If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science 2.0)   Hank Campbell clarifies his stance on Venus' "Greenhouse Effect" saying, "You might as well call the greenhouse effect 'Smurf' and be done with it." OK then   (science20.com) divider line 134
    More: Followup, smurf, greenhouse effect, Alessandra Ambrosio, Universe Today, carbon dioxide  
•       •       •

3005 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2014 at 2:15 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-14 01:51:48 PM
1 Reason to not click that link: You're giving the moron attention.
 
2014-03-14 02:03:41 PM
www.socialinns.com
 
2014-03-14 02:04:35 PM
That doesn't explain Serena, though
 
2014-03-14 02:07:07 PM
Since the headline isn't giving me much motivation to click, I'll just ask: is it ironic that this is coming from a blog with "science" in the title, or is this a science blog that is covering anti-science?
 
2014-03-14 02:11:15 PM
This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space." I can't imagine that NDT had any hand in or editorial control over the post-production effects, though.
 
2014-03-14 02:13:15 PM

factoryconnection: Since the headline isn't giving me much motivation to click, I'll just ask: is it ironic that this is coming from a blog with "science" in the title, or is this a science blog that is covering anti-science?


Oh, apparently he's a guy who writes for TheFederalist.com, which emblazons its front page with right-wing nonsense. So there's that.
 
2014-03-14 02:22:09 PM

kronicfeld: This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space." I can't imagine that NDT had any hand in or editorial control over the post-production effects, though.


From what I got on the FAQ page (which is surprisingly short on the Q part), he believes he created the next brain nexus where all the big scientists can come and share ideas and research and all that.

But it looks like he's one of the only contributors to it.
 
2014-03-14 02:26:45 PM
Who is Hank Campbell, and why should we give a shiat?
 
2014-03-14 02:28:40 PM
Since I'm not clicking that link to feed the attention whore, would someone who already made that mistake like to clarify what his original stance on the venerian greenhouse effect was? I didn't think it was a controversy that 90 bar of CO2 and SO3 was the reason for Venus being hot enough to melt lead.
 
2014-03-14 02:32:02 PM
How has no one mentioned the pic in TFA of Neil as PowerMan?

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-14 02:33:15 PM

theorellior: Since I'm not clicking that link to feed the attention whore, would someone who already made that mistake like to clarify what his original stance on the venerian greenhouse effect was? I didn't think it was a controversy that 90 bar of CO2 and SO3 was the reason for Venus being hot enough to melt lead.


lay down a tarp because your mind is about to get blown
Tyson assures us right away that we are to "question everything" so we have to ask why he thinks Venus is the way it is due to the greenhouse effect - which is another way of saying global warming. Venus is almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit and the clouds are sulfuric acid. Even the most aggressive climate change models and their 20-foot ocean rises don't predict that for Earth, no matter how many Chevy Volts we don't buy.

[...]

Regardless, CO2 did not cause the poisonous conditions on Venus; instead, CO2 is an effect of the poisonous conditions on Venus. Invoking the greenhouse effect when talking about Venus is like blaming ocean liners for inventing barnacles.

If you watch the original program now you have to wonder what ever happened to that nuclear winter, too.
 
2014-03-14 02:34:39 PM
echo '127.0.0.1 www.science20.com' >> /etc/hosts
/etc/init.d/networking restart

memecrunch.com
 
2014-03-14 02:38:57 PM

kronicfeld: Oh, apparently he's a guy who writes for TheFederalist.com, which emblazons its front page with right-wing nonsense. So there's that.


The only reason I'd heard of him in the first place was because of the thread discussing his blog in TheFederalist.  I was just surprised to see his "update" coming from a "science" blog.  It appears that Science 2.0 is an open-contributor platform for scientific writing, which removes political and commercial filters but also obviously lets in the chaff.
 
2014-03-14 02:39:21 PM
What the smurf is this shiat?
 
2014-03-14 02:40:02 PM
Never heard of this guy before but he has no credentials beyond "I know some people that have PHDs."
 
