Recently in Science Category

To quote Squidward, "Just when I thought they couldn't get any stupider..."

It never ceases to amaze me the willingness of people to swallow all kinds of pseudo-scientific twaddle while at the same time discarding the hard, verifiable sciences because they're too "icky".

Whether it's astrology, palm-reading, or post-feminist condemnation of such things like logic and scientific method merely because someone believes it has some mysterious phallic meaning that denigrates women, minorities, or one of the newer "victim" classes, it's all crap. Every bit of it.

As I have stated many times before, I am an engineer. I deal with scientifically proven concepts every day while practicing my profession. No amount of wishing or thinking positive Gaia-centric thoughts or consulting the stars or planets will change the physical laws that dictate how the electronic circuits or optical components I work with every day will function. Logic gates in digital circuits will always behave in ways dictated by physics of electronics (and computer science), unless acted upon by yet another scientifically proven natural force. There's no getting around it. Yet there are still folks out there that insist we must discard such foolishness in order to understand how the universe ought to work.

Yeah. Right.

A few examples:

Some of you may have fond memories of Dr Sandra Harding, an alleged "feminist philosopher of science," who claims that Einstein's theories of relativity are "gender-biased" and thus disreputable. Ms Harding famously described Newton's Principia as a "rape manual" and claimed that rape and torture metaphors could be used to usefully describe its contents.

So theories that describe, in part, how the universe works are "gender biased" or a thinly disguised "rape manual"? How effin' stupid can people be?

There's more:

Biology is a socially constructed concept too - dated. It categorizes and defines 'organisms' a certain way - not wholistically - and not the only way possible, I might add.

First, I have to ask; what the hell is "wholistically"? I can't find it in the dictionary and Google does link to a number of sites using the term, but nowhere is it defined. Could they mean "holistically"? And why would it, whatever it is, be more valid than a system that's been used by biologists world-wide for hundreds of years? And what should we use in its stead?

Then there's this:

I am no science major, but I know Einstein's theories and physics has already proven most of the fundamentals of biology to be faulty.

I had the same reaction as David Thompson on this one: How exactly do the theories of General and Special Relativity have anything to do with biology? Unless one is talking about the bits and pieces of biology at the quantum level (the quarks that make up the protons, neutrons, and electrons that in turn make up the molecules that are necessary for life), there's no connection between the two.

The diatribe David links goes on to explain how science is nothing but a belief system no different than any other religion. Hmm. I never saw science as a religion, particularly since, unlike religion, it has no room for blind faith in something unprovable or unproven. Instead, science is built upon a foundation of proven theorems, where at any time they can be proven right again and again through observation and experimentation. The science that built our modern civilization is not religious belief. As we learn more we create new hypotheses, and use the evidence we gather and the experiments we try to prove or disprove them. Others will do likewise. No amount of wishing or pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo will change that. Though that won't stop some folks from trying.

That's fine with me....as long as they leave me alone and let me get on with my work.

Isn't it interesting that more and more reputable scientists, including climatologists, meteorologists, and solar scientists are speaking out, disagreeing with the "fact" of anthropogenic global warming. One of the most recent to speak out against those preaching anthropogenic global warming is the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman. He calls it what I believe it is, a scam to gain access to large amounts of money and to seize control of much of the world's population.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other's papers, they are summarized and voted on, and voila, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

Frankly, I'm far more inclined to believe John Coleman than Al Gore. Coleman has done far more research and review about something in which he has years of expertise, where Al Gore has none. John Coleman has nothing to gain from denouncing the global warming hysteria he sees. Al Gore has millions, if not billions of dollars to gain if he can sell his pitch that we're all to blame for climate change. So do many of the so-called scientists that have reached a consensus that we're to blame, even though a majority of those "scientists" have no background or training in climate science what so ever. When the deniers with scientific background and knowledge about our climate far outnumber the proponents of global warming, I must go with the majority. This is particularly so because a significant number of the deniers were once proponents of global warming. But as they reviewed studies and conducted research of their own, they found the numbers didn't add up, that too many of the studies reached conclusions that we were the cause of global warming, conclusions that were not supported by the data. And some deniers have been stating that we are more likely entering a period of global cooling, an effect of the lower than average solar activity we are now experiencing. If nothing else, it can be said that the debate about anthropogenic global warming is not over. It's nowhere near over.

The Sun's inactivity due to the long delayed start of solar Cycle 24 has got some scientists concerned, wondering if we might be entering another long solar minimum phase.

The last two times we suffered such long solar minimums we experienced Little Ice Ages, with much cooler global temperatures and major disruptions in agriculture leading to famine.

If the Sun is entering a prolonged minimum phase, global warming will be the least of our problems.

What if one of the answers to our energy problems turns out to be nothing more than a fancy ink jet printer?

Researchers at Colorado State University have been using an ink jet printer to deposit materials on a substrate in order to create what has been called a photoelectrolytic solar cell. Rather than generating electricity when sunlight strikes the cell, the photoelectrolytic cell generates hydrogen by splitting water atoms into its constituent elements. The hydrogen released could be collected and stored for use by a fuel cell or hydrogen burning internal combustion engine.

To be practical, a solar-photoelectrolytic material must not only split water efficiently, but should have a bandgap that is not so large that it prevents most of the solar spectrum from being absorbed; the material should also operate stably for many years in harsh sunlight. The CSU group believes that a nanostructured oxide semiconductor will be the ultimate practical material; it will be deposited on the backside of a glass substrate--allowing for back illumination, which reduces scattering of sunlight. The material, they also believe, will contain multiple metals that, when added together, will create stability, high absorption, and efficient catalysis.

Such a system could be a more efficient way to store solar energy than batteries, such as is done now. It might also be able to generate enough hydrogen to fuel the family automobile, something that should appeal to just about everyone that drives.

Let's hope the folks at CSU succeed in their efforts.

Hmm. I wonder how easy it would be to retrofit my boat for hydrogen tanks, a fuel cell, and that big honkin' electric motor I've had my eye on....