January 25, 2018

Bernie Sanders, Science Denier

You're welcome.

Many see Senator Sanders as the solution for the extreme right which has gained a voice in recent years. But should one group that denounces science be used to replace another? The extreme left is just a different symptom of the same problem.

You'll want to read the whole thing.

UPDATE: To be clear, I don't think ThreeSourcers will necessarliy dig this piece; it is full of smug inference. But, it is having the effect I hoped on the target audience:


Posted by John Kranz at 6:11 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

"Perfect" candidate, Democrats? How about one who isn't either a communist or a corruptocrat?

Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2018 8:08 PM

January 9, 2018


I have become increasingly frustrated with some of my capital-S-Science folks. While we share an aversion to what SciBabe calls "Woo," they have a myopic acceptance of expert opinion and a concomitant bias to the prevailing leftism of academia. Net-neutrality: good, Global Warming: certain.

It makes sense and there's an underlying consistency. But yesterday, I almost unfollowed SciBabe for sharing a tweet wondering how "that swollen prick (that, umm, would be the President) still golfs" when there is a shortage of IV bags and saline thanks to a Puerto Rican factory's being offline after the hurricane. Huh? What?

I'm glad I hung on. There's a potential rift between the ScienceMarchers™ and their lefty friends smitten with Winfrey-Warren 2020. Oprah's years of Woo might come back to haunt:


UPDATE: That's a funky suspicious link here's a similar-thesised piece from Robert Tracinski.

Posted by John Kranz at 3:48 PM | Comments (0)

October 30, 2017

inside the energy industry

Just to give y'all an inside peak at the new DOE in action, in great detail.
Backdrop DOE is pushing via a rarely used obscure rule, FERC to issue a rule ("NOPR") to compensate coal & nuke plants for their on-site fuel storage capacity under the rubric of "resiliency." FERC can issue rules that change how power plants (or transmission lines, or utilities) are compensated.

Here is a very well argued article which sounds rational and balanced, but really is against the DOE effort (the author is a GreenTech consultant). He likes to say "Facts Do Matter" but ... well, I'll let others try to ID the bias... if any of you read it!

I'm inching closer to pushing my writing skills more widely on this topioc, against the knowledge that the green-weenies will tear into my realism, and perhaps cause collateral career damage.

Posted by nanobrewer at 11:50 PM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2017

And, the Asshole of the Day Award goes to...

Doctor Neil deGrasse Tyson:


This was on SciBabe's Facebook feed. Love her, but she has a blind spot for doctor supercilious.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:11 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

I commented "I bet there were a few doubters last week."

Posted by: jk at August 25, 2017 6:14 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Dear Dr. Ty,

Would that be "predicted" from tree rings and insect larvae examined last century, or "forecast" from atmospheric observations over the past thirteen days?

(Even then, only prompting an NHC advisory 8 days ago.)

But yeah, I guess weather is a proxy for climate predictions then after all, right?

Posted by: johngalt at August 25, 2017 7:10 PM
But jk thinks:

The post drew several comments along the lines of climate != weather. Our hostess defended the tweet with "It's Dr. Tyson!"

Well, then.

Posted by: jk at August 26, 2017 1:24 PM

July 7, 2017

"Repeal and Replace" Climate Change

Federalist contributor Julie Kelly has a concise analysis of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's planned "Red Team - Blue Team" fact-based public inquiry into the complete state of scientific understanding of Climate Change. It will come as a surprise to many, although not ThreeSourcers, that "Team Science" isn't amused.

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

I won't excerpt the real reason she suggests they fear such an inquiry. Like I said, the linked article is concise. But I will give a spoiler alert: Politics.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:18 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

"The science has been so settled, for so long, that we can't explain why."

You've probably forgotten all of the evidence and reason, haven't you?

"Umm, forgotten. Yeah, that's it! We forgot!"

Posted by: johngalt at July 7, 2017 8:05 PM

June 23, 2017

I Thought the Science Was Settled?

Danmned Reciprocity Deniers!

Resonant and wave-guiding systems are present in the vast majority of optical and electronic systems. Their role is to temporarily store energy in the form of electromagnetic waves and then release them. For more than 100 hundred years, these systems were held back by a limitation that was considered to be fundamental: the length of time a wave could be stored was inversely proportional to its bandwidth. This relationship was interpreted to mean that it was impossible to store large amounts of data in resonant or wave-guiding systems over a long period of time because increasing the bandwidth meant decreasing the storage time and quality of storage.

This law was first formulated by K. S. Johnson in 1914, at Western Electric Company (the forerunner of Bell Telephone Laboratories). He introduced the concept of the Q factor, according to which a resonator can either store energy for a long time or have a broad bandwidth, but not both at the same time. Increasing the storage time meant decreasing the bandwidth, and vice versa. A small bandwidth means a limited range of frequencies (or 'colors') and therefore a limited amount of data.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:19 AM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

"...can either store energy for a long time or have a broad bandwidth, but not both at the same time."

Long-time readers may recall my objection to a similar "law" postulated by Werner Heisenberg. The "HUP" (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) makes a similar declaration of impossibility about measuring the position and velocity of subatomic particles. I continue to maintain that science will progress beyond this self-imposed (and, in my opinion, self-important) limitation. The linked discovery tends to reinforce my position.

However, in defense of Mr. Johnson, his Q factor describes a property of passive resonators. Manipulating a material with magnetic fields requires the input of external energy. While the new discovery does have novel applications, disproving an established law is not necessarily one of its achievements.

Posted by: johngalt at June 23, 2017 4:23 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

Hardware engineers circle the "softie" :-O
Either I'm being obtuse, or the writer is trying to say something a bit more than the research shows (hmmmm, why ???). Rest assured, the article does not say that more energy (or data) can come out than was put in.

What's most likely is that they've not yet discovered the bandwidth limitations of the

hybrid resonant / wave-guiding system made of a magneto-optic material
I've run out remembering the number of times that I've heard
But that limitation is now a thing of the past.
which certainly sells copy and tickets to research conferences.

This very well might be a sparkling new addition to methods of high-speed data rendition and communication, but I don't think it's going to affect the energy world in my lifetime.

Posted by: nanobrewer at June 25, 2017 12:49 AM
But jk thinks:

Redefining the term "tough room."

Most of this remains a bit North of my pay grade, but I see a heretofore limitation in the spectra and transmitting packaging utilized for wireless communication is found not to be a limitation after all.

If I overreached with "science is settled" then mea -- gorram -- culpa, but I found it interesting and Popperian that a hundred year restriction in design has been overturned.

Posted by: jk at June 25, 2017 3:45 PM

April 26, 2017

Well, I got an answer.

Do the Capital-S Science marchers accept overwhelming evidence on energy production safety?


One of the best consolation prizes about our Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper, is that he is a trained geologist and has run interference on fracking. In the linked video, he is taken to task for his moderation.

The second best, I suppose, is the potential for clever rhymes with his polysyllabic sobriquet. "Hicken - Loop -Er, don't Frack our Fyoo - Ture!" Not bad for third graders..

Posted by John Kranz at 12:40 PM | Comments (0)

April 25, 2017

Slate on Science

The stopped-clock of Slate nails it with

The Problem With the March for Science
Our culture's understanding of science is very, very broken, and on Saturday, it was impossible to ignore.
But there is very little indication that what happened on Saturday will counter these misconceptions. Instead, the march revealed the glaring dissonance of opposing that trough of ignorance by instead accepting a cringe-worthy hive-mind mentality that celebrates Science as a vague but wonderful entity, what Richard Feynman called "cargo cult science." There was an uncomfortable dronelike fealty to the concept--an oxymoronic faith that information presented and packaged to us as Science need not be further scrutinized before being smugly celebrated en masse. That is not intellectually rigorous thought--instead, it's another kind of religion, and it is perhaps as terrifying as the thing it is trying to fight.
A superb article -- I almost wished I had not opened with such a mean statement about Slate. Almost.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:09 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

It is a great article. I plan to share it with my FB peeps as "the first and possibly last article in Slate I completely agree with."

Here's a better excerpt though, IMO:

"Indeed much of the sentiment of the March for Science seemed to fall firmly in the camp of people espousing a gee-whiz attitude in which science is just great and beyond reproach. They feel that way because, so often, the science they’re exposed to is cherry-picked. Cherry-picking scientific findings that support an already cherished and firmly held belief (while often ignoring equally if not more compelling data that contradicts it) is epidemic - in scientific journals and in the media.

Having just now finished reading the entire article I find that I was not effusive enough. This is perhaps the single most important article I've read in twenty years. If not longer.


Posted by: johngalt at April 25, 2017 7:23 PM

The pros and cons of carbon dioxide

Pros? Well then, now that I've "outed" myself as "anti-science"...

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (read: self-interested government bureaucracy) has concluded that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an atmospheric "pollutant" that is subject to regulation - by them - under the Clean Air Act. Their power grab has been deified by a SCOTUS ruling that such a policy is, somehow, not Unconstitutional. As a result of that, not to mention a relentless campaign to vilify CO2 and the "fossil" fuel consumption that emits it, the approval rating of this little molecule is in the toilet. Which is surprising because the biological process of photosynthesis is one of the few components of a classical education that has not been eliminated from our schools. Somehow a public perception exists that while plants are good, the primary contributor to plant life is bad. Recent congressional testimony sought to put a dent in this "science-based" belief:

There are many other byproducts of combustion that really are pollutants, in that they have measureable harms to many forms of life, from plants to humans. But those have been regulated nearly out of existence - a fact I am not sorry to acknowledge. But let's not ignore that CO2 is the opposite of a pollutant - it is an essential compound for cellular growth of plants, and therefore animals, and therefore all mankind.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:48 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

"our Luke-warming home planet [~0:40]"

Posted by: jk at April 25, 2017 4:27 PM
But Truth thinks:

I have met many climate change deniers and I am still baffled by their statist, uninformed commitment to partial truths and misinformation. The seem incapable of carrying the cognitive load required to comprehend the facts behind climate science. This article does a good job of combining the collection of poor arguments frequently regurgitated by the "denialists"


Posted by: Truth at July 24, 2017 9:33 AM

A Better Critique of Tyson's Video

I don't know. Mine had barnyard vulgarity and a certain emotional panaché, 'tis true. But Jonathan Newman at the Mises institute exceeds me with a more comprehensive and better grounded approach in "Neil Ty, the Scientism Guy."

We agree on style:

There is an inherent contradiction and arrogance in Tyson's video. In one breath he is praising science and the way the scientific method works: "I get a result. A rival of mine double checks it, because they think I might be wrong." But in the next breath, he declares to the doubter who also thinks some scientific conclusion might be wrong: "You don't have that option! When you have an established, scientific emergent truth, it is true whether or not you believe in it."

So the rival scientist is allowed to question the conclusions of other scientists because the conclusions might not be true, but nobody else is. We may not all be equipped with a laboratory, but we are all equipped with reason, experience, preferences, common sense (some more than others), gut instincts, some ideas about what is morally right and what is morally wrong, and our own areas of expertise. Surely these are not meaningless when it comes to judging the claims of a politically-connected technocratic elite and their policy recommendations.

But Newman articulates what I could not: the danger of Scientism and reliance on elite experts. And the end goal is always -- surprise! -- a larger and more intrusive government.
Telling people not to question their government or a politically-connected scientist-class is dangerous. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water, and it seems to run against his own values. Indeed, Neil deGrasse Tyson is frequently featured on a popular YouTube channel called "Question Everything", We should encourage a healthy skepticism, especially when the government is involved.

Thing whole the read.

Posted by John Kranz at 9:14 AM | Comments (0)

April 24, 2017

An Idea for next year's march

Instead of marching for science, how about y'all read a gorram book?

I humbly recommend "Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks, by Geoffrey C. Kabat." I'll join you, as I have not yet read it. But Ronald Bailey's review -- on the day of the march -- seems germane:

Eating bacon and ham four times a week could make asthma symptoms worse. Drinking hot coffee and tea may cause cancer of the esophagus. South Africa's minister of health warns that doggy-style sex is a major cause of stroke and cancer in men. And those claims come from the health headlines of just one December week.

The media inundate us daily with studies that seem to show that modern life is increasingly risky. Most of those stories must be false, given that life expectancy for American men and women, respectively, has risen from 71.8 and 78.8 years in 1990 to 76.3 and 81.1 years now. Apparently, we are suffering through an epidemic of bad epidemiology.

Posted by John Kranz at 10:24 AM | Comments (11)
But johngalt thinks:

It was a "If you disagree with us, shut up!" march.

"Nobody expects the Science Inquisition!"

Posted by: johngalt at April 24, 2017 6:50 PM
But jk thinks:

Zero disagreement there.

Posted by: jk at April 24, 2017 6:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

What is the label for a "believer" who says "manmade climate change is a hoax?"

Posted by: johngalt at April 24, 2017 9:52 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I'm not saying I think Obama's Clean Power Plan could reduce future temperatures by 15 thousandths of a degree. I'm saying the warmists believe it, because the hoaxers pronounce it. I merely stiplated the claim for the purposes of the debate, and mutually arrived at your, "What of it?" Or as I like to say, "Big f'n deal."

Posted by: johngalt at April 24, 2017 9:57 PM
But jk thinks:

That's why this is one of our more amusing disagreements. We take different paths to the same end.

I'll admit -- before you level the scurrilous charge -- that I changed rhetoric more than belief. Ceteris Paribus, you get 1.3°C when you double CO2. Homo sapiens are adding CO2. Ergo, I can check the "believer" box.

I believe that to be advantageous. As soon as you use the h-o-a-x word, you're dismissed as not accepting the two points I listed, both of which are factual and reproducible.

It's too bad that the sides have drawn such lines that it matters. But conceding the actual scientific points does matter.

Posted by: jk at April 25, 2017 10:29 AM
But johngalt thinks:

I suggest that while you accept their premise, I don't. What is the premise? My internal formulation goes something like, "Because of the lifestyle choices made by modern man, CO2 is added to the atmosphere and the entire world becomes warmer than it otherwise would have been (which is clearly the ideal global temperature because... "nature") so therefore a set of measures must be taken, from reducing CO2 emissions to extracting wealth from its emitters and their beneficiaries that is to be spent on "mitigation" of the "harms" of CO2 and global warming."

I won't deign to predict your formulation of the warmists' entire premise but what I see you advocating here is to agree with its foundational element - that the overall warming of the Earth can be measured with precision and that a material amount of that warming can be directly linked to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There's a world of scientific dispute with both of those assertions. They are not proved, beyond dispute, by the scientific method. They are only proved by the ad hominem method.

I share your desire to find and celebrate common ground as a first step toward mutual understanding. The problem I see is that the average moonbat niece has neither the patience nor the understanding to consider the multiple, fully scientific, forks in the road that lead to an opposite conclusion than the one so effectively promoted by the egalitarian neo-Malthusians who insist that the non-human global temperature is the only one - not a tenth degree warmer nor a tenth degree cooler - that can avoid catastrophe.

"So you're not a science denier, but you're still wrong. Now give me your wallet and get back on your solar-powered government-subsidized bicycle."

Posted by: johngalt at April 25, 2017 3:47 PM

April 19, 2017

Pompous Ass Alert

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is getting the capital-S Science crowd into an excited molecular state for the big march! "This is Science! It's not something to toy with!" He shouts at 2:45 of his new four-minute video. I cannot embed, but you should oughtta watch it. It's archetypal Tyson.

But -- am I wrong? -- he's a property rights denier! That's not a bon mot attempt on my part, the video opens with the question "How did America rise up from a backwoods country to become one of the greatest nations the world has ever known?"

I expected Deirdre McCloskey to come out and explain Bourgeois Dignity in her scratchy voice. But no, Tyson's dulcet tones continued . . . it is . . . wait for it . . . you're not going to believe this . . . it is because of Science! All these amazing industries we invented! Because we used to believe in science, I mean Science!

So, Doctor Tyson, Dr. McCloskey would ask you, as a proponent of Popperesque epistemology, "why did this scientific miracle happened here?" We believed in Science better than the Danes? Britain started to doubt that F= dP/dt and lost her empire to the colonists? In a word -- and I know you love direct talk -- Bullshit! (Okay, I just added the "Rant" category.)

By the same token, are we failing in the 21st Century because we've ceased to believe everything that you and Bill Nye say? Or are we slipping because we're abandoning bourgeois dignity?

He says that once we all agree on the obvious science (of climate change), only then we can make the informed political choices between [~3:05] carbon credits, taxes, do we put a tariff, do we subsidize? He did not list any free-market options, but, hey, it's only a four minute film. No doubt time was tight.

When you stop denying the benefits of property rights, Dr. Tyson, then and only them will we be able to have the political conversation about solving the problems of our day. This is economics! It's not something to toy with!

Posted by John Kranz at 12:59 PM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Let em have it, brother!

Does it make me a fringe partisan hack, however, to add: "This is liberty! It's not something to toy with!" -Patrick Henry

Posted by: johngalt at April 19, 2017 4:51 PM
But jk thinks:

Three of my friends share this video today. Sigh.

Posted by: jk at April 20, 2017 11:34 AM

April 13, 2017


A group of 17 Colorado state politicians have outed themselves as science deniers, in writing. No amount of empirical scientific data, regarding a pollution concern, seems good enough if it does not further their political agenda.

At issue is an environmental report issued in February by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment regarding fracking and other forms of oil and gas extraction. The department is part of the administration of Gov. John Hickenlooper, a liberal Democrat. -- Colorado Politics

Posted by John Kranz at 4:45 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

And what did the governor's environmental report say?

The scientific assessment found concentrations of toxins, surrounding oil and gas wells, are lower than standard limits set for short- and long-term exposure. Cancer risks near oil and gas rigs are within the EPA's range of "acceptable risk."

With 10,000 samples to examine, the evidence is overwhelming. We'd call it a consensus of scientific proof that oil and gas rigs don't harm our air.

Environmentally conscious legislators should be celebrating. The study could help them sleep at night, as it finds our state's oil and gas wells pose no imminent health risk.

Lo, they are not dancing in the aisles. Instead, they are protesting good news.

Oil and gas opponents apparently wanted polluted air. They wanted a report that could help them shut down fracking.

Posted by: johngalt at April 13, 2017 7:30 PM

March 24, 2017

Would YOU choose to live forever?


The headline's not mine, by the way, it's UK Daily Mail's.

'The cells of the old mice were indistinguishable from the young mice after just one week of treatment,' said lead author Professor David Sinclair.

Human trials of the pill will begin within six months.

