. Haley (1963) Space Law and Government, page xii, Appleton-Century-Crofts
    [ii] Daniel Lang and Brendan Gill (December 29, 1956) The Talk of the Town, “Metalaw”, The New Yorker, p. 19
    [iii] Jennifer Frakes, (2003) The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle and the Deep Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica: Will Developed and Developing Nations Reach a Compromise? Wisconsin International Law Journal, 21, at 409
    [iv] Webster, Ian “Asterank” Asterank

  • Jewsday Tuesday

    There’s an old joke that the world’s thinnest book is “Great Jewish Athletes.” But really, there’s a much thinner book than that: “Great Jewish Physicists Before Einstein.” And that’s where we kick off this week’s installment of Jewsday Tuesday.

    Einstein at the Annus Mirabilis

    If there were ever a single year when science was totally transformed, it would have to be 1905. That year, known as “Annus Mirabilis,” a Jew published a set of four papers wherein he demonstrated the truth of atomic theory, laid the foundations of quantum mechanics, formulated the theory of relativity, and demonstrated the equivalence of mass and energy. This would be enough for four different people to have become scientific legends for lifetime achievement, but it was the work of one Jew in one year. And a Jew who had to work in isolation, since university appointments were not generally extended to those of Hebraic tribal identities. Einstein had no role-models to show him that Jews could do physics, there were no diversity programs, no affirmative action. So clearly, there was no way for him to succeed because he wasn’t taught by people who “looked like him.”

    And yet he persisted. To say that these four papers completely transformed physics is an understatement. They had the impact of Newton and Maxwell combined. And of course, there’s cycles and irony here, and that’s this week’s story.

    Philipp Lenard

    During the Annus Mirabilis, as just about every other year, prominent scientists were honored with the awarding of Nobel Prizes. And in physics for 1905, the Nobel was awarded to Philipp Lenard for his work on cathode rays and the photoelectric effect. Lenard had been able to demonstrate that cathode rays (the basis of how pre-LED video picture tubes work) consisted of a stream of negatively charged particles rather than electromagnetic waves. Further, he showed that these negatively charged particles were much smaller than the size of nitrogen or oxygen molecules of air. He referred to these particles as “quanta,” but that name gave way to the modern appellation of “electron.”

    Lenard also worked with the photoelectric effect, an unexplained phenomenon where electrons were ejected from metal surfaces when those surfaces were bombarded with ultraviolet light. He used this as an improved way to generate cathode rays for his experiments, and in this process found that (surprisingly) the ejected electrons did not fly faster when he increased the intensity of the UV light but just got more numerous. Changing the frequency of the UV light was the key to changing the speed of the ejected electrons. The reasons for this were totally mysterious, given the state of knowledge of physics at the turn of the century.

    Lenard’s reputation was that of a first rate experimental physicist – his experimental setups and quality of data were superb and highly ingenious. But like a great pitcher who can’t hit, his abilities at experiment did not translate to similar aptitude for theory. It took an Einstein, literally, to figure out why Lenard got the results he got and to make it theoretically clear, quantitative, and predictable. And that analysis is what got Einstein his Nobel about 15 years after Lenard got one – Einstein’s was not for relativity but for explaining Lenard’s photoelectric effect.

    So…. 1905. Lenard gets a Nobel. Einstein totally overturns the world of physics. Here’s where things get weird.

    Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect directly led to quantum mechanics. And for the rest of his life, Einstein could never accept quantum mechanics and did everything he could to figure out ways to show that QM was nonsense. Unfortunately for him, QM has passed every experimental challenge ever thrown at it, and his thought experiments about QM’s inevitable paradoxes in fact only strengthened his hated theory when experiment verified them.

    Weirder yet: Lenard deeply resented his brilliant experiments being explained by this upstart Jewish nobody. He embarked on a single-minded lifelong crusade to discredit anything and everything that Einstein had done, contrasting the hated Jew Physics (his actual term for it) with the beautiful and traditional Aryan Physics (also his term). He was also active in movements to ban or severely restrict the use of English and English terms in physics texts and university settings. Then Hitler appeared. Lenard (with the help of fellow Nobelist Johannes Stark, he of the eponymous Stark Effect, which ironically gave more experimental support to the hated Jew Physics QM) enthusiastically embraced the Nazi party, led the effort to remove Jews from university positions, and replaced any faculty that supported modern physics Jew Physics with politically correct Aryan Physics advocates.