2014-03-14 02:45:36 PM

theorellior: Since I'm not clicking that link to feed the attention whore, would someone who already made that mistake like to clarify what his original stance on the venerian greenhouse effect was? I didn't think it was a controversy that 90 bar of CO2 and SO3 was the reason for Venus being hot enough to melt lead.


As sprawl15 pointed out, his argument is "Venus is hot because reasons".
 
2014-03-14 02:45:58 PM

factoryconnection: Since the headline isn't giving me much motivation to click, I'll just ask: is it ironic that this is coming from a blog with "science" in the title, or is this a science blog that is covering anti-science?


As far as I can tell, from reading about his book, he get a little annoyed that people were treating conservatives as anti science, so he tried to do one of those "both sides are bad" bullshiats and talk about all the science progressives ignore. Of course, the people he's including as progressive is a bit of a stretch. Like anti-vaxxers and people in Cape Cod opposing wind farms? I don't even know what to say.
 
2014-03-14 02:48:21 PM

sprawl15: If you watch the original program now you have to wonder what ever happened to that nuclear winter, too.


[chortles loudly with his hand on his belly]

Check and mate, libtards!
 
2014-03-14 02:51:58 PM

Ambitwistor: theorellior: Since I'm not clicking that link to feed the attention whore, would someone who already made that mistake like to clarify what his original stance on the venerian greenhouse effect was? I didn't think it was a controversy that 90 bar of CO2 and SO3 was the reason for Venus being hot enough to melt lead.

As sprawl15 pointed out, his argument is "Venus is hot because reasons".


Gravity and heat are the two he mentions, but as Venus is roughly the same size as the Earth and the heat from the Sun only gets Mercury up to ~800F (Venus is about 865F, according to Google), he's got some 'splaining to do.

I imagine science - the kind done by observation, not political "balance" - has a better explanation.

// I'm also sure I once learned it, but I forgot it because reasons
// (reasons = pot and time)
 
2014-03-14 02:54:44 PM

sprawl15: If you watch the original program now you have to wonder what ever happened to that nuclear winter, too.


I... don't understand his complaint about nuclear winter?

Nuclear winter was always "If we have a big farking nuclear war, it's going to cause a shiat-ton of stuff to burn and a bunch of particulate matter to be thrown into the atmosphere, akin to massive, massive volcanic errptions. Which we have SEEN can cause harsher winters and lower the temperature of the earth."

"OH YEAH WELL THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!"
"But.. we.. didn't HAVE a big nuclear war."

"YOU'RE WRONG, NUCLEAR WINTER DIDN'T HAPPEN."

".. What exactly is your argument here?"
 
2014-03-14 02:55:19 PM

kronicfeld: This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space."


I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the scenes showing Neil de Grasse Tyson in a space ship zooming around space and billions of years into the past do not accurately depict real events, even if you turn the sound off.
 
2014-03-14 02:56:33 PM

Ambitwistor: theorellior: Since I'm not clicking that link to feed the attention whore, would someone who already made that mistake like to clarify what his original stance on the venerian greenhouse effect was? I didn't think it was a controversy that 90 bar of CO2 and SO3 was the reason for Venus being hot enough to melt lead.

As sprawl15 pointed out, his argument is "Venus is hot because reasons".


TFA:

I have gotten some chiding for stating that global warming did not create the atmosphere on Venus. Well, that is accurate. CO2 did not cause the Greenhouse Effect, the proximity to the sun and weak gravity did. When water vapor rose and was exposed to radiation, the molecules got broken and their light hydrogen atoms had no gravity to keep them in the atmosphere so they left, meaning water could never form. Without liquid water to dissolve the CO2 from things like volcanoes - as it does on Earth - CO2 went crazy and boosted the heat even more. But the CO2 was the effect, not the cause.

Essentially Venus is really really dry, which is not like the earth.
 