'This is the closest we are to a safe and effective anti-ageing drug that's perhaps only three to five years away from being on the market if the trials go well,' said Professor Sinclair.

Call me Pollyanna but this doesn't sound like cold-fusion style clap trap.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:04 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

Personally I don't need to live forever. Five hundred years or so, like RAH's Lazarus Long - that'll do.

Posted by: johngalt at March 28, 2017 5:15 PM

February 26, 2017

UK Heart Disease Breakthrough

Who says medicine in UK is abysmal?

Trials have been completed in Greece and are planned in UK and the US this year and next for a stem cell therapy of heart muscle that reverses the scarring induced by heart disease.

This is the first time scarring has been shown to be reversible. It could herald an end to transplants and lead to a treatment for heart failure within three to five years.

Professor Westaby said: "This would be the biggest breakthrough since the first transplants three decades ago."

Professor Westaby has been working on the technique for more than a decade and is carrying out the study with Professor Kim Fox, head of the National Heart and Lung Institute, at Imperial College London.

The implanted stem cells were created by medical outfit Celixir, co-founded by Nobel laureate Professor Martin Evans, the first scientist to culture mice embryonic stem cells in a laboratory.

Professor Westaby was inspired to work on the breakthrough in 1999 after a four-month-old baby girl's heart healed itself after he carried out a major life-saving operation.

Kirsty Collier, from Swindon, was dying of a serious and rare heart defect. In a last ditch effort Professor Westaby cut away a third of her badly damaged heart.

Surprisingly it began to beat. Fourteen years later a scan has shown that the heart had healed itself.

Now Kirsty, 18, has a normal one. Professor Westaby said: "She was essentially dead and was only resurrected by what I regarded at the time as a completely bizarre operation.

"The fact there was no sign of heart damage told me there were foetal stem cells in babies' hearts that could remove scarring of heart muscle. That never happens in adults.

"It's all down to the clues we got from Kirsty's operation."

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:30 PM | Comments (0)

February 3, 2017

Fossil remains within "fossil" fuel?


If "fossil" fuels, like natural gas, crude oil and coal, are really the product of decomposing ancient plants and animals, how can they also fossilize ancient plants and animals as shown in the picture above? A blog entry at Unconventional Geology quotes a Dr. Thomas Gold:

"The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff [but] it was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside... The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and much it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense."

According to the abiotic theory of geologic hydrocarbon fuels, occasionally mentioned 'round these parts, "fossil" fuels are, in actuality, renewable. And naturally so.

Posted by JohnGalt at 6:17 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Brothers forever! Thanks.

I had the disadvantage of first hearing about this from an incredibly gifted and charismatic physicist. The former President of the College I was attending and I were dinner guests at the home of a PhD candidate and hippie guitar player bandmate.

Dr. Colgate explained this forcefully and lucidly and the 19-year-old me was forever convinced. I try to look back and see if I was perhaps bamboozled. Yet, once you accept it, the reigning, dead-dinosaur-guts theory seems the crazy one.

The heart is that every astronomical object of remotely similar makeup "outgasses" hydrocarbons. Earth would be very strange if I did not. It's not a great stretch to think the trip from core to crust could produce more complex organic molecules through heat and pressure.

I gave away my age. Jimmy Carter was President, Fitzpatrick Sale was selling books, and our world was at Peak Everything. Aside from the Rolling Stones output, things were bleak and Malthusian.

This was like discovering Rearden metal. "Wait a minute, you mean there might be all the oil we ever want just as a gift of our astronomical heritage?" It may have been the foundation of my optimism.

Posted by: jk at February 3, 2017 6:45 PM

January 13, 2017

Making Western Water Great Again

President Trump is not even President yet and he's already inspiring positive change to the drought conditions in the western United States. Almost all of the average precipitation measurements on this map of the west shows readings between 100 percent and 200 percent of normal for the last three months.

Colorado is doing nearly as well as California, as evidenced by the map below. (Source)


Sources found at The Water Report's snowpack research page.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:21 PM | Comments (0)

January 6, 2017

Offshore From the Urban Heat Island

The next time someone questions the validity of the "urban heat island" effect, show them this post. The two graphs are last night's overnight temperature, at rural Atlantis Farm, and about 5 miles away in Brighton, CO.


Urban (KCOBRIGH41)

A roughly 14 degree F difference in low temperature. Bring on the urban sprawl!

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:16 PM | Comments (0)

November 25, 2016

c Deniers!

Really people, the science is settled.

The assumption that the speed of light is constant, and always has been, underpins many theories in physics, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity. In particular, it plays a role in models of what happened in the very early universe, seconds after the Big Bang.

But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe. Now, one of this theory's originators, Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, working with Dr Niayesh Afshordí at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has made a prediction that could be used to test the theory's validity.

Clearly, some Koch Brothers funded outfit trying to bring down Big Relativity.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:23 AM | Comments (0)

November 22, 2016

War on Science

John Tierney -- as in New York Times's John Tierney -- has an incredible column in City Journal: "The Real War on Science." Spoiler Alert: it ain't the eeevil Republicans.

My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don't devote more of my science journalism to the sins of the Right. It's fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren't you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives' threat to science?

My friends don't like my answer: because there isn't much to write about. Conservatives just don't have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the "party of science." But I've done my homework. I've read the Left's indictments, including Chris Mooneys bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don't affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution.

Conversely, the left's retrograde antics destroy careers, terminate funding, and -- oh yeah -- kill people.
Mooney's brief acknowledgment that leftists "here and there" have been guilty of "science abuse." First, there's the Left's opposition to genetically modified foods, which stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Second, there's the campaign by animal-rights activists against medical researchers, whose work has already been hampered and would be devastated if the activists succeeded in banning animal experimentation. Third, there's the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others. The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left.

This is a City Journal piece, so clear a bit of time and get some coffee, but do please read the whole thing.

If you want a taste, read my Hat-Tip: Ronald Bailey: Liberals Don't Really F***ing Love Science

Posted by John Kranz at 10:30 AM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Love it! Another excellent entry in the blog's "Junk Science" category.

It reminds me of this one.

Posted by: johngalt at November 22, 2016 3:00 PM
But jk thinks:

Hey, that is a nice one. And good tip, I did add this to "Junk Science."

I think Tierney, being science writer at the Times has some good cred -- though many are probably annoyed with his appearances on Penn & Teller BS. I also dig the explicit references to liberty and control.

Posted by: jk at November 22, 2016 4:18 PM

July 5, 2016

Self demolishing Tesla

I can't find the thread where self-driving cars was discussed, but this article from a Tech pub is a very good summary of the FL fatal accident in early May while a man's Tesla was operating on Autopilot.

The comments are quite good as well (all geeks, no activists get this far).

Posted by nanobrewer at 11:48 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Morbid humor being permitted in the ThreeSources Style Guide, I'll point out that you don't have to run faster than the bear -- you just have to outrun your slowest companion. Likewise, the autonomous pilot needs to be better -- I'd suggest by magnitudes -- than human drivers.

I wondered what would happen with the first fatality and this will be interesting to follow. Thanks for sharing that link, it was much more informative than most.

As an advocate of the technology, I am pleased that the occupant is the victim. Morbid again, but his is by definition a morbid topic. When one strays off the road and hits an innocent three-year -old, there will be pitchforks and a law named after the attractive youngster.

Lastly, though I crusade against Elon Musk's crony capitalism, I compartmentalize here and hope minimal blowback comes back to hit Musk and Tesla. This technology will someday save tens of thousands of lives and add $Trillions to the economy. I will not let schadenfreude get in the way.

Posted by: jk at July 6, 2016 11:06 AM

May 9, 2016

A Good Day

When Neil deGrasse Tyson gets whacked, it is a good day!

Conflating Smug with Science

Indeed, Neil deGrasse Tyson is a walking, talking reminder that having a Ph.D. doesn't make you a good scientist, let alone morally superior. If even Wired thinks Tyson's shtick is tired, maybe he'll decide to zip it for a while and spare us his offensively trite lectures about "Science."

Posted by John Kranz at 5:51 PM | Comments (1)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Someone once said that sometimes, a BS is BS, an MS is More of the Same, and a PHD is the same, Piled Higher and Deeper.

I do believe that this applies in the case on NdGT.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at May 9, 2016 6:19 PM

January 27, 2016

All Hail Insty!


Posted by John Kranz at 6:35 PM | Comments (0)

January 18, 2016


Telegraph - 'Miraculous' results from new MS treatment

During the treatment, the patient's stem cells are harvested and stored. Then doctors use aggressive drugs which are usually given to cancer patients to completely destroy the immune system.

The harvested stem cells are then infused back into the body where they start to grow new red and white blood cells within just two weeks.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:42 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

I don't see how we can play God with people's immune systems. I hope this is subject to 20 years of government scrutiny.

Posted by: jk at January 18, 2016 4:12 PM
But johngalt thinks:

To the Nationwide Insurance tune, cue Peyton Manning:

"F - D - A is here to helllllp."

Posted by: johngalt at January 18, 2016 4:33 PM
But jk thinks:

"AHLIKEIT." Everything sounds better in Peyton-American: "Sing-le Pay-er Med-i-carrreee..."

On a serious note, thanks for posting. I did see this and there has been a lot of excitement around stem cells. I put the damper on good and bad news to smooth them out. These stories come around now and then: promise, but a long way from commercialization. (Maybe we bet a beer on this vs. Brassard Fusion... :)

To those who do not know, I feel very fortunate to be in a drug trial (six years now) which has reallllllly helped. I'm still not a good pick for pick up hockey game, but it has stopped the progression of symptoms almost entirely. All with zero noticeable side effects.

Posted by: jk at January 18, 2016 5:34 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Great comment. I continue to be amazed at the ways we discover that stem cells can be used. I think I've even read about anti-aging research that uses them. The stuff of science fiction in our youth.

Posted by: johngalt at January 19, 2016 12:08 PM

January 16, 2016


Who knew the psychology of people's political predilections were so endlessly analyzed? Reason, of course, notes a study by Jonathan Haidt (where have I seen that name before?). It should be no surprise here or elsewhere that:

a significant proportion of Americans did not fit the simplistic left/right ideological dichotomy that dominates so much of our political and social discourse.

Part of the study and background material draws upon the Moral Foundations Questionnaire which lays out five different moral foundations: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity, and how Conservatives and Liberals score on each.

Anybody see a gap? Dr. Haidt did, and added a sixth: Liberty (!) Finally the Libertarians have their shining moment as a MF leader. There was also a Big 5 Personality Test (what ever happened to 3 being so sacred? inflation, I suppose.... but inflation of what), an Empathizer-Systemizer scale, a disgust index, Cognitive scale and .... well, I kind of lost track, but any interested can check out the link. The article cites a very solid conclusion:

Haidt and his fellow researchers suggest that people who are dispositionally (level 1) low on disgust sensitivity and high on openness to experience will be drawn to classically liberal philosophers who argue for (level 2) the superordinate value of individual liberty. But also being highly individualistic and low on empathy, they feel little attraction to modern liberals’ emphasis on altruism and coercive social welfare policies. Haidt and his colleagues further speculate that an intellectual feedback loop develops (level 3) in which such people will find more and more of the libertarian narrative copacetic and begin identifying themselves as libertarian. From Haidt’s social intuitionist perspective, “this process is no different from the psychological comfort that liberals attain in moralizing their empathic responses or that social conservatives attain in moralizing their connection to their groups.”

I came to all this from Ronald Bailey's column (hat tip: PowerLine) noting in another shocking discovery akin to finding gambling in Casablanca, that a vast bulk of political-psychological research to date, which aims to say that Conservatives are simplistic, are based on skewed data sets.

Posted by nanobrewer at 9:49 AM | Comments (0)

November 24, 2015


This is, it seems to me, the hallmark of what it is to be American - ambition. Those who lack it typically use a different term - greed. Take Canada's Linda McQuaig, for example:

It's no accident that the United States claims the most billionaires -- but suffers among the highest rates of infant mortality and crime, the shortest life expectancy, as well as the lowest rates of social mobility and electoral political participation in the developed world.

Yeah, it's the billionaires' fault! Seriously? No, I don't think many take such suggestions seriously. But it is plainly evident that billionaires, at least some of them, are really, really, ambitious. I give you here, Exhibit A:

Jeff Bezos finally one-upped Elon Musk in space. On Tuesday Bezos' company, Blue Origin, announced its New Shepard space vehicle had ascended to 100.5km and returned successfully to the ground near its West Texas launch site.


Go ahead, billionaires, one-up each other. "Waste" your "ill-gotten" and "unequal" concentrated wealth on "extravagances" like reusable rocket ships. I, for one, approve. But next time give it a better name - like "The C.S.* Linda McQuaig."

* "capitalist ship"

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:48 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

And the Senate passes a bill facilitating asteroid mining. Homo sapiens had a pretty good November.

I went to post that sentiment on Facebook but cowered against an imagined onslaught of reminders about ISIS and refugees and shootings and a (NATO ally) Turkish fighter downing a Russian plane. I canceled, but I still believe it.

Posted by: jk at November 24, 2015 3:44 PM

October 14, 2015

Eco Ruh Roh

An "unfortunate truth" happened on the way to proving anthropogenic global warming "believers" are more likely to take actions to mitigate wildfire in the UFI (urban-forest interface) - scientists proved the opposite.

Respondents in the study were placed on a continuum from 'believer' to 'skeptic' based on their attitudes about the degree to which climate change affects wildfire risk in Colorado. Although over half of the study respondents agreed that climate change has increased wildfire risk in the state, those respondents were not necessarily more likely to take action on their private property to mitigate potential damage from future blazes.

The researchers did, however, find a correlation between climate change denial and risk mitigation actions.

"A small but distinct portion of respondents who reject climate science as a 'hoax' are also the ones who reported doing significantly more risk mitigation activities than other respondents," said Hannah Brenkert-Smith, a research associate in the Institute of Behavioral Sciences at CU-Boulder and lead author of the study.

The findings suggest that attitudes and actions related to climate change and risk mitigation are more nuanced than they are often portrayed in the media, and that focusing on locally relevant hazards may be a more useful tool for educating and galvanizing residents in fire-prone areas of Colorado.

"The conventional wisdom that a belief about climate change is a pre-requisite for mitigating local climate change impacts was not found in this analysis," said study co-author Patricia Champ of the U.S. Forest Service's Rocky Mountain Research Station. "This was a bit of a surprise."

Raise your hand if you're surprised.

I'm proud of my alma mater for publishing this study report, showing that their "conventional wisdom" is anything but.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:52 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

Sacre bleu!

Posted by: jk at October 14, 2015 5:11 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I also caught the story about the French weatherman. Proof positive that Dylan was right: you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Or to quote a famous fictional French character who understood the connection between weather and political expediency: "I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy."

Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 14, 2015 5:55 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Did anyone else catch the other curiosity from the CU paper?

Respondents in the study were placed on a continuum from 'believer' to 'skeptic' ...

We've been media-conditioned to react to the 'skeptic' negatively. But as we learned from UC Berkeley yesterday, science relies on a balance between skepticism and openness to new ideas." And do the supposedly scientific-minded warmists, who disparage religionists, really want to be known as 'believers?'

Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2015 6:28 PM

September 19, 2015

Untruth in Engineering

I was a fan of Audi automobiles even before their "Truth in Engineering" marketing slogan, with its natural appeal to yours truly. Now, the automaker has admitted, they have added 'cheating government regulators' to their list of attributes.

Only after the agencies threatened to withhold certification for VW's 2016 model-year diesels - which would have kept them from going on sale - did the automaker reveal the presence of the software switch.

That switch had two modes, which VW calls "road calibration" and "dyno calibration." Only in "dyno" mode, which monitored for the precise conditions EPA and other agencies would use to test emissions, do the engine's full emission controls go into effect. At all other times, the diesels' software uses the "road" mode.


Okay, well, there is still the principle of a level playing field.

U.S. emissions rules for diesel passenger cars and light-duty trucks were the toughest in the world around the time VW sold these engines. While other automakers rely on an expensive system known as urea injection to manage the pollutants from such cars, VW has long maintained it was able to meet U.S. rules for its 2-liter turbodiesel engines without that setup; it does use them on its larger diesels.

So VW-Audi "cheated" in order to economically bring the turbo diesel to smaller, cheaper vehicles? What elitists!! Put the CEO in a country club prison!

Or, perhaps, harmonize U.S. emissions rules for diesel passenger cars and light-duty trucks with those in Europe? Nah, too logical.

UPDATE: Not just VW-Audi

When I was an engineer at a Major North American Car Company, my supervisor who was expert in all things engines-and-emissions spoke of something called a "hay sniffer." Specifically, the car met emissions when it was driven according to the EPA Federal Test Procedure, but when the software detected that you were cruising down the open road at speeds in excess of that protocol, the software "sniffed the smell of hay" that you were far beyond the city limits where smog was a problem, and it reverted the engine to a more fuel-efficient operation.

UPDATE: I went looking for a more editorialized take on this story (like my own, above) and found Jazz Shaw taking a whack:

None of that changes the fact that the emissions were within the required limits at the time of testing.

Of course that's a horribly transparent dodge in terms of legal tactics, but the law is generally held to and enforced based on how it is written. Volkswagen was obviously gaming the system here but if it's going to come down to 18 billion in fines I can't help but wonder if they won't make a run at a defense like that in court.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:15 AM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

I suspect this to be a good Rorschach test for industrial policy and political views. I'm badly outclassed in Star Trek allusions, but didn't Captain Kirk cheat in the "impossible" situation in his final examination at Starfleet? I'm more at home describing the Black Adder Christmas Special. In a reverse-Dickens, the ghosts show the good and altruistic descendant all the chicanery of his ancestors. The good one sees the benefits of blurring the lines and becomes a reformed patsy after the three visits.

Most ThreeSourcers are likely to celebrate the Belichickian outwitting of Fed regulators, but the dark side is the reinforcement of anti-corporate, pro-regulatory behavior. My biggest hurdle is to convince my friends that Kroger won't sell rancid meat to save an extra 4¢ a pound. This feeds the idea that Corporations are out to get us.

See what would happen without a well-funded and empowered Federal regulatory apparatus?

Posted by: jk at September 21, 2015 3:14 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

"celebrate the Belichickian outwitting of Fed regulators" I don't. It's the same pitfall that Instapundit alluded to when a society devolves into Irish Democracy, or Greek Social-Democracy.

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 21, 2015 4:16 PM
But dagny thinks:

Belichickian is my favorite new adjective of the month!

Means: just on the line between legal and not. Some people admire you for your guts and ingenuity and others think you are a cheating scumbag.

