Comments on: What if we treated the rest of science like climate science?

What if we treated the rest of science like climate science?

lumpenprole — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:27:11 -0800

Sure, the diamond planet is real.. ..if you believe the liberal media. One of the scientists involved in making this discovery (actual abstract here) discusses how his experience would have been different if he was a climate scientist.

Of course the diamond planet is hoax! Just follow the money like Rick Perry.

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:31:44 -0800

Not a planet. A stellar remnant.

By: The Whelk

The Whelk — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:31:51 -0800

Soon people will believe The Diamond Planet is a myth and it will be mine for the taking and not even Superman can stop me! BUWAHAHAHA! c'mon like you weren't thinking it

By: DU

DU — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:32:46 -0800

*attempts landing there*

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:33:50 -0800

But Perry went one step further than most in the mainstream climate change denier community on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire Wednesday, stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck. Being a scientist has always been a popular get-rich-quick scheme, seconded only by sending chain letters.

By: pts

pts — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:36:26 -0800

Soooo... I was going to make a joke about how the Google unit conversion feature totally choked when you asked it for the mass of Jupiter in carats. Yeah. Hm.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:36:41 -0800

Not a planet. A stellar remnant. Fair enough, but I'd totally go see Diamond Planet play, whereas Crystalline Stellar Remnant would probably be to mathy for my tastes.

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:36:48 -0800

stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck. Perry fiddles while Texas burns.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:37:03 -0800

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is a ~~conservative Republican~~US politician, and as such he ~~does not believe that climate change is caused by human activity~~wants to keep the corporate and oil dollars flowing in.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:37:47 -0800

Perry will make such an absolutely fucking idiotic president

By: DU

DU — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:38:35 -0800

....Google unit conversion feature totally choked when...asked...for the mass of Jupiter in carats. mass of Jupiter = 9.4935 × 10³⁰ carats

By: Hairy Lobster

Hairy Lobster — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:39:25 -0800

Link-through from the main article to another interesting article by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg: Who's your expert? The difference between peer review and rethoric. Worth bringing to the front page...

By: pts

pts — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:41:18 -0800

DU: Yes, exactly. Turns out I can't make that joke. Current score for the folks at home is pts: 0, Google: 1.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:42:21 -0800

I got that you were failing to make the joke, but once the issue is raised someone needs to actually post the number.

By: seanmpuckett

seanmpuckett — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:43:43 -0800

Goddamn scientists and their lily-livered pantywaist phraseology. "The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril." is passive, impersonal, vague and spineless. How the hell are they going to get anyone RILED UP about their topic with this shit? WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING! "The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!"

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:43:44 -0800

Something that consistently frustrates me about science policy debates is that people will reject ideas supported by dozens of lines of evidence across thousands of studies as "just a theory" while embracing speculative concepts that may or may not be overturned by future research. When conservatives contrast evolution or climate change with the "Law of Gravity," as far as I can tell, they have things exactly backwards.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:44:19 -0800

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GRAR

By: JPD

JPD — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:44:23 -0800

It take balls to execute an innocent man

By: clvrmnky

clvrmnky — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:45:29 -0800

"The scientific method is universal. If we selectively ignore it in certain disciplines, we do so at our peril." This.

By: Legomancer

Legomancer — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:47:06 -0800

Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys?

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:48:01 -0800

Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys? Someone has to mine the diamonds.

By: elizardbits

elizardbits — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:48:46 -0800

Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys? a wizard did it

By: TheWhiteSkull

TheWhiteSkull — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:49:25 -0800

*attempts landing there* *slides off*

By: robocop is bleeding

robocop is bleeding — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:51:33 -0800

OMG you guys what if the diamond planet is the pulsar's wedding ring and its totally like gaymarried to another pulsar

By: Tell Me No Lies

Tell Me No Lies — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:58:37 -0800

In their June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled Another Ice Age? that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary" Friggin' fringe scientists. An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled [25] "The Cooling World", it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." The article claimed "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Not that this excuses global warming deniers, but if you lived through the 1970's you could see where people might be cynical about the whole thing. As for the article, global climate science actually matters to people as opposed to astrophysics. It's no surprise that its getting a lot more attention.