2014-03-14 02:58:01 PM
Here's a quick rundown of the Federalist article:

1. Herp da derp ba burp doo durpyity-doo
2. Herpity Derpity Dop, Berpity Ferpity Fop
3. Derpa-derpa dooo
4. Hurk-de-jurk! Jerkaloo! Derp.
5. Herpity derpity derpity doo
 
2014-03-14 02:58:43 PM

jaytkay: kronicfeld: This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the scenes showing Neil de Grasse Tyson in a space ship zooming around space and billions of years into the past do not accurately depict real events, even if you turn the sound off.


If they couldn't accurately represent space/time travel, obviously that throws everything else into question.

Another question is why NDT wasn't immediately vaporized by the Big Bang that happened like 2 feet in front of him.
 
2014-03-14 03:06:57 PM

lockers: TFA:

I have gotten some chiding for stating that global warming did not create the atmosphere on Venus. Well, that is accurate. CO2 did not cause the Greenhouse Effect, the proximity to the sun and weak gravity did. When water vapor rose and was exposed to radiation, the molecules got broken and their light hydrogen atoms had no gravity to keep them in the atmosphere so they left, meaning water could never form. Without liquid water to dissolve the CO2 from things like volcanoes - as it does on Earth - CO2 went crazy and boosted the heat even more. But the CO2 was the effect, not the cause.


Ahh. He's an extremely well-read moron.
 
2014-03-14 03:07:02 PM

Dr Dreidel: Gravity and heat are the two he mentions, but as Venus is roughly the same size as the Earth and the heat from the Sun only gets Mercury up to ~800F (Venus is about 865F, according to Google), he's got some 'splaining to do.


Also, isn't Greenhouse effect a catchall term for the trapped heat caused by a variety of gasses? Water vapor is one of the major greenhouse gases, but for some reason, he seems to draw a distinction only for carbon dioxide. Was that in the Cosmos episode?
 
2014-03-14 03:08:13 PM

Dr Dreidel: Gravity and heat are the two he mentions, but as Venus is roughly the same size as the Earth and the heat from the Sun only gets Mercury up to ~800F (Venus is about 865F, according to Google), he's got some 'splaining to do.


The atmosphere of Venus is 90 times more dense than that on Earth and it is made of 96.5% of CO2 and a 3% of nitrogen.
 
2014-03-14 03:10:09 PM
Climate change alarmists accuse skeptics of being anti-science for much the same reasons corrupt pharmaceutical companies do. Except being on the left, the climatists say "it's OK when we do it, because we're the good guys". Actually believing this circular argument is pretty much the definition of left wing politics.
 
2014-03-14 03:14:16 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change alarmists accuse skeptics of being anti-science for much the same reasons corrupt pharmaceutical companies do. Except being on the left, the climatists say "it's OK when we do it, because we're the good guys". Actually believing this circular argument is pretty much the definition of left wing politics.


Sup, Hank?
 
2014-03-14 03:14:21 PM

lockers: TFA:


problem is, TFA is a response to people who read his original article which said utter horseshiat. that he dialed it back a tad for the response is to be expected
 
2014-03-14 03:14:33 PM

scottydoesntknow: jaytkay: kronicfeld: This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the scenes showing Neil de Grasse Tyson in a space ship zooming around space and billions of years into the past do not accurately depict real events, even if you turn the sound off.

If they couldn't accurately represent space/time travel, obviously that throws everything else into question.

Another question is why NDT wasn't immediately vaporized by the Big Bang that happened like 2 feet in front of him.



Dunno if we can define what "outside the big bang" is supposed to mean exactly.  Depends if space and time existed before.
 
2014-03-14 03:15:05 PM

scottydoesntknow: jaytkay: kronicfeld: This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the scenes showing Neil de Grasse Tyson in a space ship zooming around space and billions of years into the past do not accurately depict real events, even if you turn the sound off.

If they couldn't accurately represent space/time travel, obviously that throws everything else into question.