Captain Kirk gets the former. Belichick himself the latter.



Posted by: dagny at September 22, 2015 5:53 PM
But jk thinks:

Very good Holman Jenkins column in the WSJ today: "Green Illusions Fell an Auto CEO."

Posted by: jk at September 23, 2015 12:44 PM

June 18, 2015

In opposition to "Post-Normal Science"

It seems that a long time has passed since we added a page to the Blog Roll. I humbly submit that it's time to change that. Principia Scientific dot org.

PSI serves no political purpose, supports no political party (or parties) and does not engage in political activities. Our advocacy is for the advancement of the traditional scientific method (as per the ideas of Karl Popper) and resolute opposition to 'post-normalism' in science.

I am saddened, and slightly embarrassed, that it's taken my five years to discover it.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:56 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:


Posted by: jk at June 18, 2015 4:28 PM

June 4, 2015

But, the Science was Settled.

Science Daily:

In a stunning discovery that overturns decades of textbook teaching, researchers at the University of Virginia School of Medicine have determined that the brain is directly connected to the immune system by vessels previously thought not to exist. That such vessels could have escaped detection when the lymphatic system has been so thoroughly mapped throughout the body is surprising on its own, but the true significance of the discovery lies in the effects it could have on the study and treatment of neurological diseases ranging from autism to Alzheimer's disease to multiple sclerosis.

Deniers! Cut their funding!

Posted by John Kranz at 9:50 AM | Comments (0)

March 19, 2015

Total Eclipse of the Sun!

When? Tonight! At 1:41 am MDT, according to the astronomy calendar on my smart phone.

ThreeSourcers, being smarter than the average bear, are thinking, "How do I see a solar eclipse at night?" Simple - Fly to Scotland. Or just watch on this website.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:56 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

Damn. 2:30 MDT, not 1:30. A bridge too late.

Posted by: johngalt at March 20, 2015 3:14 AM
But jk thinks:

I hit it at 2:22 thinking I might catch the end and it was just starting. I thought they were perhaps replaying it.

Posted by: jk at March 20, 2015 9:36 AM
But johngalt thinks:

You beast!

Posted by: johngalt at March 20, 2015 12:26 PM

February 16, 2015

Rational Optimism

Matt Ridley found his way into yesterday's Review Corner.

He has done well on these pages; both Genome [Review Corner] and The Rational Optimist [Review Corner] scored five stars.

Brother Bryan sent me a link to his TED Talk:

Purdy good stuff...

Posted by John Kranz at 11:57 AM | Comments (1)
But nanobrewer thinks:

Fascinating, and affirming to Freedom Lovers. My favorite part was about 6 min, where he goes over Ricardo's thesis, of "how long must one work (at prevailing wages) to earn an hour of reading light."

I was struck the by the impossibility of unringing a bell. Doomsayers say looming socialism, like Obamacare, can't be undone after a certain amount/level of free stuff is offered or received.

I think the more powerful case here is that freedom (in the context of the speech: free exchange of ideas and goods), can't be undone... whereas the ACA can and surely will be when the bill comes due (wasn't it P.J.O'Rourke who said "if you think it's expensive now, wait till they make it free").

Money quote from Dr. Ridley:

Trade is 100 times older than farming

Posted by: nanobrewer at February 19, 2015 2:12 PM

February 4, 2015


According to the Free Dictionary there are 196 different meanings for the acronym "PMS." The two most popular, pre-menstrual syndrome and pantone matching system, are not the topic of this post. I refer to a 197th meaning: Politically Motivated Science

State senator Doug Whitsett, in Oregon of all places, named this enemy of the common man in his commencement speech to last year's graduating class of the OSU College of Veterinary Medicine:

Politically motivated science and statistically significant science are much like oil and water. First, they are nearly impossible to mix. Second, oil rises to the top like science that is fabricated to support political motives.


Estimated, assumed, surrogate or fabricated data points predictably produce 'counterfeit-science'.

Too often, we are asked to believe that biological systems are just 'too complex' to support science that is statistically significant. Moreover, we are expected to accept the unsubstantiated and often unverifiable assumptions that are used to calibrate the models.

Scientific reports that are not statistically significant are by definition, insignificant. They are irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.

Worse, computer models are too often manipulated to fabricate alleged scientific support to justify a political end.

The modelled reports are then employed to mislead those who believe that science is the 'final word'.

There is no such thing as 'the final word in science'.

Moreover, there is no such thing as 'scientific consensus' or 'settled science'. The scientific method requires that we continue to question, continue to probe, and continue to debate the validity of every scientific assumption.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:32 PM | Comments (0)

January 26, 2015

Somebody check my math

It's been a while, I'm a little rusty. According to the ideal gas law:


Which basically means, for a constant amount of gas in a constant volume of space, the pressure is proportional to the temperature. A football that is inflated to 13 (or 12.5) psi at 70 degrees Fahrenheit will have a lower internal pressure at [game time temperature: 20 F].

Pg (psi) P (psi) P (Pa) V (m^3) n R T (K)
12.5 27 186158.52 0.004237 0.322844229 8.31 294
9.928571429 24.42857143 168429.1371 0.004237 0.322844229 8.31 266

So the cold ball might be as low as 10 psi, with no tampering.*

But who knows, maybe they checked their balls outside in the cold. (If they did, they're better men than me.)

Posted by JohnGalt at 5:53 PM | Comments (14)
But johngalt thinks:

Not even close to approved under the TSFDSG but maybe this will help you get over your moderate indigestion.

Posted by: johngalt at January 26, 2015 7:38 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

And if you're sick of the Deflategate scandal, you might be interested to know that Aaron Hernandez' jury was seated today, and opening statements should follow. There's a palate-cleanser for you.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at January 26, 2015 8:26 PM
But jk thinks:

Okay. AFC guy that I am, I'm ready to embrace RAH's suggestion. Go Pats!

But I remain intrigued by the forensics. if it can all be explained with PV = kT, why does it not happen all the time? Do they check every game or was this some sting to catch the tall poppy Patriots? They have been playing this game in bad weather for some time. And for several years, they have allowed teams to control and manage the game balls. It seems easy to determine whether this is a big deal or not, but I've no confidence that we'll ever know.

Posted by: jk at January 27, 2015 10:22 AM
But johngalt thinks:

A PhD colleague confirmed my math, albeit with some reservation about the fluctuation of atmospheric pressure. He also suggested a lady physicist had done the math and, if I understood him correctly, "the air pressure doesn't change" with temperature.

But physics professor and former quarterback Otto Rieke says differently. Spoiler alert: He agrees with moi.

Posted by: johngalt at January 27, 2015 11:48 AM
But jk thinks:


What's the old line? It's not what we don't know but what we think we know that is wrong. I am held captive by an exchange with a Physics professor when I was a young man. I tried to use the derivative of the Ideal Gas Equation (IGE) with respect to t to derive the rate of loss of air pressure with the rate of temperature.

We had just derived the equation from the definition of kinetic energy (a very nice piece of theory) and I suggested the differential as a real world application.

Said prof approved my math as well. But he strongly cautioned that tire air was composed of heavy particles at high pressure, thus violating a few assumptions of an ideal gas (point particles, elastic collisions, no attractive forces between molecules).

Frantically combing the intertubes for backup, I saw nothing to suggest that Mister Brady's balls were so special [Pfft.] as to be outside the useful application of the IGE. Dr. MacDonnell may well have meant a microscopic deviation from 100% accuracy, but it left me with a lifelong skepticism of using the IGE outside of helium at low pressure in a lab.

We've some cold weather headed our way. Let's do an empirical test and get our handsome faces on the teevee news.

Posted by: jk at January 27, 2015 12:28 PM
But johngalt thinks:

The video features a football on a desk with an air pump inserted in it. They also demonstrate air pressure measurement with a pen-style pressure gauge (reads in 0.5 psi increments.) I hoped they would show just such an experiment (which can be done with a common freezer, by the way, not just a cold day.)

Yes, the ideal gas law is not the "always exact equation for physical gasses at all temperatures and pressures" law. But for computing the delta P versus delta T of a given number of molecules of a given gas in a given volume* at values around STP, it's close enough for an engineer.

* PhD friend points out that a football is at least slightly elastic, and can grow or shrink with pressure to reduce the magnitude of the effect. But like I said, close enough for an engineer.

Posted by: johngalt at January 27, 2015 2:25 PM

January 24, 2015

"A Truly Persuasive Work"

The previous post dealing with the "compatibility" of capitalism and Catholicism prompted dagny in a comment, and me in my thoughts, to consider the morality of capitalism.

Those thoughts included a recent review corner entry where it was suggested that a flourishing humanity progressing toward ever more prosperity and justice can be achieved by convincing people it is, a) a good thing and, b) achievable through free trade, i.e. capitalism. (More specifically, through the unfettered use of "fossil" fuel energy sources.) And that, c) presenting a moral basis for the primacy of humanity is "a new vulnerability to defend, not reinforcement."

I believed I had found an author who gave a moral basis for humanity to dominate nature in this Michael Shermer book whose "exploration of science and morality ... demonstrates how the scientific way of thinking has made people, and society as a whole, more moral" and did so without resting his case upon a foundation of Objectivism. It appeared that his justification was rooted in widely accepted principles of science and morality, and not a new vulnerability. The book is 439 pages and I've not read it but this reviewer was left wanting.

The reader is constantly reminded that it is Shermer who is driving this bus, authoring this heavy tome. When he fails to wrangle with hard issues, there is nothing the reader can do about it beyond reading on and hoping for something better in a later chapter. But that something better never came for me. I was not satisfied with the author’s overbroad reach, his irrelevant details, his glossing over the toughest issues, his very human but unfortunate tendency not to see the fallacies in his own reasoning and the failure of his own assertion of the facts. The book seemed not so much scientific and rational to me as opinionated. Perhaps the author has been too successful for too long and has become complacent. But I did not see in him a consistent ability to question his own thinking and hone his argument in order to achieve a truly persuasive work.

This illustrates my point that people long for a moral basis to justify their beliefs, and ultimately their actions. (No great leap of insight there, for this is the chief factor in the historic success of man's many theistic traditions.) Failure to justify the moral basis for human flourishing will, eventually and always, crumble in the face of some unchallenged moral basis to the contrary.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:35 AM | Comments (3)
But Jk thinks:

You can rat on me. The author was in Denver last night, and I could not be persuaded to enter the big city on Friday night.

I read the Kindle sample thus morning both of "The Moral Arc" and Steven Pinkers Better Angels of Our Nature upon which it is built.Both are very good and I struggle to decide which to complete. Both provide generous samples (both are generous books, Pinker's weighs in at 851 pages, Shermers 550).

Shermer seems borderline Objectivist to except that he extends -- I hope you're sitting down -- the sphere of protections to all sentient beings. Reading the first couple chapters it does not seem unmoored from principles.

And, just counting stars, there were many many more complimentary reviews.

Posted by: Jk at January 24, 2015 5:01 PM
But jk thinks:

Incentives matter. Shermer's is ($16.99/560) = 0.03/page. Pinker is ($10.99/832) = $0.013. That Harvard value that everyone speaks of....

The trouble with both -- and where I might push back on your reviewer -- is that both are writing to somebody who watches CNN every night and says "no way things are less violent! Planes are disappearing into the ocean!" Both are speaking to incredulous audiences and carefully piecing together documentation. I accept the premise wholeheartedly and am ready to move along.

I have to ask if Mister Three Stars is truly missing a foundational moral premise or if he just does not accept that we've left behind barbarism at an alarming rate.

(Srsly -- everyone with a Kindle should get the sample of Pinker's at least. He academically lays out the premise he plans to prove with anecdotes about the violence in Virgil, The Bible, Shakespeare, Grimm Brothers, &c. It's a powerful read and you get a nice hunk of the book for nothin'.)

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2015 5:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I agree with you on the "hey, it's way more violent than it used to be" mythology. The population is many times larger, and we require cable news to find violence in our culture most of the time. (True, none of us live in Chicago.)

Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2015 2:59 AM

November 26, 2014

Potato, Potahto

Is it best to pass an 18-wheeler on the left, or on the right? Or perhaps another side?

It wasn't worth creating its own category so I'll just file this under "science."

Posted by JohnGalt at 5:33 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

And one does not argue with science.

Posted by: jk at November 26, 2014 6:08 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Aren't we capitalizing the "S?"

"One does not argue with Science."

Posted by: johngalt at November 28, 2014 2:53 PM
But jk thinks:

ThreeSources regrets the error and apologizes for any inconvenience.

Posted by: jk at November 29, 2014 2:03 PM

November 21, 2014

"Universally accepted"

While looking up the prescribed quarantine period for persons exposed to the Ebola virus I found this gem of an edit as the second sentence of the Ebola Virus Disease Wikipedia entry:

It is universally accepted that the Ebola virus scare was the brainchild of the pharmaceutical industry. (Witness the H1N1 panic that resulted in millions of unused vaccine doses.)

I checked the date of the latest edit and found it to be ... today.

It has since been edited again and that passage removed. Interwebs. Sheesh.

Posted by JohnGalt at 7:02 PM | Comments (0)

November 12, 2014

Sputnik Would Be Proud!

After traveling four billion miles since its launch ten years ago, a man-made spacecraft landed on the surface of a speeding comet today. Just, wow.

Rosetta, which was launched in 2004, had to slingshot three times around Earth and once around Mars before it could work up enough speed to chase down the comet, which it reached in August. Rosetta and the comet have been traveling in tandem ever since.

The mission will also give researchers the opportunity to test the theory that comets brought organic matter and water to Earth billions of years ago, said Klim Churyumov, one of the two astronomers who discovered the comet in 1969.

Philae's instruments include devices to measure light, electrical magnetism and heat. The lander will also drill below the surface of the comet to extract a sample that will be analyzed onboard and it will provide plenty of images of a world no human has ever seen close up.

The lander's batteries are expected to last just 64 hours. But that should be enough for scientists to gather a huge wealth of data. In addition, the lander has a solar panel that should be able to provide an hour's worth of battery life each day.

I will not bite on the chances to belittle batteries, solar panels, or NASA. This is too big an accomplishment to sully with cheap (but well deserved) political points. Another accomplishment not mentioned in the article is proof that a spacecraft can be landed on a small body. This could be handy one day in the not too distant future.

UPDATE: What would the world do without Twitter? #WeCanLandOnACometButWeCant isn't the stream of egalitarian "wouldn't it be better to spend that money on _____" that I expected. A lot of them are very funny. A lot of them I wanted to reply, "Yes we can!"

The coolest by far was this tweet about the Comet Song. Actual frequency is in millihertz. What you hear is sped up at least 1000 times.

UPDATE: The first picture has been released to the public. Looks like a nice place for a picnic lunch. Or not.


Posted by JohnGalt at 3:46 PM | Comments (2)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

We're one step removed from summoning the whales with the "comet song", and two removed from V'Ger. Both of which, you'll recall, threatened to destroy all life on Earth.

Some days, it just doesn't pay to mess around with the Universe.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at November 12, 2014 8:57 PM
But jk thinks:

You play it backwards, it says "I buried Paul."

(Way cool -- sorry I could not resist the joke...)

Posted by: jk at November 13, 2014 10:05 AM

September 29, 2014

What causes cancer?

"Everything, gives you cancer, There's no cure, there's no answer."

- Joe Jackson

Well yeah, because of all the chemicals and pollution and corporations and stuff, right?


The point is that life expectancy and the percentage of Americans reaching old age are both increasing. That explains why, as a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine showed, cancer was the #8 cause of death in 1900 but the #2 cause of death in 2010.* We aren't dying of cancer because of Monsanto's pesticides and GMOs, as one lady recently said to me in an e-mail. We are dying of cancer because we are running out of things to die from.

Cool article. Very short. Alex B. Berezow explains that we are, slowly, winning the war on cancer.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:10 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

A mind blowing (to me) insight from Matt Ridley's "Genome" was that Cancer strikes after reproductive years (probabilities/tendencies). Ergo, there is no evolutionary selection for immunity. Elephants and tortoises live long, low-predator lives and bear young throughout. So the things that kill old tortoises are less present in the gene pool.

This adds to and does not refute any of the points you made. But there is some real poetry in Ridley's and Hawkins's deeper looks at genetics.

Posted by: jk at September 29, 2014 7:18 PM

September 18, 2014

If You Didn't Love Him Before...

Wow, is everybody following this? I had seen a couple of other posts, but this is a pretty decent place to start.

My infamous, lefty Facebook throng are diverse in color, creed, age, geography, and gender. But one absolute is a fanatical reverence for Pop-TV Scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. You cannot be a lefty without an implicit offer to scratch your own eyeballs out if you ever see him doing anything untoward. Like, say, fabricating quotes.

Now the anecdotes about his embellishments are piling up. And some NdGT apostates had the temerity to update his Gloriousness's Wikipedia page -- thus waking the sects devoted to his defense.

All in all, it was exactly what I expected from a group of hopelessly misguided religious zealots who will not tolerate the slander of their savior. There’s a word for people who fantasize about using sexual violence to force their will upon dissenters, but it's not "scientist."

Glenn Reynolds used the word "blowhard" which is a little kinder than mine (rhymes with brick-lead). Aside from his indefatigable defense of climate science, I thought him harmless.

Yet, knowing his modus operandi of "Claim X said Y and deliver diatribe how I enlightened X" when X never really said Y, watch the embedded video at the link. It is intolerable.

Posted by John Kranz at 4:42 PM | Comments (0)

August 4, 2014

Official Facebook Science Dude!

You cannot argue with Science!

Posted by John Kranz at 6:02 PM | Comments (2)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:


Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 5, 2014 10:55 AM
But jk thinks:

Amen. I never thought I'd be sharing NdGT videos on Facebook, but this one starts the trend. (My lefty friends are somewhat silent so far...)

Posted by: jk at August 5, 2014 10:59 AM

July 29, 2014

"Windy" the Wind Imaging Laser System

This amazing device was developed by some friends of mine. Check it out and please share it widely.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:04 PM | Comments (0)

July 16, 2014

Pollution Research Reportage

In a cringe worthy article, KDVR Fox31's Shaul Turner informs readers that NCAR air pollution study is largest in Colorado.

Dr. Gabriele Pfister of the NCAR said pollution can affect more than the air.

"It also can damage plants (and) it can damage crop yields," Pfister said.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment spokesman Garry Kaufman said the project will also track pollution from wildfires.

"We see emissions from across the ocean coming to impact Colorado's air," Kaufman said.