By: Hoopo

Hoopo — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:59:50 -0800

Perry will make such an absolutely fucking idiotic president For some reason my wife was watching a Republican debate last night and I swear to god that a physician who took the hippocratic oath actually said that he would let someone die if they made the choice not to get adequate health insurance. That if a patient can't pay the bills it's their own choice and they're fucked. And he got cheers from the audience. I'm sorry to say it but you guys have got bigger problems than Rick Perry's take on science.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:02:08 -0800

So as I understand this it's not a diamond planet orbiting a star every two hours, but rather a binary star system and they orbit around their center of mass. Cool. This is not going to stop me from telling engaged ladies who brag about the size of their diamond that there's a diamond planet. And it's canary yellow and flawless.

By: gurple

gurple — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:03:10 -0800

Good article. But this guy needs to know. That paragraphs are allowed to be longer than a line. Or two.

By: marienbad

marienbad — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:06:43 -0800

How far is this away, because this one is 50 light years away. Also, orbital period of 2 hours? How fast is the thing going?

By: Debaser626

Debaser626 — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:08:01 -0800

You're my diamond girl And I'm a millisecond pulsar You're my diamond girl You were a helium rich dwarf star (but now) You're my diamond girl You're the one I put the rock on You're my diamond girl You're the reason I quit the game for

By: rikschell

rikschell — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:11:58 -0800

Is this diamond the size of Jupiter or the mass of Jupiter? The article says both and I'm thinking one must be wrong...

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:12:36 -0800

1,884,955 km/hr by my estimate.

By: Edogy

Edogy — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:14:39 -0800

At least now we can count on a DeBeers entry into the private space race. Just need to find oil on Mars and maybe I'll get offplanet before I die after all.

By: metaBugs

metaBugs — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:17:39 -0800

WE NEED RHETORIC! FIRE! TRASH-TALKING! "The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some religion's GODs. If you fucking pretend, like a puling brat, that some established theorems -- like ALL WHITE SUVs hurtling down the road -- are just actually bullshit made-up phantoms only there to scare the weak -- you're not only a fucking fool, but you're JUST AS FUCKING DEAD when one hits you as any other colour of SUV. Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES!" Heh, you should give lessons in this. It definitely seems to be true that people really want emotionally satisfying narratives, the comfort of certainty and reassurance that their world view is the correct one. But these urges are the antithesis of science, and scientists are trained right from the start to eliminate these sorts of patterns from our thinking and from our communication styles. By convention and by habit, every statement is qualified, hedged and given error bars, which makes us more correct but also much less effective communicators to a non-nerdy audience. It's something that I think the best -- or at least most popular -- science communicators are very aware of and are careful to control. Brian Cox, for example, tends to speak in absolutes and provides emotional context for the things he's talking about. For example, when interviewed about the LHC's switch-on creating black holes and destroying the world, he didn't get into the technical detail or start discussing probabilities. Instead, his response was something very close to "Nah, that's bollocks [interviewer starts to interject]... Nope, total bollocks. Can't happen." It's a less information-rich answer, but rhetorically it's a vast improvement, with the audience much more likely to remember and take to heart what was said. Confidence really does get interpreted as competence, and the emotional kick of hearing a Professor talk like that* really helps to sell the message. That's an extreme example, but in the battle to get important messages across about how the world actually works, we need to decide what's more important: conveying all the information, properly qualified, or conveying a crude summary of the information that people will actually remember and be more likely to believe. The former is more honest and comes much more naturally to me and most scientists that I've encountered, but there's no question that the latter, which feels like a politician's dirty habit, is much more effective. *For context, only a very small subset of academics in the UK are referred to as Professor -- it's not a title that all lecturers seem to acquire by default, as it seems to be in the US -- so the title has a little more associated stuffiness and seniority here.

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:30:37 -0800

Science! IT WORKS, BITCHES! Totally want this on a T-shirt.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:37:14 -0800

It's an XKCD tshirt. Been around for a while.

By: Gelatin

Gelatin — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:38:59 -0800

Explain to me, then, how if diamonds can turn into planets, why are there still monkeys? They call them the diamond dogs.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:41:10 -0800

I came in to make a DeBeers joke but found this: OMG you guys what if the diamond planet is the pulsar's wedding ring and its totally like gaymarried to another pulsar Marriage is between a boy stellar remnant and a girl stellar remnant; anything else is an affront to the blind idiot god at the center of the universe!

