Oscilloscopic
The press still thinks [global warming] is controversial. So they find the 1% of the scientists and put them up as if they’re 50% of the research results. You in the public would have no idea that this is basically a done deal and that we’re on to other problems, because the journalists are trying to give it a 50/50 story. It’s not a 50/50 story. It’s not. Period.

Neil deGrasse Tysonpodcast interview (via fourteendrawings)

What they are trying to say is that 99% of scientists have been wrong before. The problem in modern science is that we as scientists get emotionally attached to our results.

Science and Religion

Just wanted to clear some things up. After the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate there has been an explosion of debate about the validity of science and religion on the internet. I think there is a lot of confusion on both sides of this debate. Pinning these two topics against each is other doesn’t make any sense. They are not “two stories of origins” that you can choose to accept. This sounds like I’m about to argue for the scientists point of view yet I’m arguing for neither. People need to stop comparing the two because that only serves to influence others into believing this is a two sided story. These two ideas (science and religion) are incompatible. Science itself has nothing to do with meaning and purpose. We assign meaning and purpose to things due to emotional reasons. Scientists, rather science advocates, need to stop claiming that “based off “_____” observations, this is the meaning of life”. It doesn’t work that way. Science itself is a description of what we see but is clearly skewed by our own perceptions like everything else. The problem is this; Creationists and Non-believers alike are confused about what is being proposed. Science operates in the observable universe. What creationists are proposing is an external force outside of the universe ( not just the observable universe but the universe period.) This is why their proposition cannot be simply disproved by shining a laser beam into intergalactic space to probe for “God”. Science continuously tries to bring “God” into the equation as if it is some measurable quantity. i.e. ” God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence/my equations work fine with him”. As a physicist, I myself was viewing the world this way, as if I could look into a microscope and see God himself. Creationists, however, do not understand who or what they are asking. They are asking scientists why can’t we see God in our microscopes as if they themselves have been shown the light. Noticing beauty and patterns is not evidence for a creator yet our perception is very convincing. There is an inherent incompatibility with these two ideas. I used to think that science and religion were two sides of the same coin, but upon graduating with my degree in physics, I now see that people in general, believers and non-believers do not view science as a tool. I think Neil Tyson once said something about God being an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. This statement is just wrong unless you’ve already defined “God” as being discoverable by our puny laws of description. If God exists, I doubt he uses quantum mechanics. Our math and physics is a construct used as a tool to describe our universe. Scientists really need to start thinking about the types of questions that are being asked not just what is being asked.

imtheduchessofbayridge:

This was it, that was the whole debate

Ham had good points though. That indoctrination stuff is real. People never want to accept anything that isn’t what they naturally believe in. Reminds me of Einstein and QM.

confrontingbabble-on:

Taking care of the needy…without…taking advantage of the needy…that is true morality…

Atheists see another opportunity to slander christianity.

confrontingbabble-on:

Taking care of the needy…without…taking advantage of the needy…that is true morality…

Atheists see another opportunity to slander christianity.

climateadaptation:

99.999% of new peer-reviewed articles agree humans causing climate change (up from 99.998%. See here.).

Science and Global Warming 
by James Lawrence Powell
I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here.Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish—all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed using the search criteria described here, please email me here.


Studies can be wrong. That one guy is really counting on it lol

climateadaptation:

99.999% of new peer-reviewed articles agree humans causing climate change (up from 99.998%. See here.).

Science and Global Warming

by James Lawrence Powell

I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.

My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here.

Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish—all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed using the search criteria described here, please email me here.

Studies can be wrong. That one guy is really counting on it lol

K-Pax starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges is one my favorite sci-fi movies of all time. The sheer imagination of this film is captivating. Would you believe someone is a being from another planet if they could accurately map out a star system that had not been discovered yet? I’ll let you all decide by watching this spectacular movie.

K-Pax starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges is one my favorite sci-fi movies of all time. The sheer imagination of this film is captivating. Would you believe someone is a being from another planet if they could accurately map out a star system that had not been discovered yet? I’ll let you all decide by watching this spectacular movie.

electricity + magnetism = beauty

I just think it’s purely amazing what light can do. I also find it an extremely beautiful and wondrous phenomena of electromagnets. I feel that the words ‘electromagnetic waves’ strangles the fascinating observation of light. Being an electromagnetic wave strips it of its beauty and makes the spectral radiance only a mechanical device. It’s far more than that. The abilities of light are the most miraculous spectacles of all the universe. As a matter of fact everything in the universe is light or interacting with it at some frequency. I could go on all day about light and how awestruck I am by it’s nature.

Famous Physicists

I’m starting to dislike the persona placed upon a lot of the ‘famous’ physicists. I feel as though they do not represent the field very well although this may be my perception. However many of them are the ones that bridge the gap between non-science minded folks and us.The problem may be in those non-science minded people who require a level of, let’s say ‘dumbing down’. That’s what essentially irks me. Not that famous scientists are taking credit for being ‘super geniuses’ to the public but that the public idolizes this. I suppose it’s not a bad thing because it brings science to those who otherwise wouldn’t care or understand. It may be just me feeling left out of the experience of being a ‘physicist’. And as I’m learning it’s not all that amazing unless you know what you’re talking about and can disseminate it to others effectively. Not just about how many hours you put in the lab.

only in Russia lol

only in Russia lol