Experts say this is just the beginning, results will be useful for decades to come.

Your intrepid blogger, however, first read the scientific description of the study, complete with a cool graphic, on a NASA webpage.

Two NASA aircraft are participating in field campaigns beginning this month in Colorado that will probe the factors leading to unhealthy air quality conditions and improve the ability to diagnose air quality conditions from space.

The NASA aircraft will be joined by a research aircraft from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for flights July 16 to Aug. 16 from the Research Aviation Facility maintained by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado.

The main study area extends along the Northern Front Range from the Denver metropolitan area in the south to Fort Collins in the north extending eastward from the mountains as far as Greeley. This area contains a diverse mixture of air pollution sources that include transportation, power generation, oil and gas extraction, agriculture, natural vegetation and episodic wildfires.

The region being studied often experiences ozone levels in summer that exceed national health standards. Ground-level ozone is chemically produced from the combination of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions in sunlight.

Did we mention oil and gas extraction?

I'm all for scientific research but please forgive me if I'm overly sensitive to the political application of such research results. Quite honestly, I looked into the story out of curiosity whether NASA's King Air and P-3b Orion or NSF's C-130 Hercules aircraft happen to comply with new EPA emission regulations for FAA-controlled aircraft. Since the planes are not new my guess is, not so much.

It was a bonus to discover a prime example of Word Crimes in the big-time media. Sorry Shaul but you gotta try harder wit da English.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:47 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2014

c Denier

Phys.org -- Physicist James Franson of the University of Maryland has captured the attention of the physics community by posting an article to the peer-reviewed New Journal of Physics in which he claims to have found evidence that suggests the speed of light as described by the theory of general relativity, is actually slower than has been thought.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:21 AM | Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:

Oh my, the recessionary impacts of Obama Administration policies are proving to be even more widespread than anyone has predicted.

Posted by: johngalt at June 26, 2014 3:36 PM
But jk thinks:

Yes. At this rate, January 20, 2017 will neevvver get here.

Posted by: jk at June 26, 2014 4:09 PM

April 23, 2014

Air pressure denier!

But . . . the science is settled!

QUT Senior Lecturer in Physics, Dr Stephen Hughes, sparked controversy over how a humble siphon worked when he noticed an incorrect definition in the prestigious Oxford English Dictionary.

In 2010, eagle-eyed Dr Hughes spotted the mistake, which went unnoticed for 99 years, which incorrectly described atmospheric pressure, rather than gravity, as the operating force in a siphon.

Dr Hughes demonstrated the science of siphons in a paper published yesterday in Nature Publishing Group journal Scientific Reports.

Neil de Grasse Tyson could not be reached for comment.

Posted by John Kranz at 5:38 PM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2014

But The Science is Settled.

Why are these nimrod Clovis-deniers still practicing archeology? I understand 97% of the peer-reviewed research shows humans crossing from Asia 13,000 years ago...

</snark>: It is an interesting story:

But it is in South America, thousands of miles from the New Mexico site where the Clovis spear points were discovered, where archaeologists are putting forward some of the most profound challenges to the Clovis-first theory.

Paleontologists in Uruguay published findings in November suggesting that humans hunted giant sloths there about 30,000 years ago. All the way in southern Chile, Tom D. Dillehay, an anthropologist at Vanderbilt University, has shown that humans lived at a coastal site called Monte Verde as early as 14,800 years ago.

And here in Brazil's caatinga, a semi-arid region of mesas and canyons, European and Brazilian archaeologists building on decades of earlier excavations said last year that they had found artifacts at a rock shelter showing that humans had arrived in South America almost 10,000 years before Clovis hunters began appearing in North America.

"The Clovis paradigm is finally buried," said Eric Boëda, the French archaeologist leading the excavations here.

Posted by John Kranz at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

March 27, 2014

Science Is Settled!

Butter is Back

Never mind, too, that the industry's idea of "low fat" became the emblematic SnackWell's and other highly processed "low-fat" carbs (a substitution that is probably the single most important factor in our overweight/obesity problem), as well as reduced fat and even fat-free dairy, on which it made billions of dollars. (How you could produce fat-free "sour cream" is something worth contemplating.)

But let's not cry over the chicharrones or even nicely buttered toast we passed up. And let's not think about the literally millions of people who are repelled by fat, not because it doesn't taste good (any chef will tell you that "fat is flavor") but because they have been brainwashed.

This is the NYTimes, mind you, so we can't leave without a little scolding.
So at this juncture it would be natural for a person who does not read volumes of material about agriculture, diet and health to ask, "If saturated fat isn't bad for me, why should I eat less meat?"
Even if large quantities of industrially produced animal products were safe to eat, the environmental costs are demonstrable and huge.

I ate a lot of SnackWell's on my way up to 270 pounds -- and a lot of bacon on my way down to 200.


Posted by John Kranz at 3:07 PM | Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:

How about "sensible quantities of sustainable economically farmed FDA-approved meat products." Any word on those from the NYT?

Posted by: johngalt at March 27, 2014 4:59 PM

March 25, 2014

Have I told you the wonders of beer?

One of the most memorable stops during my 2001 trip to the Austria and Southern Germany was Andechs Monastery, not far from Munich. Occasionally I visit their web site and on a previous visit I found this page on the health benefits of beer. A few highlights:

According to studies in Finland and Italy, the moderate and regular consumption of beer (0.5 l/day) reduces the risk of kidney stones by 40%.

Beer, by the way, is not the cause of the so called beer belly. The beer’s constituents of hops, alcohol, and carbonic acid whet the appetite. Pils itself contains fewer calories than orange and other fruit juices.

Beer has also proved an effective preventive against osteoporosis.

Beer is also important in the fight against cardiovascular diseases (e.g. heart attacks).

Beer also has preventive effects on ischaemic strokes because alcohol, as described above, apparently thins the blood.

According to yearlong studies, moderate and regular beer consumption enhances life expectancy.

These studies have confirmed that a moderate beer consumption reduces the risk of senile dementia by up to 50%.

And of course there's the added benefit, it's delicious!

And, I learned something else this visit - several Andechs beers are now available in the U.S.! I'll be contacting S&H Independent Premium Brands soon to inquire about my favorite brew, Special Hell (basically the helles or pils.) They are, wait for it - on Wynkoop Street in Denver. Pinch me!

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:30 PM | Comments (4)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:


Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 25, 2014 6:02 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

The Refugee has a former colleague, an English gentleman some years his senior, who told the story of growing up in wartime England near a tire factory. About 20 years after the war, workers in tire factory experienced a high incidence of bladder cancer from exposure to some of the tire-making materials. However, they found that workers who had consumed 2+ pints of beer per day had a very low incidence of bladder cancer. Which mainly serves to tell wives to get off their husband's backs for stopping by the pub after work.

The Refugee is planning to conduct a similar experiment to ward off any potential harmful effects from long-term exposure to horse manure. He'll let you know in 20 years.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 25, 2014 6:13 PM
But jk thinks:

I remarked in the UK that one of my favorite things was everyone's bringing their dogs into the pub.

My host, incredulous, said "that's why everybody in England has a dog -- time for a walk!"

Posted by: jk at March 25, 2014 7:30 PM
But loni thinks:

Hi, I am speechless for the help I had from You Therapist Oniha of the winexbackspell@gmail.com Everything has changed for good....no... for Great...I would never realize that I got back my Best and only LOVE after all the bad things I did and said to her... Well, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART AS I HAVE PROMISE TO SHEAR YOUR GOODNESS ROUND THE BLOG UNTIL DEATH TAKE ME,I AM INDEED HAPPY FOR ALL YOUR HELP AND PATIENCE... I will keep on shearing your goodness as long as i am happy !!! Thanks a lot for your help Therapist Oniha OF THE winexbackspell@gmail.com FOR I AM SO GRATEFUL.

Posted by: loni at April 3, 2014 5:13 AM

March 19, 2014

But . . . I thought the Science was settled


One of my heterodox beliefs had a very very good week:

For decades, health officials have urged the public to avoid saturated fat as much as possible, saying it should be replaced with the unsaturated fats in foods like nuts, fish, seeds and vegetable oils.

But the new research, published on Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, did not find that people who ate higher levels of saturated fat had more heart disease than those who ate less. Nor did it find less disease in those eating higher amounts of unsaturated fat, including monounsaturated fat like olive oil or polyunsaturated fat like corn oil.

This is important to me both as childish retort to "science is settled" and as an anti-government rant. The Food Pyramid -- and its devil spawn MyPlate.gov did a lot of real damage, pushing people toward the carbohydrates that this story suggests to be the real heart disease culprits.

Granted, this study could be upended. But there is a vibrant market out there for nutritional advice. Our government has short-circuited the process multiple times in my life (I am old enough to remember the Four Food Groups as a non-punch line).

Posted by John Kranz at 5:26 PM | Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:

How can they claim to predict the weather in one hundred years when they can't even tell whether a bacon cheeseburger royale is good or bad for human health?

Seriously though, those are the only two reasons why the new finding is important to you? I can think of at least one more.

Posted by: johngalt at March 19, 2014 6:07 PM
But johngalt thinks:

What would the world do without health officials?

"The new findings are part of a growing body of research that has challenged the accepted wisdom that saturated fat is inherently bad for you and will continue the debate about what foods are best to eat."

The new findings are part of a growing body of research that has challenged the accepted wisdom that...

...and will continue the debate about...

They say this as though continued debate is "bad for you" or something.

Next week: 'Study Questions CO2 and Climate Link'

Damn Koch brothers.

Posted by: johngalt at March 19, 2014 6:13 PM
But jk thinks:

Okay, four reasons:

-- Science is Settled;
-- Food Pyramid;
-- Jimmy Buffett;
-- Gary Taubes's Good Calories, Bad Calories [Review Corner] is more an epistemology book than a diet book. (I made the climate comparison in December 2011; I am some combination of consistent and repetitively tiresome...)

Posted by: jk at March 19, 2014 7:06 PM
But dagny thinks:

Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.

R.A.H. (of course)

Posted by: dagny at March 19, 2014 7:06 PM

March 11, 2014

Morphogenesis Deniers Dealt Difficult Blow

Testing a theory by experimentation -- would that this could catch on!

Now, 60 years after [Alan] Turing's death, researchers from Brandeis University and the University of Pittsburgh have provided the first experimental evidence that validates Turing's theory in cell-like structures.

The team published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, March 10.

Turing was the first to offer an explanation of morphogenesis through chemistry. He theorized that identical biological cells differentiate, change shape and create patterns through a process called intercellular reaction-diffusion. In this model, a system of chemicals react with each other and diffuse across a space--say between cells in an embryo. These chemical reactions need an inhibitory agent, to suppress the reaction, and an excitatory agent, to activate the reaction. This chemical reaction, diffused across an embryo, will create patterns of chemically different cells.


Posted by John Kranz at 4:18 PM | Comments (0)

February 17, 2014

News You Can Use

According to research, "evening-types tend to be less reliable, less emotionally stable and more apt to suffer from depression, addictions and eating disorders" but at least we're [correlationally] smarter than morning-types.

According to Kanazawa, ancestral humans were typically diurnal, and that a shift towards more nocturnal activities is an "evolutionarily novel preference" of the type normally found in more intelligent individuals, demonstrating "a higher level of cognitive complexity" in the practitioners.

Don't tell my kids. It's hard enough already getting them to go to bed.

Posted by JohnGalt at 5:16 PM | Comments (0)

January 29, 2014

Now, I believe in Reincarnation

The Japanese researchers who won a 2012 Nobel Prize for their 2006 discovery of a process for converting adult stem cells to embryonic stem cells has now made an even greater discovery: a simple way to convert those adult cells to a pre-embryonic state. This could prove as important a step in healthcare as was the discovery of penicillin. NewScientist.com

The team call their new cells "stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency", or STAP cells.


"I don't think for one moment people thought this might be possible in humans," says Chris Mason, professor of regenerative medicine at University College London. "Who would have thought that to reprogram adult cells to a pluripotent state just required a small amount of acid for less than half an hour - it's an incredible discovery."

Reincarnation, or cloning of an identical copy, is not yet proven but regeneration of any organ by injection of STAP cells, is. The implications for treatment of disease and organ failure are truly staggering.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:20 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

I sure hope the FDA will make sure it is safe before they endanger any lives with this risky procedure.

Posted by: jk at January 29, 2014 5:41 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Man. What a buzz kill.

Personally, my first dystopic thought was, "Jeburz, the Malthusians are gonna go completely ape shit crazy over this one."

Suppose there a symbiotic relationship between Maltusians and the FDA?

Posted by: johngalt at January 29, 2014 6:05 PM
But jk thinks:

I don't mean to be negative. I just recommend a ten-year, double blind study where half the patients who need a new liver are given one made from STAP cells, and the control group participants are given a liver made of Play-Doh® Then, their application can proceed.

Posted by: jk at January 29, 2014 6:22 PM

June 26, 2013

Project for Awesome

Segue machine, Engage! The previous post lamented that cheap money could not "create new technologies. It can't make older people younger."

Project for Awesome, originating in the Colorado Springs area as far as I can tell, shows us what can do - both of those.

P4A 2012 - SENS Foundation

[Wanted to embed but seems to be broken, or disabled.]

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:51 PM | Comments (0)

May 21, 2013

Otequay of the Ayday

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists [like economists] disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous [Consensus?] in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. -- Newsweek, April 28, 1975

Related: "Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states." (Same article)

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:55 PM | Comments (0)

February 27, 2013

Pollution-Free Coal Power

Detractors like to say "Clean Coal doesn't exist" but Dr. Liang-Shih Fan is one of many scientists laboring, and succeeding, in accomplishing it.

Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, and director of the Clean Coal Lab, has just completed a 203 hour test of a radical new way of obtaining energy from coal. Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to boil water, and run the resultant steam through turbines to produce electricity. Fan's process, a new technology called "coal-direct chemical looping," does not burn the coal. Instead, it chemically converts coal to heat in a sealed reactor chamber. Tiny iron oxide beads help to deliver oxygen to the coal particles, which are then cycled through an airflow chamber for re-oxygenation, then run back through the reaction chamber. This is the "looping" in the technology's name. The process gives off no air pollution, and the captured carbon dioxide is ninety-nine percent pure, enough to make it a valuable commodity.

The test, which was run on a lab-sized reactor, produced a continuous twenty-five kilowatts of power.

25 KW! That could power a house! Or a car! Oh wait - carbon dioxide? Hasn't the EPA decided that carbon dioxide, necessary for plant growth, is a pollutant? Never mind. Back to windmills and bicycles.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:38 PM | Comments (2)
But Alexc thinks:

I was pleased to see that there is a NASCAR stock car sponsored by "Clean Coal"

This is good news.

Posted by: Alexc at February 28, 2013 2:56 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I thought so too brother, but when I saw it wrecked last weekend I couldn't help wondering what kind of smear ad the Church of Human Sacrifice might make from it.

Posted by: johngalt at March 1, 2013 11:59 AM

November 20, 2012

Compassion yes, Altruism no

I have discovered a research institute at Stanford University that was established "to support and conduct rigorous scientific studies of compassion and altruistic behavior." Naturally my interest was piqued (and my antennae were raised.)

The Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education or CCARE states its vision thusly:

Create a multi-disciplinary environment whereby compassion and altruism studies are supported and legitimized within the broader scientific community. To use research advances to create tools that allow humans to become more compassionate and to engage more readily in altruistic behaviors toward themselves and others.

First I note that I have yet to see the term "altruism" appear without the companion term "compassion." I assert that it cannot stand on its own. Altruism requires the aid of compassion to gain "support" and "legitimacy."

Secondly, the institute appears to not fully comprehend the full meaning of the concept of altruism:

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).

By the stated intent to promote within humans "altruistic behaviors toward themselves" they have revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of altruism. Their vision can be interpreted as promoting selfishness or egoism as self-altruism, though I wholly doubt that is their intent. I would be tempted to adopt that more "socially acceptable" description into a defense of rational self-interest, but it is a meaningless term: Unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of, yourself. (Harcourt Fenton Mudd, call your office.)

So here, at a scientific institute devoted to the study and advancement of altruism, at one of the nation's most prestigious research universities, the principals are unable to assert that their motive is to "allow humans to become more compassionate and to engage more readily in altruistic behaviors toward others." Even with the support of the term compassion, selflessness is a non-starter.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:24 PM | Comments (6)
But Jk thinks:

Q: Is the accepted general use of altruism fundamentally different from your precise use? I thought this the case, but a brief perusal of Comte on Wikipedia seems fair.

Q2: if yes, should we play a political game and assign a neologism that can be refuted without being "the army against nice!?"

Posted by: Jk at November 20, 2012 4:34 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I believe the accepted general use is altruism = compassion. I contend the two must be cleaved.

How to do that is, as you suggest, the rub. I think a good start is to always say compassion is good before trying to discredit altruism: Compassion yes, altruism no. Shall we call it the "CYAN hypothesis?"

Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2012 4:48 PM
But johngalt thinks:

CYAN Project? Nifty colored bracelets!

Posted by: johngalt at November 20, 2012 5:04 PM
But jk thinks:

Oooh bracelets -- please tell me you saw the South Park "Scauses."

Kind of like "liberal," though, I think the word is ruined. I think you come out against "self-slavery" or "communitarian shackles" or something which you can define. Instead of "I'm a liberal against altruism. Only I am not a 'liberal' as you define it nor do I oppose 'altruism' as you understand it." Not really fitting on a bracelet I could wear...

Posted by: jk at November 20, 2012 6:33 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:

In an honest, non-Orwellian world, they'd just call themselves the Anti Rand Institute.


That part is self-denying; I really don't want anyone else "tapping" that at all.

"Disseminate research findings on an international scale using a number of media forums."

I see red flags all over this....

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 24, 2012 12:19 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Yeah, NB. Me too. But they can't be stopped, only countered. That has been the Liberty movement's problem all along - that there wasn't any movement!

Posted by: johngalt at November 25, 2012 12:15 PM

November 13, 2012

Total Solar Eclipse!

In Australia. Watch it live below! [Peak occurs at 1:35 pm MST today (Tues) and lasts just 4 minutes!]

Sky and Telescope:

At 3:35 EST (or 6:35 AEST on November 14 if you're in Australia), the Moon will cover the Sun for a maximum of 4 minutes and 2 seconds.

Live video by Ustream

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:33 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Bing® photo is major league cool.

Posted by: jk at November 13, 2012 1:48 PM

October 14, 2012

The Man Who Fell to Earth...

...from freaking OUTER SPACE!