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:43:55 -0800

Happy Anniversary, Mrs. Galactus!

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:46:18 -0800

Some other astroscientists discovered a zircon the size of Uranus, to universal titters.

By: LogicalDash

LogicalDash — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:46:19 -0800

I'd be satisfied to get some politicians to recite the Litany of Tarski on live TV

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:55:18 -0800

Thanks lumpenprole!

By: Wolfdog

Wolfdog — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:56:38 -0800

Photograph by NASA? On the Ars Technica article? Really?

By: bionic.junkie

bionic.junkie — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:23:10 -0800

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:23:18 -0800

1,884,955 km/hr by my estimate. So, the Nordschleife in 0.040 seconds then.

By: pwnguin

pwnguin — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:24:40 -0800

So did Futurama borrow this finding for their 'Diamondium comet', or is this another case of pulsars imitating art?

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:30:34 -0800

seanmpuckett: The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker So, you're saying the scientific method is like a honey badger?

By: quin

quin — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:38:41 -0800

But Perry went one step further than most in the mainstream climate change denier community on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire Wednesday, stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck. What's funny about this is that there is, in fact, a group of high profile people trying to convince us of their dire predictions about the direction the world is taking, who are in fact using phony data to make a profit for themselves. The only problem is that they've misidentified scientists as being the culprit here, when all the evidence points elsewhere: Outspokenly Christian Politicians.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:42:02 -0800

The scientific method is nasty!

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:43:53 -0800

So, you're saying the scientific method is like a honey badger? Now that's a t-shirt....

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:58:45 -0800

Republican candidates, global warming, evolution, and reality

By: mmrtnt

mmrtnt — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:58:53 -0800

> Fair enough, but I'd totally go see Diamond Planet play Don't they do Bowie covers?

By: straight

straight — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:01:02 -0800

This seems pretty disingenuous. If his announcement had been, "We just discovered a planet made of diamond and therefore we need to make huge, sweeping, costly changes to the majority of our industry and transportation," he would have been met with a lot more skeptical questions. It doesn't help the case of scientists for them to ignore the context here. If you're going to demand that people make lots of changes and spend lots of money, the bar for making your case and demonstrating that you've got the science right is going to be lots and lots higher than usual. I've tried looking for myself at some of the data demonstrating climate change, and it's pretty complex. I feel like I basically have to decide who I going to trust, because I sure couldn't demonstrate this to myself. As it happens, I trust the scientists who say the evidence is conclusive more than the people who claim they can debunk it. But it's certainly not because the scientists were wearing idiotic "SCIENCE: IT WORKS BITCHES" t-shirts.

By: barc0001

barc0001 — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:13:58 -0800

But Perry went one step further than most in the mainstream climate change denier community on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire Wednesday, stating flatly that scientists drum up phony climate change data to make a buck. Because the first thing I think of when I hear someone goes into the sciences is the swimming pools of money they're going to be making in their field....

By: Peevish

Peevish — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:17:28 -0800

@straight How much a theory may cost the public or demand social change has nothing to do with how well-supported it is. If a diamond planet has as much (or less) evidence supporting it as climate change, then it should receive equal or greater skepticism. Journalists should concern themselves with reporting facts and making sure those facts are well-researched. It's not their job to post opposing viewpoints from pseudoscientists. The thrust of the post is about how the media and the public, not just the policy-makers, are responding to this, which are the people who should really only concern themselves with the method.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:22:00 -0800

In other campaign politics vs science news: Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause 'mental retardation' And now Perry is defending vaccinations in general: Rick Perry pushes back on Michele Bachmann HPV vaccine talk This campaign is making me dizzy.

By: mach

mach — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:22:07 -0800

If his announcement had been, "We just discovered a planet made of diamond and therefore we need to make huge, sweeping, costly changes to the majority of our industry and transportation," he would have been met with a lot more skeptical questions. It doesn't help the case of scientists for them to ignore the context here What are you suggesting here? That when a climate scientist finds evidence for global warming that they not report it because of the ramifications? The argument being made here is not disingenuous at all. What he's saying is that there is a large segment of the population that chooses not to believe climate science because they don't like the answer. These are the people being disingenuous.