    Lenard became Hitler’s chief science adviser, and his only failure in the political realm was his inability to destroy Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of QM (and he would have succeeded if it weren’t for you nosy kids Heisenberg’s childhood friendship with Heinrich Himmler). In the scientific realm, of course, he utterly failed to dislodge Einstein’s theories from physics outside of Germany and discredit that hated Jew, though he did manage to transform Germany from the world leader in physics to a total non-entity for decades thereafter.

    Lenard’s legacy is obscurity and fringe “scientists” who have gone to impressive lengths to disprove relativity (Here’s an example of 100 scientists beclowning themselves – remember this the next time someone tells you about that 97% thing), which has in our day mutated into an interesting alliance between crank “scientists” and frank anti-semites.

    Einstein’s legacy is a reputation as one of the smartest humans to ever live and almost the entire basis of what we know and understand about physics a century later. Following Einstein, it’s fair to say that Jews have dominated physics in disproportionate numbers, and one contributing factor was the Lenard-and-Stark-led purge.

    I’d score this one a win for (((us))).

     

     

     

  • March For Science Gets Real

    Wherein the IFLS crowd shows how much they Fucking Love Science by actually shooting at some real scientists. Renowned scientist Dull-witted self-important kiddie TV show actor Bill Nye only wants to jail people for having a different reading of climatological data (which generously assumes he actually has read the data rather than regurgitating the opinions of the numerous people who are significantly smarter than he is). The renowned scientist hack political attorney general Eric Schneiderman just wants to harass scientists into silence and extract a few billion from oil companies. The Science Marchers are much more action-oriented.

    To paraphrase Niven and Pournelle, “Think of it as Progressivism in action.”

  • Quick Take- What the March for Science Doesn’t Mention

    During my morning news read, I came across this article in National Review Online. It got me thinking about the abuse of science by the legal system. This quote jumped out at me:

    The second reason, a much more disturbing one, is that criminal trial lawyers tend not to be adept in evaluating scientific evidence.
     
    Nor are prosecutors, judges and courts in general. Are there positive and negative controls? Of course not. Is the testing done double-blind with randomized controls and replications? Of course not. Is the lab being paid by the same people paying the prosecution? Of course. Is there an incentive for them to give the desired (by the State) answers? Of course. Can the jurors in a trial ask tough questions to determine the validity of evidence? Of course not. Can they even research for themselves what scientific basis is used for the evidence? Don’t be silly!
     
    The criminal justice system is inherently corrupt and incompetent when it brings in “science.” And if one has any doubts about the way the “law” has determined what good and bad scientific evidence is, the courts will prevent any such skepticism from being allowed into the jury box. The upside is that the prospective juror will be dismissed and not be subjected to involuntary servitude. The downside is that the State’s carceral machine continues to hum along efficiently.
    None of this was the focus of the March For Science’s outrage- their concern was solely “gimmee free stuff” and “let’s adopt Team Blue talking points as dogma.” Putting people in cages is good for the public employee unions funding Team Blue, so best not to even THINK about this.

  • The Derponomicon: Part 4

    Welcome once more to my magnificent nightmare.

    I will devote this installment to the prog’s views on science and the environment.

    His response to this article on failed Earth Day predictions:

    Don’t forget to pack a wife.

    The problem with your “ridiculous predictions” article, is that most of them AREN’T ridiculous, and actually have more than a grain of truth in them. For instance there IS a worldwide hunger and famine epidemic all across Africa and Asia, much of which is caused by extreme droughts and desertification caused by climate change. Thousands of people die every day from starvation and famine on this planet. That’s not even debatable. Many of these are just general statements….like number 3 saying we need toconserve our resources or face possible extinction. That’s a factual, true, logical statement. There is no arguing that using all our resources would lead to extinction. For instance if we had no fresh water, or couldn’t grow crops…we would die. This is not ridiculous or untrue. People DO die from air pollution, all the time, cancer rates have been increasing for decades due to increased exposure, asthma is at an all time high. These are all problems caused by the environment in which we live. Most of the rest of these are just unsubstantiated claims made in no official scientific capacity or have no specific time frame attached to them. So quite frankly, I call bullshit on ALL of those. None of them are ridiculous and most of them are mere logical statements of fact.