ROSWELL, N.M. -- Sky adventurer Felix Baumgartner completed a 24-mile skydive Sunday, wrapping up a five-year effort to break shatter a world record set 52 years ago.

Somewhere, Robert Anson Heinlein is smiling.

UPDATE: Inspired by comment from blog friend Terri.


Posted by JohnGalt at 2:32 PM | Comments (5)
But Jk thinks:

A W E S O M E !

Posted by: Jk at October 14, 2012 2:58 PM
But Terri thinks:

That shot where he is looking down at earth is one of the coolest photos in the world. Wow.

Just don't read the comments people are making (including Facebook). We aren't living in a computer ala The Matrix, we are living in a book, Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by: Terri at October 15, 2012 8:48 AM
But jk thinks:

Mrs. Greenspan reports he travelled faster than light.

There once was a fellow named Blight,
Who could travel faster than light.
He went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night.

Posted by: jk at October 15, 2012 4:27 PM
But jk thinks:

An Insty reader steals my limerick! Damned Intertubes!

Posted by: jk at October 15, 2012 4:32 PM
But johngalt thinks:

It's not really fair to expect Mzzz Mitchell to be thoroughly precise in matters outside of her field. That would be analogous to expecting a physicist to be able to read, with a straight face, biased news reports as though they are one-hundred percent objective. Some things just have to be left to professionals.

Posted by: johngalt at October 15, 2012 4:59 PM

September 10, 2012

Remembering who is the real "anti-science" party

Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell in Real Clear Politics:

A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?

No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.


Indeed, the only reason Democrats are considered the “pro-science” party is because the media, for whatever reason, has decided to give them a free pass on scientific issues. It is time the free pass be revoked.

You may say, I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:57 PM | Comments (0)

August 28, 2012

Pot Smokers' IQ 8 Points Lower - Permanently

With all the usual caveats about the reliability of "scientific studies" here is another datapoint in the marijuana debate.

Prof Moffitt said adolescent brains appeared "more vulnerable to damage and disruption" from cannabis than those of fully mature adults.

Reliable figures on cannabis usage among today's British teens and twentysomethings are hard to come by.

But Prof Moffitt said there was growing concern in the US that cannabis was increasingly being seen as a safe alternative to tobacco.

"This is the first year that more secondary school students in the US are using cannabis than tobacco, according to the Monitoring the Future project at the University of Michigan," she noted.

"Fewer now think cannabis is [more] damaging than tobacco. But cannabis is harmful for the very young."

The news article, by UK Telegraph medical correspondent Stephen Adams, quotes study contributor Professor Terrie Moffitt on the cascading effects of an 8-point IQ diminishment:

"Research has shown that IQ is a strong determinant of a person's access to a college education, their lifelong total income, their access to a good job, their performance on the job, their tendency to develop heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, and even early death," she said.

"Individuals who lose eight IQ points in their teens and 20s may be disadvantaged, relative to their same-age peers, in most of the important aspects of life and for years to come."

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:48 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! This is absolutely not a datapoint in the debate.

The debate is not: should you smoke weed? The debate is: do you own yourself? If not, then every "study" is a datapoint in the debate to restrict soft drink sizes, outlaw trans fats, ban cheeseburgers, &c.

If you want a real point in the debate -- I will share a Facebook post here. Lundy Khoy escaped Pol Pot's year zero when she was one. She has lived here her entire life. Now, she faces deportation for an ecstasy charge (and horrifically stupid perhaps criminally negligent candor).

We surrender our liberties, endure violence, lose billions of dollars to both crime and enforcement. But when we start deporting attractive young Cambodian women -- it's just got to stop!

Posted by: jk at August 28, 2012 3:42 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Apologies for treading so closely to a hot-button without a better disclaimer. Prior to posting I changed the first draft from "drug legalization debate" to "marijuana debate" but left the "War on Drugs" categorization because I thought it germane.

I completely agree that adult marijuana use should not be prohibited by law. I do, however, oppose the prevalent notion that marijuana use is harmless - either completely so or at least virtually.

A reading of the story reveals that harm is permanent among adolescent onset users, temporary for college and later onset. Perhaps an age restriction could be debated.

Posted by: johngalt at August 28, 2012 3:56 PM
But jk thinks:

I may apologize someday for the vicious energy-drink attack.

But I feel disappointed, saddened, and surprised that the liberty argument finds no purchase at ThreeSources. On your age restriction, if you mean adults-only, by all means. If you suggest 25 or older to escape damage, then you really do not get what I am saying and deserve the rebarbative energy drink post. Grown ups can make their own decisions.

Posted by: jk at August 28, 2012 4:19 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"No purchase?" None? Oh, you mean those other guys.

But if I may, I do see a parallel here to 'Libertario delenda est.' Complete legalization of drugs, like complete free-market capitalism, is pragmatically a bridge too far in the political sphere, which necessarily requires consensus amongst "the folks."

Maybe in our lifetimes. We can both hope.

Posted by: johngalt at August 28, 2012 4:45 PM

June 20, 2012


Human genome sequencing is cool. I think we all agree on that. Well, I think this is just as cool:

After five years of toil, a consortium of several hundred U.S. researchers has released a detailed census of the myriad bacteria, yeasts, viruses and amoebas that live, eat, excrete, reproduce and die in or on us.

It does sound quite disgusting but it could be as important in understanding human disease mechanisms as anything else previously discovered by modern medicine.

Each of us is home to about 100 trillion microscopic life forms — a figure that's about 10 times higher than the number of cells in the human body. In a 200-pound adult, these organisms can weigh a combined 2 to 6 pounds.

The vast majority of our microscopic denizens appear to be bacteria; 10,000 types may choose to make Homo sapiens home, the scientists found.

Think about this the next time you wash your hands with antibacterial soap. These bacteria are on you, in you, part of you.

The team had set out to identify a "core microbiome," a base-line set of flora that would always be found in the mouth, say, or the large intestine. They didn't really find this, but their analysis revealed that each place in the body seems to have a distinct set of metabolic abilities, be it digestion of sugars in the mouth or of complex carbohydrates in the large intestine. In different people, different microbes appear to be performing the same tasks.

The first hurdle is to understand that these bacteria are not all harmful. Some, in fact, are essential to our survival.

For many scientists, the chief hope is that the data will help them understand how subtle disturbances in the microbiome could be linked to medical disorders. From the first days of life when our guts become populated, these bugs help us get the nutrition we need, stop harmful bacteria from colonizing us and play a key role in shaping our immune system.

The article concludes with the obligatory cautions about overuse of antibiotics but these discoveries stir different ideas in my imagination. Ideas like, maybe this is an explanation for clinical efficacy of naturopathic medicines wherin the active ingredients are diluted almost to the point of oblivion. If they are acting on microbes these amounts may be materially significant. And then there's the observation that people who live together become more and more alike in some ways - if the microbiome helps define us then sharing microbiomes is a mechanism for each of us to help define another. And beyond my feeble generalizations, just think what human engineering Robert A. Heinlein might have imagined with this knowledge!

Posted by JohnGalt at 8:12 PM | Comments (9)
But jk thinks:

My blog brother can ably defend himself, and in the meantime I can assure you he is not suggesting kazoo therapy (if you have not seen Penn & Teller's B***S*** take on new age medicine, make plans).

For myself, the suggestion is a multiplier effect. One thing that intrigues me -- and I apologize because it is still lunchtime in MDT -- is fecal replacement.

Eeeew. And I do not know if has reached statistical significance to offset its repugnance, but the introduction of new microbes or a compound beneficial to their growth opens a wing of research beyond the typical lab.

Fear not, I am a huge fan of modern medicine and an arch-foe of junk science. Addressing the human body as ecosystem need not be a component of the latter.

Posted by: jk at June 21, 2012 3:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:

You're right, Robert - I meant homeopathic. (Before naturopathic I had written holistic.) Now, there is a world of difference between one molecule and no molecules. Agreed? But these mega-dilutions will never have no molecules. I had always dismissed them because the active ingredient was negligible compared to my body mass, but compared to a few pounds of microorganisms it could be significant. And said ingredient may act on just a few of the microorganisms and leave the rest unaffected, meaning even fewer molecules are required.

This line of reasoning begins to bring homeopathy back into the realm of science where of course we are all more comfortable.

Posted by: johngalt at June 21, 2012 5:40 PM
But Robert thinks:

But the whole basis for homeopathy is not the molecules at all, but the "dynamisation" or something caused by the shaking. I had quite a chat about this with a friend years ago. What they call "12C" solution has less than a 50% chance of having even one molecule of the goose liver or whatnot. :) The contention is that LESS is MORE. They claim its "Stronger" the more diluted. Their proposed mechanism doesn't fit in with the idea that it may be working on the microbes on/in us.

However, I am open to new evidence!

Posted by: Robert at June 21, 2012 7:19 PM
But johngalt thinks:

With the caveat that I am merely speculating on all of this...

Less than a 50% chance of having one molecule per drop equates to a decent chance of having 2 molecules in 4 drops, and an almost certainty of 1 molecule.

And it is possible for it to actually be efficacious even if its proponents have not a clue as to how or why.

Posted by: johngalt at June 22, 2012 3:54 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

The total probability is actually not the sum of the individual events' probabilities. If the chance is 50%, then the odds of one in two drops is 75%. There's still a 25% chance of two drops having no molecules in either. With three drops, it's still only an 87.5% chance of having at least one molecule.

The easy way to think about it: what's the possibility of all the events happening? Subtract that from 1, and that's the probability of at least one event happening.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 22, 2012 4:41 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Okay Perry, I was going to let this drop until you posted about it on your blog. ;)

You listed the probability of one molecule in two drops, and in three drops, but what is it for four drops? 93.75%

And what is the probability for 2 molecules in 4 drops? It is the same probability as 1 molecule in 2 drops, or 75%.

And what was my original statement? "Less than a 50% chance of having one molecule per drop equates to a decent chance [75%] of having 2 molecules in 4 drops, and an almost certainty [93.75%] of 1 molecule.

You may quibble with my adjectives "decent" and "almost" but don't mistakenly assume that because 2 is 50% of 4 I don't understand probability theory. When I said, "...I am merely speculating on all of this" I was referring to the biology, not the probability.

Posted by: johngalt at June 25, 2012 3:16 PM

January 28, 2012

Unearthly news we must have missed

Via email my brother mocked his Newtness for the moon colony contretemps.

"Do you think putting a manned colony on the moon is a good idea? You're kidding me right! Moon colonization and Obama care are both bad ideas."

He still likes Newt mind you, he just thinks this is a stupid idea that Gingrich should take out of his bag of tricks. Maybe he's right, but I remember the sense of wonder and national pride that gripped this nation during the Apollo age. I could live through that again without complaint. At any rate, it got me wondering why all the moon colony talk all of a sudden. This led me to a related discovery that we didn't notice at the time, possibly because Judge Vinson had just vacated Obamacare in Florida.

Here's the NASA press release from February 2, 2011 - NASA Finds Earth-Size Planet Candidates In Habitable Zone, Six Planet System

"The fact that we've found so many planet candidates in such a tiny fraction of the sky suggests there are countless planets orbiting sun-like stars in our galaxy," said William Borucki of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., the mission's science principal investigator. "We went from zero to 68 Earth-sized planet candidates and zero to 54 candidates in the habitable zone, some of which could have moons with liquid water."

"In our galaxy." Imagine giving the "Palestinians" not just their own state, but their own planet.

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:49 PM | Comments (0)

April 3, 2011

Tentativeness in Science and Public Policy

My involvement in several DAWG debates on Facebook prompted me to look up examples of historic scientific errors. I found the 2004 article Error and the Nature of Science by University of Minnesota historian and philosopher of biology, Dr. Douglas Allchin.

Allchin, who appears to have been an adherent to the climate change "consensus" at the time, gives what appears to be a thorough list of possible sources of error in science. He calls it a "spectrum of error types." Among them are perceptual bias, reasoning error, overgeneralization, and "fraud, faulty peer review, and other mistaken judgements of credibility." Okay, so I'm very intrigued by this point. Here is a science historian looking for ways to protect and defend the reputation and validity of the scientific method, not just from those with an anti-science agenda (religionists) but from the errors of incompetent or unethical scientists.

But what is the intent of this analysis? It seems a clue can be found in the summary statement of the "spectrum of error types" where he writes,

The remedy for tentativeness in science is active analysis of potential errors, guided by an awareness of error types. Analysis may qualify the scope or certainty of conclusions and guide policy accordingly.

Earlier the author uses tentativeness as a euphemism for the inherent uncertainty in science. So in his summary he wants a "remedy" for the absense of the power of science to "guide policy" through greater "certainty of conclusions."

So what began as, in my estimation, a rejection of the influence of democratic principles (consensus) in science evolved into a suggestion of absolutism in science instead. Katie bar the door!

In the case of global warming mankind has been fortunate in that, since 2004, evidence of one of Allchin's most egregious error types has come to public light through Climategate. It is frightening to contemplate how much greater the political consensus could have been by now without that revelation.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:04 PM | Comments (4)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

Good science is not the subject of a majority vote. Ask Galileo. And that applies even more today, when the votes of so many members of the so-called "consensus" have been bought with grants, manufactured through the bias of doctrinaire political agenda, or produced by peer browbeating.

Global warming - or climate change, or whatever this month's current euphemism is - either is happening or is not, and no amount of tracts, broadsides, and soundbites is going to change that; Mother Nature reads neither Newsweek nor the polls. I assert it's not, and that anyone saying otherwise is a fraud.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 4, 2011 11:43 AM
But jk thinks:

Eppur si muove: the only answer to those who claim "consensus."

Posted by: jk at April 4, 2011 12:55 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Keith, there is no question that climate change is occurring. There's also no question that it's been occurring since the planet first manifested 4 billion or so years ago.

The real issue is whether or not climate change is man-caused. One can perhaps argue that man does indeed impact and change the climate, but he would then have to acknowledge that so do the trees, oceans and other flora/fauna. To imply that man should, or even could, exist with no impact whatsoever is preposterous. The ultimate question is whether or not our use of technological devices pose an existential threat to the planet. I find that to be equally preposterous.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at April 4, 2011 3:42 PM
But johngalt thinks:

iPhones. I'm not so quick to exonerate the existential threat to the planet from iPhones.

Posted by: johngalt at April 4, 2011 6:01 PM

January 27, 2011

You Can't Make this Up

The Denver Post reports that Colorado State University biologist, June Medford, has developed a plant that can detect the presence of explosives by turning from green to white. Isn't it wrong to expose innocent plants to toxic fumes? Where are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants when you need them? Moreover, aren't are these "Frankenplants" a menace to the environment? And get this: the plant's name is "arabidopsis." Does that mean it is profiling for Arabs? Somebody call CAIR.

"If you take something into Denver International Airport, like an explosive for a plane, my plants are going to turn white," said Medford, 52. "That's going to get the security guys on you."

Kidding aside, Homeland Security envisions the plant to be so ubiquituous that it can detect explosives at the point of manufacture.

"Because you could engineer these plants any way you want, you could make them highly selective," said Doug Bauer, the Homeland Security explosives research program manager in Washington, D.C.

"Our hope is if these plants could be located ubiquitously, we might be able to detect explosives at the point they are being assembled," he said. "You would have a much greater opportunity for first-responders to interdict and disrupt that activity."

Is The Refugee the only one who listens to this and thinks, "Are you all insane? Even if the plant works, are the bad guys so stupid that they won't be able to find a locale without a nearby arabidopsis or just pull the damn things up? Are these people smoking the produce?"

So far, this little experient has cost the US taxpayer 10 million greenbacks. But the really bad news is that it takes the plants three hours to change colors... and you thought the airport security lines were long now...

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 3:30 PM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2010

Global Warming takes another body blow -

- This time from a renowned nuclear scientist.

Last November 20 I posted this first news of Climategate, which included James Delingpole's headline: Climategate: The final nail in the coffin of 'antropogenic global warming?'

JK was more circumspect but by December 1 admitted that the scandal was a "game changer." Yet, he still hedged: "But it does not expose a hoax as some have claimed. The believers truly believe. As long as well funded people believe, it is not going away."

Today, or rather October 8, the hoax is exposed.

Harold Lewis - Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board - resigned from the American Physical Society over events that have transpired since Climategate.

In discussing the publicly released resignation letter Anthony Watts says,

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

From the letter:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

He then goes on to expose the calculated lengths that APS management went to defeat his efforts to establish a Topic Group on Climate Change within the APS. Sharp, smart and irretrievably damaging to APS and the Climate Change movement.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:46 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

Put me down as still hedging, brother. The letter you link says "What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post." I fear this sermon will be heard only by the choir.

It's "Green Week!" at work. Thankfully, as a remote worker, I am impervious to all but eye rolling. Onsite workers went without lights for some time today and were told to shut off and unplug computers overnight for baseline current measurements.

This is from a private company, headed by a CEO who doesn't generally buy in to such nonsense. I guess they are buying off the earnest young employees. Whatever the case, we ain't won yet.

Posted by: jk at October 18, 2010 6:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I included your complete original "hedge" on purpose, to show it's a step-by-step process.

The believers do still believe, and as long as well funded people believe it is not going to go away. BUT, this does expose a hoax.

Posted by: johngalt at October 19, 2010 2:44 PM
But JC thinks:

No hoaxes here just a bunch of horses blowing hot air out their tail pipes! I have been studying this issue for several years. Based on the recent increase in reputable scientific organizations that accept "antropogenic global warming" as fact, Harold Lewis' single resignation letter fails to provide "an important moment in science history". The one and only effect of his resignation letter is that of providing fuel for the bloggers and non-believers.

Posted by: JC at April 1, 2011 9:47 PM

March 4, 2010

Liberals, Atheists More Highly Evolved

You may have heard the news that "Smarter people more inclined to nontraditional values, study suggests." This post is mostly just to say, don't believe it.

Kanazawa's theory is that intelligence—particularly our ability for on-the-spot problem solving and reasoning—arose as an adaptation to deal with the unusual and unexpected, such as a sudden forest fire.

Since disasters like that are rare in daily life, responding to them wouldn't likely be something our ancestors were hard-wired to "know" how to do. Surviving the fire required both the ability to think up a new behavior, and the willingness to try it out.

But intelligence has no role in classifying certain new behaviors as worthless? And our ancestors were unable to teach their offspring what they had learned? Did this researcher attend Berkeley?

The new study is intriguing, if speculative, other psychologists say.

"Kanazawa has done interesting work, but there are other hypotheses out there for the evolution of intelligence that are equally interesting," said Douglas Detterman, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and editor of the journal Intelligence.