By: aught

aught — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:33:37 -0800

Because the first thing I think of when I hear someone goes into the sciences is the swimming pools of money they're going to be making in their field.... Perry gets away with making such a dumb-ass statement because most American's image of scientists is limited to the power-mad evil scientist character in his elaborate techno-lair, from any number of stupid movies. And a mad scientist's got to fudge a lot of data to get enough grant money to support that kind of operation.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:36:47 -0800

This is what global warming looks like

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:40:59 -0800

What are you suggesting here? That when a climate scientist finds evidence for global warming that they not report it because of the ramifications? I think straight is just arguing that no one should be surprised to meet resistance from the public when the implications of their research are societally significant. This has nothing to do with the scientific method; it's simply human nature. It's harder to articulate what the implications of this are for scientists. I think one element is that if you're working in a field that has significant policy implications, you need to be super-fastidious about avoiding even the appearance of research irregularities. You should be cognizant of the fact that the implications of your research touch on politics, and you should realize that the political arena is very different from the scientific community.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:46:37 -0800

It take balls to execute an innocent man Jesus fuck what an article.

By: straight

straight — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:54:11 -0800

The argument being made here is not disingenuous at all. What he's saying is that there is a large segment of the population that chooses not to believe climate science because they don't like the answer. The disingenuous part is pretending that there's some sort of hypocrisy or inconsistency in the difference between the way his research has been received and the way climate change research is received. The reason he hasn't gotten any hostile questions about the diamond planet is that no one really cares whether it's true or not. Maybe scientists believe that the public respects and believes them most of the time and that climate change and evolution are some weird anomalies. The truth is that the public ignores scientists most of the time. Saying, "Look the evidence for climate change is way better than the evidence for the diamond planet" assumes incorrectly that the pubic had some knowledge of and respect for the process that told them about the diamond planet. This just isn't true. The diamond planet story was entertainment. Climate change is public policy. To loudly protest, "But! But! They're both SCIENCE!" is to completely misunderstand what's going on.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:54:13 -0800

If his announcement had been, "We just discovered a planet made of diamond and therefore we need to make huge, sweeping, costly changes to the majority of our industry and transportation," he would have been met with a lot more skeptical questions. Well, in most cases, that's not the claim that scientists are making. Usually their professional claims are much more petite, like, "measured CO2 levels in this sample covering this geologic time period are consistent with that hypothesis," or "this indirect estimate of historic temperatures at ___ is consistent with that hypothesis." When you have a big enough stack of papers consistent with the hypothesis, then it's reasonable to say that the hypothesis is, to the limits of our knowledge, likely to be a good model for reality and therefore reasonable grounds on which to base policy.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:58:31 -0800

When you have a big enough stack of papers consistent with the hypothesis, then it's reasonable to say that the hypothesis is, to the limits of our knowledge, likely to be a good model for reality and therefore reasonable grounds on which to base policy. That's a good summary of how science works and a bad summary of how actually policymaking works.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:24:36 -0800

And now Perry is defending vaccinations in general It's like we're back in the 1700s, trying to justify the idea of vaccination to a bunch of superstitious locals — just on a wholly different scale of stupidity.

By: Wyatt

Wyatt — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:33:22 -0800

MetaFilter: totally like gaymarried to another pulsar

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:33:34 -0800

It's like we're back in the 1700s, trying to justify the idea of vaccination to a bunch of superstitious locals — just on a wholly different scale of stupidity. Meanwhile the CIA undermines real vaccination programs.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:06:29 -0800

One of the scientists involved in making this discovery (actual abstract here) discusses how his experience would have been different if he was a climate scientist. Another difference can be legal fees, like the $10,000 Michael Mann is facing. So now some people are setting up a fund: A Legal Defense Fund for Climate Scientists

By: Effigy2000

Effigy2000 — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:09:32 -0800

"Soon people will believe The Diamond Planet is a myth and it will be mine for the taking and not even Superman can stop me! BUWAHAHAHA!" posted by The Whelk at 3:31 AM on September 14 New or old Superman? C'mon, this is important!