Another question is why NDT wasn't immediately vaporized by the Big Bang that happened like 2 feet in front of him.


He explained in his interview on Colbert (I think) that he was wearing a special suit.

/Developed by NASA with your taxpayer dollars, no doubt.
 
2014-03-14 03:15:27 PM

lockers: Ambitwistor: theorellior: Since I'm not clicking that link to feed the attention whore, would someone who already made that mistake like to clarify what his original stance on the venerian greenhouse effect was? I didn't think it was a controversy that 90 bar of CO2 and SO3 was the reason for Venus being hot enough to melt lead.

As sprawl15 pointed out, his argument is "Venus is hot because reasons".

TFA:

I have gotten some chiding for stating that global warming did not create the atmosphere on Venus. Well, that is accurate. CO2 did not cause the Greenhouse Effect, the proximity to the sun and weak gravity did. When water vapor rose and was exposed to radiation, the molecules got broken and their light hydrogen atoms had no gravity to keep them in the atmosphere so they left, meaning water could never form. Without liquid water to dissolve the CO2 from things like volcanoes - as it does on Earth - CO2 went crazy and boosted the heat even more. But the CO2 was the effect, not the cause.

Essentially Venus is really really dry, which is not like the earth.


And he still farks up his "correction": water vapor rose, was broken down by radiation, the molecules left, so water couldn't form.

W. T. F.

If there was WATER vapor, there was WATER.

This from a man trying to start a "revolution" in science with his Science 2.0 shiat.
 
2014-03-14 03:16:33 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change alarmists accuse skeptics of being anti-science for much the same reasons corrupt pharmaceutical companies do. Except being on the left, the climatists say "it's OK when we do it, because we're the good guys". Actually believing this circular argument is pretty much the definition of left wing politics.


Actually believing what you just typed is the definition of hurr durr derp.
 
2014-03-14 03:17:19 PM

Lochsteppe: scottydoesntknow: jaytkay: kronicfeld: This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the scenes showing Neil de Grasse Tyson in a space ship zooming around space and billions of years into the past do not accurately depict real events, even if you turn the sound off.

If they couldn't accurately represent space/time travel, obviously that throws everything else into question.

Another question is why NDT wasn't immediately vaporized by the Big Bang that happened like 2 feet in front of him.

He explained in his interview on Colbert (I think) that he was wearing a special suit.

/Developed by NASA with your taxpayer dollars, no doubt.


That was a great interview.

My only issue with it was that Colbert didn't call NDT out (in a fun way) for not attending Cornell even after meeting Sagan and being invited to stay at his house.
 
2014-03-14 03:19:07 PM

sprawl15: theorellior: Since I'm not clicking that link to feed the attention whore, would someone who already made that mistake like to clarify what his original stance on the venerian greenhouse effect was? I didn't think it was a controversy that 90 bar of CO2 and SO3 was the reason for Venus being hot enough to melt lead.

lay down a tarp because your mind is about to get blownTyson assures us right away that we are to "question everything" so we have to ask why he thinks Venus is the way it is due to the greenhouse effect - which is another way of saying global warming. Venus is almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit and the clouds are sulfuric acid. Even the most aggressive climate change models and their 20-foot ocean rises don't predict that for Earth, no matter how many Chevy Volts we don't buy.

[...]

Regardless, CO2 did not cause the poisonous conditions on Venus; instead, CO2 is an effect of the poisonous conditions on Venus. Invoking the greenhouse effect when talking about Venus is like blaming ocean liners for inventing barnacles.

If you watch the original program now you have to wonder what ever happened to that nuclear winter, too.


So basically he was just itching to disagree with something in the new cosmos, so since there was nothing substantial he's trying to nitpick something semantic. Poorly, I might add.
 
2014-03-14 03:21:52 PM
This has exactly dick to do with any climate change argument.  "Greenhouse Effect" is a name we've given to an observable phenomenon.
 