For instance, other researchers have advanced the theory that intelligence arose as a way of competing for sex. If that's the case, Kanazawa's conclusions only make sense if, say, being liberal or atheist also makes you more sexually attractive.

You could probably convince me that competition for sex motivated our ancestors to solve problems.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:17 PM | Comments (0)

March 2, 2010


University of California researchers have determined that "yotta," or 10^24 is no longer a number sufficiently large for scientific precision. Thus, they are proposing 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 10^27 be named. The current favorite on Facebook is "hella" as in "a helluva lotta zeros."

In separate news, the White House denies that the need for a larger number is the result of the President's recent budget proposal.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 1:02 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Can't argue with Hella.

There's a great old Isaac Asimov article about the transition from primitive people's lacking the numbers to count physical things ("One, two, three, many") to modern folks with numbers (googolplex) greater than the number of things in the universe to count.

A great piece but -- as you mention -- written long before the 111th Congress.

Posted by: jk at March 2, 2010 2:14 PM

February 24, 2010

Maybe Obama's not a Socialist after all

On yesterday's program Bill O'Reilly posed the question, "Is the president [Obama] a socialist?" His answer was that while Obama has pursued socialistic policies he isn't an actual socialist because "Mr. Obama doesn't want to seize your house." I would counter that straw man with, "No, but he want's to seize your income to give a house to thems what ain't gots 'em."

Unfortunately I think it gives Obama too much credit to call him a socialist. That would imply that he knows what he's doing. I tend to agree with Randall Hoven at American Thinker who wrote Obama "is the cargo cult president."

At least the real Cargo Cult followers built real things that looked like landing strips to get airplanes loaded with food and supplies to land on them. Obama thinks you get factories to produce things and hospitals to fix people by making speeches -- speeches that are reasonably good imitations of speeches given by real leaders.

If you're not familiar with the cargo cult tribes of the South Pacific you'll want to read the article to see what he means. If you are familiar then you'll want to read the article to see just how eerily similar the Obama Administration (and the alternative energy movement) is to those primitive peoples.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:56 PM | Comments (3)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Remember what he said to Joe the Plumber? "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." I have no issue with calling Obama a socialist, even if he doesn't understand it. One can be a socialist and not openly espouse the philosophy of collectivism, or even realize himself what he espouses.

I was not familiar with the cargo cults, and it is the perfect term for the Obama presidency. His cabinet members, his czars, all his pretenses: even now there's never been a bit of substance. Like the actual cargo cults, underneath the manufactured façade is something incapable of producing something real. It's the ability to produce real things that distinguishes capitalist systems from collectivist ones.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 24, 2010 4:39 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Great post, JG. I heard that same comment from O'Reilly and flipped as well. One must suppose that he really doesn't understand that socialism is not an absolute state, it is a continuum. One could argue that the US is on the right of that continuum (exhibiting some socialistic tendancies, [e.g., progressive tax rates, Medicare]) whereas France, Sweden, Greece, etc., are on the left side of the continuum support a wide range of socialistic programs. He certainly does "the folks" no favors when he vastly oversimplifies reality.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 25, 2010 10:48 AM
But jk thinks:

Bill O'Reilly oversimplifying? Mai Non!

Mister O caused me to truly accept Ayn Rand's call for a clear, consistent and empirical philosophy. He is such a perfect example of the obverse.

Sure, I agree with him 79.4% of the time. But he believes -- fervently -- in himself 100% of the time. And he is always following his gut, never his head.

Posted by: jk at February 25, 2010 1:29 PM

January 24, 2010

Travel to the Edge of The Known Universe

Here's something cool to do during halftime - travel to the edge of the Universe, and back, in six and a half minutes. Cool!

Posted by JohnGalt at 5:48 PM | Comments (0)

January 7, 2010

Cell phone radiation cures Alzheimer's mice

Ever think you'd read something POSITIVE about cell phone radiation? Live long enough and you'll see everything.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:07 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

Next week: moving in next to a high voltage tower cures erectile dysfunction.

Posted by: jk at January 7, 2010 4:25 PM
But Keith thinks:

Nice. Until you stop and realize that jg just figured out a way for the FDA to regulate cellphone usage, and jk gave them the avenue to control real estate - they're both medicinal. I predict two new czars will be appointed by the middle of next week.

Damn that commerce clause, too.

Posted by: Keith at January 7, 2010 6:25 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

On the plus side, it will all be free under the new healthcare plan. "Take two cell phones and call me in the morning."

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at January 8, 2010 2:54 PM

November 22, 2009

Al Gore Wishes he Never Invented the Internet

This whole post at Minnesotans for Global Warming is hilarious and biting, but here is the part I find most relevant to prior posts of my own:

The Global Warming Extremists controlled the argument for years by saying, it's only legitimate science if it's published in certain journals and peer reviewed, and if you control the Journals you control the science. But sadly with Al Gore's invention, the anointed few are losing control, much like the medieval church did with the invention of the printing press.
Posted by JohnGalt at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)

September 7, 2009

I Love Oil

(And why everyone else should too.)

JK recently heralded America's Petrosesquicentennial, the 150th anniversary of the first American oil well. We are quite enamored of the "black gold" on these pages. And why not? 3.8 gallons of oil derived gasoline (you may have heard of it - it's been used as a primary motor fuel for nearly a hundred years) which can be purchased on any street corner for about ten bucks, produce as much energy as an average lightning bolt (about 500 megajoules.)

And the safety of this miracle fuel is such that anti-industrial zealots like those on Dateline NBC have had to use remotely detonated explosives to recreate accidental fuel tank explosions.

But there's more to oil than gasoline. Much more. Modern necessities made from oil include jet fuel, propane gas, plastics, asphalt, and dozens of petrochemicals essential to hundreds of industries we could hardly imagine living without. (Paints, fertilizers and textiles to name just a few.)

I went searching for the historical significance of the Petrosesquicentennial and found the following graph of world population and income since 1500. It shows a precipitous rise in population around the time of the Industrial Revolution. But the per capita world GDP rose only 31 percent in the early decades of the Industrial Revolution (1820 to about 1870). In the next 30 years however, inflation-adjusted individual incomes went up another 45%, and 20 years later nearly doubled from there. Finally, by the end of the 20th century, individuals earned a whopping SEVEN TIMES what their ancestors did at the time commercial oil production began.

(Click on graph to enlarge)

While the Industrial Revolution began in the early 1800's without oil it "centered on improvement in coal, iron and steam technologies." The truly modern developments "steel, electricity and chemicals" were hallmarks of the Second Industrial Revolution which, though not clearly delineated from the first, roughly coincided with the commercialization of oil in America.

So if you love iPods, cell phones, jet planes, mass transit, modern medicines, supermarkets, artificial light, white collar jobs ... and the income to pay for all of these and more ... you'd best come to grips with your closet love affair with oil.

UPDATE [10:43a EDT]: As often happens, I omitted a key argument in the thread. The point of all this was to set up the assertion that the advent of cheap and abundant oil was not only coincident with the Second Industrial Revolution, but catalyzed it. Try to imagine the course of the industrial age without it. Certainly a gallon of gas could have been replaced, say with 121 cubic feet of natural gas or 9 pounds of coal, but extracting and using a liquid fuel proved far more practical and economical than those gaseous or solid ones, at least for some uses. And I contend those uses were - and remain - important. Add to this the less obvious fact that many chemical uses of oil may be irreplaceable.

Oil has clearly fueled prosperity. Not only that, it did so for everyone.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
But jk thinks:

And let's not fail to celebrate John Rockefeller, who gave non-wealthy Americans the gifts of affordable heat and light. His nickel-a-gallon kerosene provided productive hours of reading and working to those who could not afford dollar-a-gallon whale oil.

For this generous gift to our nation's poor and his unprecedented philanthropy, we call him a "robber baron."

Posted by: jk at September 7, 2009 11:23 AM
But JC thinks:

"Enamored with oil"
The terms "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind with the mountains of scientific evidence pointing to the fact that we need to migrate away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have served as a valuable resource and a sturdy bridge to where we are today. That bridge is about to collapse and if we fail to engage fully in the deployment of alternatives, we are going to be challenged with how quickly we can migrate to another planet! I have a poster on the wall that says "If you can't adapt, you get left behind." Those words are positioned strategically over the fossil remains of a plesiosaur.



NAVY responds to RAND report:


As the "sweet crude" (easy to refine) sources dwindle, we see the industry shifting to tar sands and shale. The added cost to extract usable fuels from these "hard" sources are being passed on to the consumer while the global oil giants amass huge profits in preparation for energy intensive extraction processes.

Time for a paradigm change!
Every single day our individual homes are awash in energy (wind and solar being the primary). What percentage of that energy did you capture today? Still dependent on the ever-increasing costs for fossil fuels? Still denying the advantages of migrating to alternatives? Prepare to become fossilized! :?

Posted by: JC at May 30, 2013 9:23 PM

July 18, 2009

10 Reasons BMI Measurements are Complete Horse Shit

The list comes from NPR but the title comes from Ken Wheaton* on Twitter.

* Just some guy linked from the "Twitter" section on RealClearPolitics.com.

A synopsis:

1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual.

The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.

2. It is scientifically nonsensical.

There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.

3. It is physiologically wrong.

It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.

4. It gets the logic wrong.

[Obese people have a high BMI but a high BMI doesn't mean you're obese.]

5. It's bad statistics.

Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.

6. It is lying by scientific authority.

Because the BMI is a single number between 1 and 100 (like a percentage) that comes from a mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. But it is mathematical snake oil.

7. It suggests there are distinct categories of underweight, ideal, overweight and obese, with sharp boundaries that hinge on a decimal place.

That's total nonsense.

8. It makes the more cynical members of society suspect that the medical insurance industry lobbies for the continued use of the BMI to keep their profits high.

Insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums for people with a high BMI. Among such people are all those fit individuals with good bone and muscle and little fat, who will live long, healthy lives during which they will have to pay those greater premiums.

9. Continued reliance on the BMI means doctors don't feel the need to use one of the more scientifically sound methods that are available to measure obesity levels.

Those alternatives cost a little bit more, but they give far more reliable results.

10. It embarrasses the U.S.

It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.

To #10 I would add, "...and help make the case for a "health care crisis" in this country."

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:11 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

I saw this going around this week and wanted to take a victory lap. Thanks jg, I am way too modest to bring this up...

but I wrote in Feb 2007 that the weenie little Belgian that "discovered" this theory should have studied a little Calculus.

"Related Rates" dictate that a cylindrical man would add mass as the square of his height, and a spherical man (and we all know a few of those) would add mass as the cube. A realistic BMI would have to have an exponent between two and three. I offer this, humbly of course, as #11.

Posted by: jk at July 18, 2009 3:51 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Actually, a cylindrical man would add volume as the square of his radius, and proportionately with his height. (But relating volume to mass is further complicated by #3 above.)

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2009 10:45 AM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Somebody please pass the pie.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 20, 2009 1:09 PM

March 9, 2009

Why politicized economic development is dangerous

I recently wrote on the danger of politics driving scientific research. The obvious case of this now is all of the government "investments" being proposed in the name of "saving the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change."

But even if man-made climate change was real (sorry tg, is real) and even if "renewable" energy sources were beneficial to counter it, the least effective entity to make them a reality is - wait for it - government.

Consider the following essay on "One Reason Governments Spend So Much" from the 'Uncle Eric' book: Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?

Industries generally develop in three stages. First is scientific feasibility, second is engineering feasibility, and third is economic feasibility.

Using the airline industry as an example, the question in the 1800s was: "Is long-distance air travel possible?"

In the 1800s, balloons were already in use but were not practical. The problem to solve was the heavier-than-air machine.

The Wright Brothers in 1903 proved scientific feasibility. They risked their time, money and lives to show that a heavier-than-air machine could fly.

Lindbergh, in 1927, proved engineering feasibility. He risked time, money and his life to show that long-distance air travel was possible.

This gave investors enough confidence to risk their money in the aircraft industry. In 1935 the Douglas Company came out with the DC-3, which was the beginning of economic feasibility.

The modern airline industry resulted from all this risk-taking. Today, a middle-class American can go anywhere in the world much faster, and in much greater comfort, than a Roman emperor could. Travelers fly because the benefits are greater than the costs. This is economic feasibility.

This three-step model explains why governments are terrible at economic development. The "experts" who comprise the government gamble with other people's money, so they tend to confuse scientific and engineering feasibility with economic feasibility.

Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it - even if the costs are greater than the benefits. [emphasis mine]

This economic development of the economically unfeasible is precisely the modern story of:

Wind power
Solar photovoltaic power
Ethanol (both glucosic AND celluosic)
Hydrogen fuel cells
Dual-mode hybrid cars
The list goes on...

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:38 PM | Comments (6)
But Keith thinks:

Just to add to the entertainment value: "But even if man-made climate change were real..." is the grammatically accurate construction. Heh.

JohnGalt: great post, and the model of three-stage development makes plain, even to a poor, dumb country boy like me, why government-run economic development doesn't work. And to boot, it's much more elegant than me just saying "a government that can't even balance its own checkbook has no business fiddling with the economy."

I'd only propose one small change to the quote rfrom the essay. Where the author wrote "Once science and engineering prove something can be done, those who comprise the government will do it - even if the costs are greater than the benefits" in the last paragraph, it seems to me that the last phrase should omit the word "even" and the hyphen, thusly: "... those who comprise the government will do it if the costs are greater than the benefits." If the benefits are greater than the costs, entrepreneurs and private industry will do it, without the necessity of government meddling. Profit motive being what it is, and all that.

Ergo, government will ONLY do it if its benefits do not justify its costs, and that applies to every item in your list. QED, yes?

Posted by: Keith at March 9, 2009 3:18 PM
But jk thinks:

Ahh, the punchline from a great old gag can be trotted out:

I congratulate Keith on his use of the subjunctive.
Posted by: jk at March 9, 2009 4:32 PM
But Keith thinks:

Thanks, jk...

Say, on the subject of government and the economy, I've been reading in the news today that Warren Buffett has been quoted as saying the U.S. economy "fell off a cliff." I've read that three times today, and every time, all that comes to mind is...

"It was pushed."

Posted by: Keith at March 9, 2009 5:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Wellll, I was trying to have some fun with TG, saying "was" as in "past tense" ... before it was largely discredited, then replacing it with "is" as a sop to him since he's not yet comfortable with the "denier" badge of courage.

I admit - sometimes my jokes trip over their shoelaces.

Oh, and yes, I do fully agree with your improvement of the closing paragraph. Well done!

Posted by: johngalt at March 10, 2009 12:25 AM
But jk thinks:

Tough room, jg, you know that as well as anyone.

Posted by: jk at March 10, 2009 1:34 PM
But T. Greer thinks:

Eh, I though the post was funny. I also think you have highlighted one of the biggest problems with the Eco-stimulus crowd. What they call progress is in actuality a retardation (word?) of Western civilization.

Posted by: T. Greer at March 11, 2009 12:19 PM

March 6, 2009

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

Yesterday I commented that there's "another important dragon to be slain before" the next elections for congress and for president. That dragon is the myth of man-made global warming caused by our use of economical, safe and abundant energy sources. Many of us have long contended that the idea is founded upon pseudo-science. The late Michael Crighton agreed and in an appendix to his wonderfully entertaining and thought provoking novel 'State of Fear' he wrote "Why politicized science is dangerous."

Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.

This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high-school classrooms.

I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.

Read on below-









Posted by JohnGalt at 12:10 PM | Comments (6)
But jk thinks:

Careful, jg, TR has some strong followers around here. Sure he wanted to control capitalism from Washington, lock up his enemies and kill the enfeebled, but he displayed prodigious intellectual powers, looked good in casual clothes, and said "bully!" a lot.

Posted by: jk at March 6, 2009 2:36 PM
But johngalt thinks:

One of Crighton's points is how, after the horrors perpetrated in the name of the theory became widely known, "nobody was a eugenicist and nobody had ever been a eugenicist."

You'll recall I suggested not long ago that we start a permanent record of Global Warmists today, for the historical record.

My favorite thing about TR was "speak softly, and carry a big stick."

Posted by: johngalt at March 6, 2009 3:47 PM
But T. Greer thinks:

@Jg: I read that book and thought it sucked. (Tidal waves=result of climate change?) On the other hand, I thought the appendix you link to was quite insightful. It is rather sad to me that one's views on AGW are determined by your political affiliation. These days it seems that if you believe in "protecting the environment" then AGW is a self-evident fact not worth examining, while if you are of the free-market crowd, there is no way the climate could ever be linked to man's activities on the Earth.

This is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly acceptable to hold that warming may be influenced bu man and that free markets should not be interfered with for the environment's sake. Indeed, this is the exact position I hold.

Posted by: T. Greer at March 6, 2009 5:30 PM
But T. Greer thinks:

@Jk: Hahahha. Enough already! I think we have covered this before- Roosevelt's views on eugenics never led to anything more than a desire to make immigration laws stricter. Vilifying him for politicizing science makes no sense. Everything else you have listed is irrelevant to the subject of this post and has been discussed already.

Posted by: T. Greer at March 6, 2009 5:32 PM
But jk thinks:

Okay, I'll leave TR alone.

I enjoyed the Lomborg clip. He inspired the D in DAWG and I think his position is reasonable and defensible.

I hold that the debate was politicized by the left: those who Popper said would have us go back to the caves. Suddenly, the inefficacy of their ideas was meaningless: we had to take on the whole Nader-Kucinich platform or all of our children will die!

The DAWG advocates then claimed that "the science was settled" because a poll was taken. Popper, again, pointed out that science is not really done that way.

Yes, it is too bad that something important has devolved into childish bickering -- but, Mommy, they started it!!

Posted by: jk at March 6, 2009 7:04 PM
But johngalt thinks:

But it isn't called global warming anymore tg, it's "climate change." That way the charade can be continued whether the trend is warmer or cooler. Which is fortunate for them since now, it's cooling.

The market interference you allude to is the setting of arbitrary limits on emission of mammal breath. "First they came for the dioxins, then the beneficial pesticides, then the fluorocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur compounds, and when they came for carbon dioxide there were no pollutants left to say - you can't regulate non-pollutants!"

Posted by: johngalt at March 7, 2009 8:11 PM

May 28, 2008

Greenhouse Guesses: The New Socialism

The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, spoke to the National Press Club yesterday (May 27) regarding his book, "Blue Planet in Green Shackles." The key point, from the Refugee's perspective, is that he drew similarities between communism and the current green movement.