    No attempt made to rebut any of the claims, just lots of hand-waving.

    His response to the skeptic’s case against climate change:

    Have you ever felt giant teeth crushing your pelvis?

    On the climate change thing; The common misconception among deniers is that climate change science is coming from the government, which is just about as accurate as saying vaccination science is coming from the government, or evolutionary science is coming from the government. Just because the government accepts the widely researched scientific concensus on a subject and adopts policy to reflect that, does not at all mean that information is coming from “the government”. Climate change has been widely researched since the 1970s, and ALL of the effects that were widely discussed then ARE happening now. We are seeing climate change happening, as predicted decades ago. The official position of EVERY government in the entire world has accepted the fact that not only is climate change real, but is being greatly exacerbated by human activity. The ironic thing is that everyone that claims that this is all an agenda of the government’s of all the world’s nations is somehow rooted in some evil grab for power, when in fact the only entity fighting against the science is the most powerful corporations in human history. In fact literally every single source that refutes climate science can be traced back to the most wealthy and monied and nefarious interests in known history, big oil and coal. Literally every single source, there is not one credible source that refutes AGW that is not linked to the most monied interests of all. The very small amount of credible peer review scientists that actually do deny AGW, don’t even deny It at all, they simply speculate that it may not be as bad as it has been thought to be, or that the amount of it being influenced by man is up for debate. But there is literally not one single credible scientific source in the entire world that flat out denies AGW. It IS happening, we see it in the strange weather extremes, the shifting on animal migratory patterns, breeding habits, growth patterns of fungi and plants. These are not things that have an agenda. Because I am out in nature all the time and speak with a multitude of biologists and nature hobbyists of all kinds and EVERY single one of them agrees that these changes are happening exactly as predicted, I have no reason whatsoever to even for a moment consider that oil lobbyists are right.

    Note how he fails to address any of the claims made. I originally sent him a video version instead of text because I didn’t think he was capable of reading it all.

    A response to this video on food irradiation (or, for those who prefer to read):

    (Food not pictured.)

    On food irradiation….Like everything else conservatives support the misinformation is coming directly from lobbyists and the corporations that seek to profit off of the ignorance of the public. Just like climate change denial, the ONLY studies that are saying food irradiation is safe is the lobbyists and companies paying for the studies in their favor in the first place. You would be hard pressed to find any legitimate scientist or biologist that would advise eating food that has been exposed to radiation. The real problem of course, is the corporate factory farms and fast food restaurants using substandard practices and cleaning procedures to process their food. Almost all the major food poisoning outbreaks of the last few years have come from these large scale agri-businesses and fast food restaurants improperly handling the product or knowingly using tainted water or meat. Much like the recent cancerous cows recall. You know which farms very rarely if ever cause any of these kinds of problems? Small family owned farms, that have caring people and proper oversight running them. Irradiating all of the food to stop food poisoning is trading in one problem for another. Small levels of radiation in some carrots or a hamburger probably aren’t a big deal, but if EVERYTHING you ate was exposed to radiation eventually it would have very adverse and widespread effects. And that’s not even up for debate.

    Hmm… some No True Scotsmen and question-begging. And of course, deflection. Note also that he has not the faintest idea of how food irradiation works. But that doesn’t stop him from having an opinion on it.

    At the time of our correspondence, I was working as a process engineer in a food packaging factory. I tried in vain to explain to him that most plastic food packaging is exposed to radiation during its manufacture. The process is called electronic cross-linking. The plastic is “cooked” with a beam of electrons which makes the plastic tougher. While the radiation released by this process can be harmful without proper shielding, the plastic is harmless. It does not become radioactive.

    Worrying about irradiated food is just as stupid as worrying that cooking food in a microwave will make it radioactive.

    I also tried to explain to him that the smoke detectors in his house contain the radioactive isotope americium 241, which releases alpha and gamma radiation as it decays.

    It was no use. Like guns, radiation and nuclear energy are just an evil totems for progs.