By: Joe in Australia

Joe in Australia — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:18:33 -0800

One of the scientists involved in making this discovery [...] discusses how his experience would have been different if he was a climate scientist. You mean he discusses how his discovery would have been treated differently if it were consequential? Yes, this is because we should apply a high degree of scrutiny to suggestions that implicitly require massive expenditure and the disruption of billions of lives. I suppose it's arguable that there ought to be a better method of applying that scrutiny than the chaos of a free press and political debate - but this a-scientific system has actually worked pretty well in the past. We'd have been better off if things like eugenics and Lysenkoism had been treated more critically, rather than being adopted and imposed at the highest levels of government.

By: smoke

smoke — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:26:15 -0800

Yes, this is because we should apply a high degree of scrutiny to suggestions that implicitly require massive expenditure and the disruption of billions of lives. If you think the death threats, slander, harrassment, career interference and mockery that climate scientists are copping at the moment equates "a high degree of scrutiny", you are crazy. What happened to East Anglia and James Hansen was not scrutiny in any sense of the word. The fact the majority of it wouldn't exist but for vested interests bankrolling literally millions of dollars worth of astroturfing only compounds the issue. Also, comparing eugenics and Lysenkoism to climate change discourse is not really appropriate: they were both government-driven and sponsored initiatives, much of the opposition came from the scientific community, and further there were very few corporate interests promoting them.

By: TheWhiteSkull

TheWhiteSkull — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:27:30 -0800

In other campaign politics vs science news: Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause 'mental retardation' That's not even the craziest thing in that article! She blames Perry's support for vaccination on CRONY CAPITALISM! So does Palin! CRONY CAPITALISM? DON'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT CRONY CAPITALISM! YOU ARE CRONY CAPITALISM! DOESN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE THIS? I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS HERE! *froths at mouth, falls over*

By: mach

mach — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:37:33 -0800

Climate change is public policy. To loudly protest, "But! But! They're both SCIENCE!" is to completely misunderstand what's going on. Part of "Climate Change" is science: - Is the the Earth warming and why? - What are the effects of this going to be? - When will we see these effects? The other part is public policy: - What are we going to do about it? The larger the impact is in the public policy side of things, then the more scrutiny should be applied to the science side of things. I'd say everybody agrees on that. However, that's not what's happening. One side here doesn't like what the answers are likely to be on the public policy side of things so they're just denying what the scientific community is saying about the basic questions of what's happening. Mind you, they're not applying greater scrutiny; they're not learning about the methods used to reach these conclusions and questioning the process. They're embarking on ad hominen attacks and propping up scientists that are telling them what they want to hear. Now that is disingenuous.

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:01:05 -0800

By: sneebler

sneebler — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:21:44 -0800

mach: "They're embarking on ad hominen attacks and propping up scientists that are telling them what they want to hear." Not to mention spending tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to make sure their message gets heard over the scientists actually doing the work. A message that is not only cynical and destructive in its own right, but undermines the value of science itself.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:43:50 -0800

Here's something in that vein for you. For a second I thought this was a reference to heroin rather then the more common reference (to mining, I guess?)

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:24:39 -0800

For a second I thought this was a reference to heroin rather then the more common reference (to mining, I guess?) Huh? common idiom.

By: Lovecraft In Brooklyn

Lovecraft In Brooklyn — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:46 -0800

By: Hoopo

Hoopo — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:38:48 -0800

but my understanding was that FIRE BAD

By: yeloson

yeloson — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:55:53 -0800

If you're going to demand that people make lots of changes and spend lots of money, the bar for making your case and demonstrating that you've got the science right is going to be lots and lots higher than usual. Unless it involves terrorists, then we can spend trillions, change massive amounts of our legal system and transportation set up, with no evidence that our new methods are actually any better than the old ones, then it'll be no questions asked. I have the feeling it's less a problem of infrastructure and more a problem of profit motive.

By: hattifattener

hattifattener — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:10:09 -0800

The scientific method doesn't give a shit, mother fucker, it works whether you believe in it or not -- kind of like some HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG HNNNNGGG

By: Twang

Twang — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 01:41:00 -0800

Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause 'mental retardation' Personal experience talking there, I take it.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:54:42 -0800

So, you're saying the scientific method is like a honey badger? Lies, damned lies, and honey badgers

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:19:48 -0800

Wow, Dems and GOP finally agree. Rick Perry sucked last night.