In trying to find a text of the speech, the Refugee had difficulty Googling any coverage of it. Given the venue, you would think that it would get plenty of ink. However, even right-of-center journalists such as Fox News' Brit Hume dismissed his remarks more or less as a conspiracy-theory-too-far. Only Charles Krauthammer (whom the Refugee places on a pedastal for his original and insightful thought) gave it any credibility.

After considerable reflection, the Refugee thinks there may be some fire hidden by all the smoke (and hopes that he does not need carbon offsets because of it). The environmental movement was borne from the obvious need to stop the Cuyahoga River from burning and breath new life into a dead Lake Erie. From there, however, it seems to have been hijacked by the ultraliberal left. With all of the cap-and-trade, carbon rationing and other proposals, the left may be able to impose socialism through regulation where it would otherwise be impossible through the ballot box. The carbon regulations will restrict producers, stifle innovation, redistribute weath and, most importantly, allow central planners to dictate economic winners and looser. Follow the money - and power.

Now, the Refugee is no conspiracy theorist and believes that suggesting a conscious, coordinated effort is giving enviros too much credit for intelligence. Instead, the current situation is a product of opportunity that has grown legs. What makes the effort so effective, and insideous, is that everyone supports clean water and clear air. People will allow their freedom to be usurped if it avoids a hideous death-by-ice-melt. Moveover, it can be imposed worldwide (except for the Chinese who can recognize totalitarianism when they see it.) Brilliant!

The only speedbump on the green road to worldwide socialism is an honest debate of climate change science. If the body politic doesn't buy the premise, the prescription is vapor. Which is why it's hard to read anything about Vaclav Klaus. Or why Al Gore says the debate is "over." And why theory is presented as fact. Look, weather forecasters only have a 30% chance of getting tomorrow's high temperature correct, so why is the worldwide temperature forecast 100 years from now unimpeachable?

Does anyone remember the old leftist bumper sticker "Question Authority"? Sound advice indeed when listening to leading enviromental "authorities."

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 5:00 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

'Xactly right, BR. It's like the latest Nextel phone commercial with an assembly of firemen "running the world" over their push-to-talk phones.

Chief- "A lot a paper to tell us we need clean water. We need clean water guys?

Firemen- "Aye."
(No need to consider any costs, much less who would pay them.)

Chief- "This is the easiest job I ever had."

The same could be said by Al Gore.

Posted by: johngalt at May 29, 2008 3:30 PM
But jk thinks:

Proud to say that my support of Klaus predates this blog. In a sane world, Klaus would head the UN. (The picture link is busted, but here it is).

Posted by: jk at May 30, 2008 2:41 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Here's a link to Charles Krauthammer's recent piece on this topic in the Washington Post. You may need to create a login. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903266.html

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 2, 2008 11:24 AM

February 22, 2008

Simpler Times

Happened to come across this...

Jet powered railroad commuter cars.

The company borrowed a 13-year-old Budd RDC3, a self-propelled diesel commuter coach, from an Eastern line and towed it to Cleveland, where its motors and passenger seats were removed and replaced with more than 50 instruments to measure speed, stress, bearing temperatures, and ride characteristics. Small radio transmitters were affixed to the front axles and electronic sensors studded other parts of the locomotive. Real-time data was written to magnetic tape, displayed on oscilloscopes, and recorded by direct-writing oscillographs. Remote-controlled cameras made a visual record; track irregularities were recorded digitally.

While this may seem very high tech for 1966, the basic idea for such a real-time rolling laboratory had been used by the New York Central since the 1930s, when instrumentfilled baggage cars tested locomotive and track performance. No other changes were made to the Budd RDC3; the axles, wheels, and frame were the ones the commuter car had been born with. The total cost of the experiment was officially $35,000; the actual figure was probably several times that. (The company boasted that the project did not use a cent of government funds.)

Read that last line again.

Now they'd be looking for a check from the government (any government) before anything even got started.

Posted by AlexC at 12:10 AM

November 25, 2007


The good folks at MIT dreamed up this voice activated blender. Sadly, there are no plans to release a commercial version.

Hat-tip: Pillage Idiot

Posted by John Kranz at 3:35 PM | Comments (1)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Voice-activated blender? Bill Clinton already has one: Shrillary.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 28, 2007 3:44 PM

August 24, 2007

The Universe is Wrong

There's a one billion lightyear wide hole in the universe.

Astronomers don't know why the hole is there.

"Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size," said researcher Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota.

Rudnick's colleague Liliya R. Williams also had not anticipated this finding.

"What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe," said Williams, also of the University of Minnesota.

No, it's perfectly normal... perhaps your computer simulations are wrong?

What happened to science? Computer modelling is not science!

Posted by AlexC at 11:54 AM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

Quite clearly, it's Bush's fault.

Posted by: jk at August 24, 2007 12:13 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

Huh ... so in an infinitely large universe, they find it odd that and infinite small probability has manifested. I'm just an internet dork and even I understand the math of that.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 24, 2007 1:14 PM

April 25, 2007

Truth and Tolerance

From "Typhoon Officially 'Over the Moon'" at the Society of British Aerospace Companies' Website:

Building one of the most advanced jet fighters in the world is a challenge for any aerospace company – but the one thing you might think you don't have to worry about when you start such a job is the pull of the moon.

But that is exactly the challenge faced by workers at BAE Systems on the Lancashire coast every time the Typhoon build process begins – because the moon's gravitational pull actually causes the ground to move beneath their feet.

So fine are the tolerances now used to build the Typhoon that even the movements of the tide could throw the jet fighter tolerances out.


HT: Hannes Hacker

Posted by Cyrano at 10:16 PM

April 23, 2007


Most physics texts are written as if they were supplementary problem books for math courses. They are heavy on the problem-solving, but light (or empty) on the cause-effect relationships, inductive thinking, and reasoning which makes science.

David Harriman is one physicist and teacher who has remedied that. He has a physics course for sale, which is described by the VanDamme Academy, where he teaches, as follows:

David Harriman, philosopher and historian of physics, is the originator of VanDamme Academy's revolutionary science curriculum. An expert both in physics and in proper pedagogy, Mr Harriman developed and taught a two-year course on the history of physics for VanDamme Academy. His unique approach is to teach physics historically, thereby teaching it inductively. From the early Greeks to Copernicus to Newton, this course presents the essential principles of physics in logical sequence, placing each in the context of the earlier discoveries that made it possible and explaining how each was discovered by reasoning from observations.

Teaching physics by this method not only renders physics thoroughly intelligible--it also makes physics an inspiring story of discovery, in which great thinkers triumph in their quest to grasp the nature of the physical universe.

He sells the CD for $495 and the DVD for $695.

He is not the first to teach physics from a historical perspective. Two others are Dr. Michael Fowler and Dr. Herbert Priestley. While Fowler and Priestley probably did not have the philosophic knowledge (e.g., of induction, deduction, and epistemology in general) of Harriman, they did have a knowledge of physics and its history. And they have some things available for less cost for those of us who cannot yet afford Harriman's work.

The homepage of Dr. Michael Fowler, at UVa, has links to his lectures for

PHYS 109: Galileo and Einstein (Lecturer) Fall

PHYS 152: Introductory Physics for Majors (Lecturer) Spring

PHYS 609: Galileo and Einstein (Lecturer) Fall

PHYS 751: Quantum Theory I (Lecturer) Fall

PHYS 752: Quantum Mechanics II (Lecturer) Spring

His also has notes available for Physics 252: Modern Physics.

On another page you can find: (1) a lecture on using history to teach physics; (2) a leture on heat which teaches physics from a historical (and hence inductive) perspective; (3) a lecture on electricity and magnetism which also teaches from a historical perspective; (4) a lecture on the development of Maxwell’s equations; (5) some quizzes, exercises, and another lecture.

Dr. Herbert Priestley wrote a book entitled Introductory Physics. You can find it on a used-book site such as Alibris or Abe Books.

Introductory Physics by Herbert Priestley (Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1958) has the best presentation of physics I’ve ever seen. (I have not heard Harriman yet.) He presents concepts in their historical and scientific context. Priestley presents alternative viewpoints that were being used to understand phenomena such as heat or electricity, discusses why each viewpoint was held and the arguments scientists had, and describes the experiments the scientists did – especially the experiments which validated one side or the other. In showing us the development of ideas in physics, Priestley is showing us the correct view of concept-formation and the formation of generalizations, Priestley is showing us that true concepts and propositions come from applying rational, objective methods to the real world.

Priestley attended the University of Leeds, receiving a B.S. in 1933 and a Ph.D. in physics in 1935. He served in the Royal Air Force as an industrial research physicist, civilian education officer, and air intelligence officer. He came to the US as RAF liaison officer in 1942, but stayed on to teach physics at Ripton College after WWII. In 1952, he became chairman of the physics department at Knox College, where he stayed until he retired in 1980. His obituary is on Knox College Website.

A caveat. Priestley does not give Aristotle proper credit as a scientist. People have insulted Aristotle for centuries, for things that are not Aristotle’s fault – people throughout history blindly believed what was written in Aristotle’s corpus, yes, but that is not Aristotle’s fault. Aristotle, in method, was objective, and referred to experience. If he had the evidence available to him which people did who lived 1,000 years or more after he lived, he could have arrived at the conclusions we have -- even Galileo said this. He was a solid scientist in his context, as can be seen in the work he did most: philosophy, logic and biology.

Dr. James Lennox, Professor of Philosophy and the History of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, has some well-written and well-researched articles on his website regarding Aristotle as scientist and philosopher of science. An article directly relevant to some of Priestley's uninformed, unresearched accusations against Aristotle is Lennox's "Aristotle, Galileo and the Mixed Sciences," which discusses (1) Aristotle's use of mathematics as a tool in physics to explain why things happen and (2) Galileo's debt to Aristotle.

Dr. Michael Fowler, Professor of Physics at the University of Virginia also recognized Aristotle’s solid contributions to science. In a lecture on Aristotle, Dr. Fowler says:

To summarize: Aristotle's philosophy laid out an approach to the investigation of all natural phenomena, to determine form by detailed, systematic work, and thus arrive at final causes. His logical method of argument gave a framework for putting knowledge together, and deducing new results. He created what amounted to a fully-fledged professional scientific enterprise, on a scale comparable to a modern university science department. It must be admitted that some of his work - unfortunately, some of the physics - was not up to his usual high standards. He evidently found falling stones a lot less interesting than living creatures. Yet the sheer scale of his enterprise, unmatched in antiquity and for centuries to come, gave an authority to all his writings.

And on the website of the University of Dayton’s History Department, in an article about the history of science, they say:

Aristotle is the key figure in this history of ancient science and indeed one of a handful of leading thinkers and doers in the entire history of science from the dawn of man to the present. His work in virtually every scientific field--from biology to physics to chemistry to astronomy--became a cornerstone of Western Science until the Scientific Revolution. And indeed his methodology, his reliance upon close observation and interdisciplinary bent, remain with us today.

Here are some excerpts from Priestley’s book. It is impossible to grasp Priestley’s masterful and rational approach in brief excerpts, so the excerpts must be lengthy. Priestley does use math in his textbook (it is algebra-based), but these excerpts will focus on his discussions of cause and effect and the development of ideas.

I. Excerpt 1: Chp. 15, “Electricity and Chemistry,” pp. 201-205

15.1 Galvanism. Electricity and chemistry are closely inter-related. A chemical reaction can produce a supply of electricity for as long as the reaction continues. This, the first source of a continuous supply of electricity, an electric current, is the principle of the electric battery. Conversely, an electric current can produce a chemical reaction, usually the decomposition of a chemical compound into its simpler elements, the process of electrolysis. Both processes involve the conversion of energy from one form to another; in the first case, chemical energy becomes electrical energy; in the other, the reverse takes place.

Every living cell produces electricity. The functioning of living tissue today is studied through its electrical action. The study of electricity in living tissue, which began quite accidentally about one hundred and fifty years ago, led to the development of the electric battery, for many years thereafter the standard method of producing electricity

About 1750, it was noted that pieces of lead and silver placed above and below the tongue, respectively, with their outer edges in contact, produced an unpleasant and pungent taste not encountered when the metals were placed separately upon the tongue. The phenomenon was attributed to some excitation of the nerves of the tongue. By this time, various physicians and experimenters had demonstrated that electricity could be used as a muscular stimulant in man and animals. This fact had been used to distinguish between paralyzed and atrophied muscles, an electric charge producing a contraction only in a paralyzed muscle.

Before the end of the eighteenth century it was known that an electric discharge passed through the body of a freshly killed animal could cause a convulsive action in its muscles, and that the discharge of an electric eel (section 14.2) produced motion in a nearby dead fish. Identification of the origin of these effects was made by Galvani (1737-1798), a professor of anatomy at Bologna. Galvani began experimenting about 1780, using a Leyden jar [A Leyden jar was the earliest form of electric condenser, consisting of “a bottle filled with water into which was inserted a wire held in place by a cork.” p. 191] and an electrostatic machine to test the effects of the electric discharge upon the nervous system of the frog. During these experiments he made the chance observation that nearby electrical discharge caused convulsions in a freshly prepared frog’s leg in conducting contact with the earth.

[I] had dissected and prepared a frog. [While] attending to something else, I laid it on a table on which stood an electrical machine at some distance…when one of the persons present touched accidentally and lightly the inner [thigh or leg] nerves of the frog with the point of a scalpel all the muscles of the legs seemed to contract again and again as if affected by powerful cramps. [One of my assistants] thought…the action was excited when a spark was discharged from the conductor of the machine [and] called my attention to it…I was eager to test the same and to bring to light what was concealed in it. I therefore myself touched one of the other nerves with the point of the knife and at the same time one of those present drew a spark. The phenomenon was always the same. Without fail there occurred lively contractions in every muscle of the leg at the same instant as that in which the spark jumped…

[Thinking] these motions might arise from the contact with the point of the knife…rather than by the spark, I touched the same nerves again in the same way in other frogs with the point of the knife…with greater pressure [while] no one during this time drew off a spark...no motion could be detected. I [concluded] that perhaps to excite the phenomenon…needed both the contact of a body and the electric spark.

Therefore, I again pressed the blade of the knife on the nerve and kept it there at rest while the spark passed and while the machine was not in motion. The phenomenon only occurred while the sparks were passing. [In many experiments with the same knife] it was remarkable that when the spark passed the motions observed sometimes occurred and sometimes not… The scalpel had a bone handle...if this handle was held in the hand no contractions occurred when the spark passed; but they did occur if the finger rested on the metallic blade or on the iron rivet by which the blade was held in the handle…

Now to put the thing beyond all doubt we…not only touched the nerves of the leg [with a slender dry and clean glass rod] but rubbed them hard while the sparks were passing. But…the phenomenon never appeared. [It] occurred however if we even lightly touched the same nerve with an iron rod and only little sparks passed. [William F. Magie, A Source Book in Physics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1938), p. 421.]

Galvani’s “phenomenon” occurred only when the frog’s leg was in conducting communication with the earth, first by chance contact of the scalpel with the nerve, thereafter intentionally by bringing the leg into contact with a conductor grounded by contact with the human body. He continued his researches, turning to the effect of atmospheric electricity (lightning) on muscular motion. He attached frogs by the nerves to long iron wires, the feet of the frogs being grounded by similar wires. Simultaneously with a flash of lightning the muscles were markedly convulsed.

In both these series of experiments the frog, place upon a body insulated from the ground, became charged by induction (section 14.11) from either the electrostatic machine or lightning. When a grounded metal object (scalpel or iron rod) touched the nerve, the sudden change of potential caused by grounding produced the observed convulsive action.

[I next laid one of the prepared frogs] on an iron plate and began to press the hook which was in the spinal cord against the plate. Behold, the same contractions, the same motions…other metals [gave] the same result, only that the contractions were different [for] different metals…more lively for some and more sluggish for the others. At last it occurred to us to use other [non-conducting] bodies…[dry] glass, rubber, resin, stone or wood. With these...no muscular contractions and motions could be seen. Naturally [this astonished us] and caused us to think that possibly the electricity was present in the animal itself…a very fine nervous fluid which during the occurrence of the phenomenon flows from the nerves to the muscle like the electric current….” [ibid., p. 424.]

Galvani now recognized that here was something entirely new. “to make the thing plainer” he varied the experiment by placing the frog on a glass non-conducting plate. A curved rod connected the hook which entered the spinal cord with the muscles of the leg or feet. Convulsions occurred only when the curved rod was of conducting material and only when the hook and conducting rod were of dissimilar metals.

Two possible explanations of these phenomena suggested themselves to Galvani; that there was electricity in the animal organism, or that there was involved some electrical process depending upon contact of the metals and for which the frog’s legs merely served as a sensitive detector. He leaned toward the first of these – the existence of “animal electricity,” for which the nerves had the greatest affinity and were the repository. His theory further assumed that the inner substance of the nerve served as the conductor of this electricity, while the outer layer of the nerve prevented its dispersal. The muscles were the receivers of the animal electricity, and were charged negatively on the outside and positively on the inside. The mechanism of motion was a discharge of the electric fluid from the inside to the outside of the muscle by way of the nerve (like the discharge of a Leyden jar), and this discharge provided a muscular contractional stimulus to the muscle fibers.

15.2 Volta disagrees with Galvani. Galvani’s experiments and his interpretation of the results aroused considerable interest. Among the physicists, physiologists, and medical men who obtained frogs and pieces of dissimilar metals to repeat the experiments for themselves was Volta (1745-1827), a countryman of Galvani’s and professor of physics at Paris.

Volta, greatly impressed by Galvani’s work, referred to it as “one of those splendid major discoveries which…serve to usher in new epochs, not only because it is new and wonderful but also because it opens up a broad field of experiments that are especially and outstandingly capable of the application. “ [ibid., p. 443.] Volta’s original belief in the correctness of the “animal electricity” theory was weakened when he found that a muscular contraction could be produced simply by allowing a very weak electrical discharge to traverse a nerve without the discharge in anyway passing through the muscles. To produce a contraction required only stimulation of “the nerves that control the motions of the voluntary muscles concerned.”

A physicist rather than a physiologist, Volta now shifted his emphasis to the function of the metallic rods used. Repeating the experiment of placing on the tongue two dissimilar metals, he “covered the point of the tongue...with a strip of tin…With the bowl of a spoon, I touched the tongue further back; then I inclined the handle of the spoon to touch the tin. I expected…a twitching of the tongue…. The expected sensation, however, I did not perceive at all; but instead, a rather strong acid taste at the tip of the tongue…this taste lasts as long as the tin and sliver are in contact with each other. …This shows that the flow of electricity from one place to another is continuing without interruption.” It was “not less remarkable” that reversing the experiment so that the silver touched the tip of the tongue and the tin its middle gave “a very different taste...no longer sour but more alkaline, sharp, and approaching bitter.” [ibid., p. 444.] Bringing together the free ends of strips of dissimilar metal which touched, respectively, the forehead and palate produced, at the instant of contact, a bring flash clearly visible to the eye.