2014-03-14 03:22:09 PM
One thing Cosmos got wrong was that it was a good idea to include a lengthy dramatization of a famous scientist's life in cartoon form. Just tell the story and cut to the chase. I didn't need to see ten minutes of bad anime showing cartoon Giordano Bruno floating around outer space
 
2014-03-14 03:27:50 PM

TheOmni: factoryconnection: Since the headline isn't giving me much motivation to click, I'll just ask: is it ironic that this is coming from a blog with "science" in the title, or is this a science blog that is covering anti-science?

As far as I can tell, from reading about his book, he get a little annoyed that people were treating conservatives as anti science, so he tried to do one of those "both sides are bad" bullshiats and talk about all the science progressives ignore. Of course, the people he's including as progressive is a bit of a stretch. Like anti-vaxxers and people in Cape Cod opposing wind farms? I don't even know what to say.


I have a Facebook friend who's always going on about liberals being anti-science, typically citing the anti-vaxxer fringe. I looked up polling on anti-vaccination beliefs and found that self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives actually polled the same on anti-vaccination beliefs, but self-identified independents polled the highest of all three groups -- about 5-7% higher. It's probably a mix of libertarians and people who don't bother to follow the news enough to keep up with politics.

The Cape Cod folks are probably just NIMBY worrywarts and not necessarily climate change deniers.

The only anti-science fringe group that I can think of that is primarily liberal is anti-GMO activists. I've also heard some odd claims made surrounding the Keystone pipeline, although that's probably less about being anti-science and more about shoddy, emotion-driven analysis. But in that latter fight both sides are negligent.
 
2014-03-14 03:28:48 PM
A couple of things.

1 CO2 is not the only greenhouse gass and greenhouse effect is not the same thing as saying a lot of CO2. if you were a farking scientist you would know that.

2 Sound in space. since you are unable to look in all directions at once and the human mind is already set to pay attention to sound as a warning wouldn't it make sense to slave your external sensors to an audio channel ? also pure quite makes you go nuts if you are used to sound. there was a fun news piece on it on NPR the other day talking about the most quite room in the world used for audio testing and how people can't stand to be in there long (http://news.discovery.com/human/life/worlds-quietest-room-will-drive -y ou-crazy-in-30-minutes.htm ). Now imagine months or years of that. (hint Space madness)
 
2014-03-14 03:32:51 PM

lockers: Dr Dreidel: Gravity and heat are the two he mentions, but as Venus is roughly the same size as the Earth and the heat from the Sun only gets Mercury up to ~800F (Venus is about 865F, according to Google), he's got some 'splaining to do.

The atmosphere of Venus is 90 times more dense than that on Earth and it is made of 96.5% of CO2 and a 3% of nitrogen.


Right, that's the effect. I'm asking what he thinks the cause of that is.
 
2014-03-14 03:33:39 PM

mitEj: A couple of things.

1 CO2 is not the only greenhouse gass and greenhouse effect is not the same thing as saying a lot of CO2. if you were a farking scientist you would know that.

2 Sound in space. since you are unable to look in all directions at once and the human mind is already set to pay attention to sound as a warning wouldn't it make sense to slave your external sensors to an audio channel ? also pure quite makes you go nuts if you are used to sound. there was a fun news piece on it on NPR the other day talking about the most quite room in the world used for audio testing and how people can't stand to be in there long (http://news.discovery.com/human/life/worlds-quietest-room-will-drive -y ou-crazy-in-30-minutes.htm ). Now imagine months or years of that. (hint Space madness)



While we're complaining,  I really do not care for the lens flare.  First it's CGI, secondly if they were filming in space, modern coatings are so good you can shoot into the sun with minimal flare.  Whereas, the new Cosmos looks like it was shot on  lenses from the 1950s.
 
2014-03-14 03:35:20 PM
There is sound in space in Cosmos for precisely the reason there is sound in Star Trek. Audiences expect it, and it enhances the viewer's experience. Butthurt Boy here is whinging because *he* doesn't have a show.
 