Investigations such as these gradually convinced Volta that the metals not only served as conductors but actually generated the electricity themselves. He accordingly modified his views to the belief that the nerves were merely stimulated by a cause to be found in the metals themselves, which were “in a real sense the exciters of electricity.” By 1794 he declared his opposition to the idea of animal electricity and substituted the term “metallic electricity.” The entire effect arose from the electricity set into circulation when metals were brought into contact with any moist body. This circulation through nerves caused stimulation of associate muscles. He found that the results depended upon the nature of the substances used and drew up a series of substances (metals, graphite, an charcoal) such that the magnitude of the effect produced using any two of the substances increased with the separation of the substances in this series.

Volta now dispensed entirely with the use of nerves and muscles in his investigations, and brought pairs of metals into contact with various moist substances, such as paper, cloth, etc. With a sensitive electrometer which he had previously developed, he was able to show the existence of “contact potential” – that the momentary contact of two dissimilar metals caused them to become oppositely charged, even without any moist substance present. A zinc and a copper disc after being placed in contact were both found to be charged, the zinc positively and the copper negatively. Copper also became negatively charged after contact with iron or tin, although less strongly than after contact with zinc. On the other hand, contact with gold or silver gave copper a positive charge and the gold or silver a negative charge. By numerous experiments along these lines, Volta constructed a series for the metals such that upon bringing any two of them into contact, the earlier in the list became positively charged, the later one negatively charged:

Zinc copper
Lead silver
Tin gold
Iron graphite

Furthermore, the more widely separated the substances in the series, the greater was the contact charge developed between them.

On the basis of his investigations, Volta originally assumed that the exciting electricity was located only at the points of contact of the metals and that the animal or other fluid served only as a conductor. But further experiments showed that an electric charge can be produced not only between metals in contact, but also between a metal and certain fluids. For instance, an insulated disc of silver or other metal brought into contact with moist wood or paper and then removed was found to be negatively charged. Experimenting further with liquids and metals, Volta found that the best results were obtained from two dissimilar metals with a moist conductor between them, a combination called a galvanic element. The effect of such a single element was multiplied by combining a large number of them to form a “pile.”

In 1800, Volta described a pile which produced a constant flow of electricity. By comparison with a Leyden jar, it was “equal only to a [Leyden jar] very feebly charged; but infinitely surpasses the power of these [jars] in that it does not need, as they do, to be charged in advance by means of an outside source; and in that It can give the disturbance every time that it is properly touched no matter how often.” [ibid., p. 428]

The pile consisted of small, clean and dry discs of zinc and silver and discs of a spongy material capable of absorbing and retaining a liquid. On a table or base is placed a sliver plate, then a

plate of zinc; on this…one of the moistened discs; then another silver [plate], followed immediately by another of zinc, [then another] moistened disc…continue in the same way coupling a plate of sliver with one of zinc, always [in the same order] and inserting between these couples a moistened disc. [ibid.]

Such a pile produced a slight shock when the hands were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the pile, and also the previously experienced effect upon the nerves of taste, sight, and hearing. One drawback was that the moist material between the metal discs dried out, decreasing the electric current generated. To overcome this, Volta devised his “crown of cups,” consisting of a row of beakers of non-metallic material filled with brine into which were placed alternate strips of sliver and zinc. Each silver strip in one cup was joined to the zinc strip in the next cup by a metallic jumper. “A train of 30, 40, 60 of these goblets joined up in this manner…in substance is the same as the [pile] tried before; the essential feature, of the immediate connection of the different metals which form each pair and the mediate connection of one couple with another by the intermediary of a damp conductor, appears in this apparatus as well as in the other.” [ibid., p. 431.] This crown of cups was subsequently improved by substituting copper for silver and dilute sulphuric acid for brine.

Volta reported that the “tension” (potential difference) produced by the pile or cups “is less according as they are nearer in the following series…sliver, copper, iron, tin, lead, zinc, a scale in which the first [is positive with respect] to the second, the second to the third, etc.”

The importance of Volta’s discovery of a means of producing a continuous supply of electricity cannot be overemphasized. Sarton, the distinguished historian of science, compares it with the development of the telescope and microscope, with the fundamental difference that the telescope and microscope “were only means of magnifying our vision. They enabled us to see things which we could not see before, but which existed nevertheless… On the contrary, the electric cell was really a creative instrument; it opened to man a new and incomparable source of energy.” [Bern Dibner, Galvani-Volta (Norwalk: Burndy Library, Inc., 1952), p. 40.]

15.3 The simple voltaic cell. Volta’s identification of the true origin of “animal electricity” led to the familiar batteries now used in radios, automobiles, etc. In every case, production of electricity results from the conversion of chemical into electrical energy. To understand the mechanism involved, consider the simple or voltaic cell, consisting of two dissimilar metals immersed in a liquid, and in essence an element of Volta’s pile.

Genius. Thank you Dr. Priestley.

Priestley then goes on to discuss the work of Michael Faraday in discovering the laws of electrolysis, which led to the development of practical cells, i.e., the batteries we now have in everyday life, and which we take for granted.

But what we have in this excerpt is the scientific history of the development of the modern battery – which came out of experiments which changed fundamentally how we view man, as well. The observation that we had different sensations when metals touched our tongue in different places would have gone nowhere and could have been interpreted in all kinds of ways, without the knowledge that frogs’ nerves and muscles are affected by electricity.

This knowledge was the first step in our modern science of neurology, in understanding how the brain works, and in developing some of the drugs we have today (which have neurological effects because of their chemistry and electrical effects).

And if not for the foundational work of Michael Faraday arising from the research of Volta and Galvani, we would not know what we do today about nutrition and the operation of the cell. What does something so everyday as Gatorade have in it? Electrolytes. Thank Michael Faraday next time you drink some.

Priestley is a genius in taking us from the observation that we had certain sensations when metals touched our tongues, to the modern battery. He presents a missing side of modern scientific texts: causality. Science is about discovering cause-effect relationships. Most modern texts present physics as an exercise in mathematics – the texts could be addenda to math texts, providing word problems and applications of math. They fail miserably in presenting cause-effect relationships, and showing how scientific knowledge really develops. They fail to present the important experiments that led to modern understanding of the material world, and that make physics what it is.

II. Excerpt 2: Chp. 10, “The Nature of Heat,” pp. 135-139

10.6 The measurement of heat. The development of the thermometer opened the doorway to a new science – that of heat measurements – in which the pioneer was Joseph Black (1727-1799), professor of medicine and chemistry at the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Prior to Black’s work, no clear distinction had been drawn between “quantity of heat” and “degree of hotness (temperature).” While something clearly passed from a hot body to one at a lower temperature, whether that something was heat or temperature was not known. Black was the first to conceive clearly of heat as a measurably physical quantity, distinct from, although related to, temperature as indicated by a thermometer.

He began to investigate the general belief that the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of any body by a given amount was proportional to the density of the body. Fahrenheit, by mixing together water and mercury at different temperatures, had found that despite its much greater density, the heating and cooling effect of a given volume of mercury was only two-thirds that of the same volume of water. From these results Black concluded that “the quantities of heat which different kinds of matter must receive to reduce them to equilibrium with one another, or to raise their temperatures by an equal number of degrees, are not in proportion to the quantity of matter in each, by in proportions widely different from this.” [Abraham Wolf, A History of Science, Technology, and Philosophy in the 18th Century (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939), p. 178.] Fahrenheit’s experiments led Back to compare the heating and cooling effects of other substances with corresponding effects of an equal bulk of water, obtaining for the different substances values he called their “capacities for heat.”

He went on to observe that the sensation of cold in a hand applied to a piece of ice indicates that the ice receives heat very rapidly. But a thermometer applied to the water dripping from the melting ice show it to be at the same temperature as the ice. “A great quantity, therefore, of the heat…which enters into the melting ice produces no other effect but to give it fluidity, without augmenting its sensible heat; it appears to be absorbed and concealed within the water, so as not to be discoverable by the application of a thermometer.” [ibid, p. 180.] Back now demonstrated that during the melting of ice, and similar changes of state (solid to liquid, liquid to vapor), large quantities of heat were “rendered latent,” absorbed with no change in temperature, and explained these and similar facts by assuming a union of the matter of heat with ice to form water and with water to form steam; i.e.,

Ice + matter of heat = water,
Water+ matter of heat = steam.

10.7 The caloric theory of heat. The more obvious phenomena of heat – combustion, melting, freezing, evaporation, etc. – have been familiar from early times, and ideas concerning the nature of heat go far back in history. Aristotle conceived of fire as one of the four material elements (section 4.2), while the Platonic view was that heat was some kind of motion: “For heat and fire…are themselves begotten by impact and friction: but this is motion.” But throughout the centuries little or no distinction was made between heat and flame.

Various people, including Francis Bacon, Huygens, and Boyle, advanced the idea that heat is a form of motion of the “parts” of a body. Boyle drew attention to the heat generated during the boring of guns and to the fact that “when a smith does hastily hammer a nail,…the hammered metal will grow exceedingly hot, and yet there appears not anything to make it so, save the forcible motion of the hammer.” [ibid, p. 276.] But there was no direct experimental support of these speculations.

Following his work on thermal capacities and latent heats, Black was led to consider the nature of heat. This he did with some reservations, as may be seen from the following extract from his lectures: “Heat is plainly something extraneous to matter. …Having arrived at this conclusion, it may perhaps be required of me to express more distinctly this something – to give a full description, or definition, of what I mean by the word ‘heat’ in matter. This, however, is a demand that I cannot satisfy entirely…. Our knowledge of heat is not brought to that state of perfection that might enable us to propose with confidence a theory of heat of to assign an immediate cause for it.” [Duane Roller, The Early Development of the Concepts of Temperature and Heat, (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1950), p. 42.]

Black continued with a review of the theories previously advanced as to the nature of heat, theories which fall into two basic categories – that heat is either motion or a material substance. Reviewing the motion theory, Black say that he “cannot form a conception of this internal (vibration) which has any tendency to explain even the more simple effects of heat.” He then goes on to point out that:

…the greater number of French and German philosophers have held that the motion of which they suppose heat to consist is not a tremor, or vibration, of the particles of the hot body itself, but of the particles of a subtle, highly elastic, and penetrating fluid matter, which is contained in the pores of hot bodies, or interposed among their particles…. But interposed among their particles…. But neither of these suppositions has been fully and accurately considered by their authors, or applied to explain the whole of the facts and phenomena relating to heat. They have not, therefore, supplied us with a proper theory or explication of the nature of heat.

A more ingenious attempt has lately been…given by the late Dr. Cleghorn…. He supposed that heat depends on the abundance of that subtle elastic fluid which had been imagined before by other philosophers to be present in every part of the universe and to be the cause of heat…. he supposed that the ordinary kinds of matter consist of particles having strong [gravitational] attraction both for one another and for the matter of heat; whereas the…matter of heat is self-repelling, its particles having a strong repulsion for one another while they are attracted by other kids of matter.

Such an idea of the nature of heat is the most probable of any that I know.… It is, however, altogether a supposition. [ibid., p. 45.]

In 1779, Cleghorn extended the material theory of heat to include Black’s discoveries of thermal capacity and latent heat. The main properties assigned by Cleghorn to the “matter of heat’ or “caloric,” may be summarized in the following postulates of the caloric theory:

1. Caloric is an elastic fluid, composed of particles which strongly repel each other.
2. Particles of caloric are attracted by particles of ordinary matter.
3. Caloric can be neither destroyed nor created.
4. Caloric can be either sensible caloric, which increases the temperature of body to which it is added and forms an “atmosphere” around the particles of the body, or latent caloric, which is combed with the particles of the body in a manner similar to the chemical combinations of the particles themselves, producing as a new compound the liquid or vapor form of the substance.
5. Caloric may or may not have appreciable weight.

When two bodies at different temperatures were placed in contact, it was supposed that caloric flowed from the hotter to the colder body until equilibrium was established. Expansion was attributed to the mutual repulsion of the caloric which entered the heated body. Development of heat by friction or compression was explained as due either to the fact that the particles of a body rubbed by friction lost some of their “capacity” for caloric, which was thus “liberated,” raising the temperature of the body, or to the fact that friction and pressure squeezed out some of the caloric latent in the pressed body, which thereby became sensibly hot. The caloric theory dominated the science of heat until the middle of the nineteenth century.

It should be noted that toward the end of the eighteenth century the “motion theory” of heat was nothing more than pure speculation, a working hypothesis without any decisive experimental evidence in its favor. By contrast the caloric theory offered a satisfactory and semiquantitative explantion of the known thermal phenomena. Furthermore, the motion theory dealt only with the origin of heat and said nothing about its behavior.

10.8 Does heat have weight? Black pointed out that the fact that bodies expanded when heated had led to the supposition that a heated body increased in weight. Various eighteenth-century experiments to test this supposition had produced conflicting results, none of them proving “that the weight of bodies is increased by their being heated, or by the presence of heat in them.” Some observers found that an increase in the temperature of a body was accompanied by slight increase in weight; some observed a slight loss in weight; others could detect no variation in weight with variation in temperature. The most carefully executed experiments were those of Runford, whose results were negative.

Although Rumford was an able administrator, and an authority on military problems, experimenting on heat was one of his “most agreeable employments.” He believed the mode-of-motion theory to be the sounder view of the nature of heat, even though in his time the caloric theory was well established and generally accepted. The primary purpose of his experiments was to attack the caloric theory from as many different points of view as possible.

Identical glass flasks containing equal weights of water, alcohol, and mercury showed equal temperatures and weights after having been exposed to room temperature (61º F) for 24 hours, after 48 hours at a cooler temperature (30º F), and upon being restored to room temperature after the cooler period. Repeated several times, the experiment gave consistent results. Rumford was convinced that “if heat be, in fact, a substance or matter…it must be something so infinitely rare, even in its most condensed state, as to baffle all our attempts to discover its [weight]… I think we may very safely conclude that all attempts to discover any effect of heat upon the apparent weights of bodies will be fruitless.” [Wolf, op. cit., p. 196.]

Rumford’s experiments showed heat had no detectable weight. So caloric must be imponderable, an opinion which Black had considered to be one of the chief objections to the caloric theory. But to many eighteenth-century scientists and philosophers this was not a serious objection. At that time full acceptance was given to a small class of “imponderable” fluids – including light, electricity, and magnetism – which, unlike ordinary matter, were not subject to gravitational attraction to any observable extent. By attributing to these “imponderables” certain other familiar properties of ordinary matter, the various known phenomena could be fairly satisfactorily explained, and new phenomena often successfully predicted Thus the problem of the weight of heat was not critical in resolving the conflict between the caloric and motion theories of heat. Much more critical was the conservation principle, that caloric could be neither created nor destroyed. Here also Rumford performed certain vital experiments as part of his general attack on the caloric theory.

The caloric theory had been particularly useful in explaining and predicting phenomena in mixing liquids or heating a substance over a fire, in which it is reasonable to conclude that there is no creation or destruction of heat during its conduction from object to object or from fire to object. But where did the heat come from when an object was warmed by rubbing it or hammering it? While the calorists believed they could answer this question and still retain the principle of conservation of caloric, other investigators believed the mode-of-motion theory to be a much more satisfactory explanation.

While engaged in boring cannon at Munich, Rumford observed with surprise “the very considerable degree of heat that a brass gun acquires in a short time in being bored, and with the still higher temperature of the metallic chips separated from it by the borer. The more I meditated on these phenomena, the more they appeared to me to be curious and interesting. A thorough investigation of them seemed even to bid fair to give a farther insight into the hidden nature of heat; and to enable us to form some reasonable conjectures respecting the existence, or nonexistence, of [caloric]….From whence comes the heat actually produced in the mechanical operations? Is it furnished by the metallic chips which are separated by the borer from the solid mass of metal?” [Roller, op. cit., p. 63.] In one experiment, for example, a 113-lb metal blank was heated from 60º F to 130º F while less than two ounces of metallic dust was produced by the borer.

A brass cylinder, placed in a wooden box containing 18 ¾ lbs of water, was made to rotate against a steel borer. The amount of heat produced could be determined by observing the rise in temperature of the water, which was brought from 60 F to the boiling point (212 F) in 2 ¾ hours. As Rumford stated: “It would be difficult to describe the surprise and astonishment expressed in the countenance of the by-standers on seeing so large a quantity of water heated, and actually made to boil without any fire…. We must not forget to consider that most remarkable circumstance, that the source of the heat generated by friction in these experiments, appeared evidently to be inexhaustible….anything which any insulated body, or system of bodies, can continue to furnish without limitation, cannot possibly be a material substance. It appears to me to be extremely difficult, if not quite impossible, to form any distinct idea of anything capable of being excited and communicated in the manner in which the heat was excited and communicated in these experiments, except it be motion. “ [Wolf, op. cit., p. 197.]

Here Rumford emphasizes what he considers the chief result of his experiments, the apparently inexhaustible source of heat generated by friction. The calorists claimed heat is rubbed out of an object by friction. Ultimately, then, all the heat in the object should be exhausted. But this was never observed. Furthermore, in Rumford’s experiments heat apparently was created by friction, refuting the conservation principle which is the foundation of the caloric theory, and denying the material nature of heat, the basis of that conservation principle.

Rumford published the results of his experiments in 1798. One year later Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) published an essay directed against the caloric theory and which dealt in part with the production of heat by friction. The best-known of Davy’s experiments is that in which he rubbed together two blocks of ice fastened by wires to two bars of iron.

Some forty years after the experiments of Rumford and Davy, the problem of heat produced by friction was again investigated, this time on a quantitative basis, by Mayer (in Germany) and Joule (in England). By 1850 these investigators had established beyond little doubt that heat is not a separate substance, but is a form of energy, the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules of ordinary matter.

Again: genius. The interplay between theory, observation, reasoning and experiment is masterfully presented by Priestley.

Priestley goes on to discuss the work of J.B. Mayer and James Joule in determining the relationship between mechanical energy and heat and in discovering the principle of the conservation of energy.

Introductory Physics I highly recommend to anyone who wants a conceptual, rational understanding of the physical world we live in.

Posted by Cyrano at 10:25 PM