2014-03-14 03:35:30 PM
lockers: TFA: I have gotten some chiding for stating that global warming did not create the atmosphere on Venus.

No, what he actually got chiding for is claiming that CO2 did not cause the greenhouse effect, or the greenhouse effect did not contribute to Venus's extreme heat.

Well, that is accurate. CO2 did not cause the Greenhouse Effect, the proximity to the sun and weak gravity did. When water vapor rose and was exposed to radiation, the molecules got broken and their light hydrogen atoms had no gravity to keep them in the atmosphere so they left, meaning water could never form. Without liquid water to dissolve the CO2 from things like volcanoes - as it does on Earth - CO2 went crazy and boosted the heat even more. But the CO2 was the effect, not the cause.

Here he produced another bizarre argument.  It's like saying "gravity didn't cause the rock to fall, my letting go of the rock was the cause, gravity was the effect".  Semantic weaseling aside, "CO2 went crazy and boosted the heat even more" = "CO2 caused the greenhouse effect".  The greenhouse effect on Venus is largely due to the radiative properties of the CO2, regardless of how the CO2 got there.
 
2014-03-14 03:36:46 PM
Basic science says we're wrong.  Guess we better change basic science.
 
2014-03-14 03:37:43 PM

DarnoKonrad: mitEj: A couple of things.

1 CO2 is not the only greenhouse gass and greenhouse effect is not the same thing as saying a lot of CO2. if you were a farking scientist you would know that.

2 Sound in space. since you are unable to look in all directions at once and the human mind is already set to pay attention to sound as a warning wouldn't it make sense to slave your external sensors to an audio channel ? also pure quite makes you go nuts if you are used to sound. there was a fun news piece on it on NPR the other day talking about the most quite room in the world used for audio testing and how people can't stand to be in there long (http://news.discovery.com/human/life/worlds-quietest-room-will-drive -y ou-crazy-in-30-minutes.htm ). Now imagine months or years of that. (hint Space madness)


While we're complaining,  I really do not care for the lens flare.  First it's CGI, secondly if they were filming in space, modern coatings are so good you can shoot into the sun with minimal flare.  Whereas, the new Cosmos looks like it was shot on  lenses from the 1950s.


Another thing:  You'd think that if NDT was flying in an imagination spaceship, he would have imagined himself in a more flattering suit.  Also, the font used on the Cosmic Calendar was terrible.
 
2014-03-14 03:37:44 PM

HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Climate change alarmists accuse skeptics of being anti-science for much the same reasons corrupt pharmaceutical companies do. Except being on the left, the climatists say "it's OK when we do it, because we're the good guys". Actually believing this circular argument is pretty much the definition of left wing politics.


Actually believing what you just typed is the definition of hurr durr derp.



Nice in-depth rebuttal there. Ah, but you think you're one of the good guys, so reason and logic are strictly optional, right?
 
2014-03-14 03:37:58 PM

rzrwiresunrise: This from a man trying to start a "revolution" in science with his Science 2.0 shiat.


Science 2.0 isn't this guy's personal blog, for the record, it is an open-forum science-focused blog.  Now, the whole thing may be completely derped out by different contributors, but it isn't explicit in their mission statement.
 
2014-03-14 03:38:10 PM
DarnoKonrad:While we're complaining,  I really do not care for the lens flare.  First it's CGI, secondly if they were filming in space, modern coatings are so good you can shoot into the sun with minimal flare.  Whereas, the new Cosmos looks like it was shot on  lenses from the 1950s.

Correction:  lenses from the 2250s.

sidekickreviews.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-14 03:38:36 PM

kronicfeld: This guy is a whiny c*nt. I must have missed the first article, but of his complaints, the only one that really has any traction is "3. There Is No Sound In Space." I can't imagine that NDT had any hand in or editorial control over the post-production effects, though.


It's rare to see spacecraft on television or in the movies where the ships don't make noise. "2001" and "Firefly" spring to mind.

Can anyone else think of some examples?
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report