Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3039 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2014 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-14 03:39:25 PM  

factoryconnection: 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.


He is the founder of Science 2.0, so I'd say the original claim is accurate.
 
2014-03-14 03:41:46 PM  

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


WWIII didn't happen?
 
2014-03-14 03:43:31 PM  

Ambitwistor: factoryconnection: 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.

He is the founder of Science 2.0, so I'd say the original claim is accurate.


My sincere apologies!  I just saw that in the other thread.  Sorry, rzrwiresunrise... this is in fact Hank Campbell's very own derpstorm; you were right.
 
2014-03-14 03:47:10 PM  

give me doughnuts: 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?



Did Moon (2009)?
 
2014-03-14 03:47:52 PM  
Heh, best part about this was a link through that brought me to this Sagan quote:  Other things being equal, it is better to be smart than to be stupid.  "  Apparently, not everyone subscribes to that view, the Politics tab being a prime example.
 
2014-03-14 03:48:28 PM  
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.

No, CO2 is helping CONTRIBUTE to the overall greenhouse effect.
 
2014-03-14 03:48:31 PM  

factoryconnection: 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.


No, but it's implicit in the entire notion of "Science 2.0".

The entire platform revolves around the notion of democratizing science. On the surface the entire thing sounds perfectly sensible. Openly publish your theories, data and testing on a collaborative platform that allows others to consume more information, provide their own feedback and combine efforts to work toward common goals. This would be as opposed to the more traditional route where you have an idea, flesh it out, gather your data and perform your tests and then provide it for peer review. A stodgy, restrictive process for sure.

Seems sound, right? Give people a better chance to have their work reviewed and advanced and bring established projects together to share ideas. Cool.

Sure, except who are the people that routinely have problems getting things published for peer review? Crackpots like this numbnut.

Instead of it turning into a collaborative platform for the legitimate exchange, investigation and advancement of scientific ideas it turns into a platform for every amateur halfwit with a crackpot theory and a political or religious agenda. Unlike the peer review process there's no reliable way to separate sound and noise so you wind up with stupid things like Campbell's articles being mixed in with any ideas that might actually be sound. And since people like Campbell just engender rage and create busy, loud arguments, even if there are good ideas out there from amateurs they get drowned out.

The whole thing is just laughably stupid. There might be a way to better democratize science through collaborative technology so that little guys with big ideas have an easier time getting their work out there, but this isn't it. Not by a long shot.
 
2014-03-14 03:50:01 PM  

give me doughnuts: 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?


the europa project?

/i think
 
2014-03-14 03:50:36 PM  

sprawl15: the europa project report?


ftfm
 
2014-03-14 03:51:01 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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?


I'm confident that I gave it the appropriate amount of depth.
 
2014-03-14 03:52:34 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.


Not only that, but as I piointed out in the other thread... If you are INSIDE the ship, as long as there is air, then there is sound. If you are outside the ship, you're dead anyway, so it doesn't matter. The guy just really, REALLY had to find a 5th thing to round out the list with.

give me doughnuts: 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?


Well, for the record, they discussed this for Star Wars and decided to purposely put sound in because the audience would actually not appreciate a bunch of silent space. So fark this guy, the decision was made almost 40 years ago that people WANTED sound, accurate or not, rather than dead air. And they were right then, just like they're right now.
 
2014-03-14 03:53:26 PM  
THE GREAT NAME:

Climate change alarmists

Lie 1. They're called scientists.

accuse skeptics

Lie 2. Skeptics have good reason to be skeptical. There is no good reason to be skeptical that the earth is warming because of human activity. You're deniers

of being anti-science for much the same reasons corrupt pharmaceutical companies do.

Because you are?

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.

And lie 3, which follows from lies 1 and 2, because you have 0 evidence. As usual.
 
2014-03-14 03:54:50 PM  

skozlaw: Sure, except who are the people that routinely have problems getting things published for peer review? Crackpots like this numbnut.


Ahhh, I had never heard of the guy. I would have read his defense much different if I understood it was through the lense of a climate denier.
 
2014-03-14 03:55:31 PM  
skozlaw: [Science 2.0] revolves around the notion of democratizing science. On the surface the entire thing sounds perfectly sensible. Openly publish your theories, data and testing on a collaborative platform that allows others to consume more information, provide their own feedback and combine efforts to work toward common goals.

I think we all saw how this idea turned out:  it's called alt.sci.physics.new-theories.
 
2014-03-14 03:56:03 PM  
mongbiohazard:

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.

No, I would say it's worse than that.  Campbell is trying to give climate change deniers a disingenuous argument to hide behind while maintaining a semblance of being scientific.

It is poor, however.  Even if we buy that the hydrogen floated away in the heated atmosphere, allowing the oxygen to only bond with carbon and form CO2 and thus be an effect, he states that this caused a  further heating of the atmosphere.  Even from his own damn argument, scientifically valid or not, Campbell proves himself wrong.  CO2 may have been the effect of the  first warming, but it was the cause of the  secondwarming.
 
2014-03-14 03:58:05 PM  

give me doughnuts: 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?


IIRC, the ships in "Space:1999" didn't make sound in space (or an atmosphere-free environment), either.
 
2014-03-14 03:59:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 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)


Yeah, science says that the large concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contributes to the higher temperature because "greenhouse gas", no matter how much this asshat wants to deny it.
 
2014-03-14 04:00:30 PM  
Is there a link to the blasphemous "space ship making sound in space" thing that this guy has his panties in a bunch over? I didn't watch the show, and I'm curious what has him so weepy.
 
2014-03-14 04:02:29 PM  

Mikey1969: Is there a link to the blasphemous "space ship making sound in space" thing that this guy has his panties in a bunch over? I didn't watch the show, and I'm curious what has him so weepy.


It's on hulu.
 
2014-03-14 04:03:21 PM  

buckler: give me doughnuts: 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?

IIRC, the ships in "Space:1999" didn't make sound in space (or an atmosphere-free environment), either.


Actually, on review, it seems I'm wrong. Carry on.
 
2014-03-14 04:09:22 PM  
1. The greenhouse effect certainly does cause considerable heat in the atmosphere of Venus. Look it the fark up.

2.Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics  is enough of a scientific theory to have an acronym. It's science.

3. There's no sound in space to speak of. But this is being a bit of a pisser.

4.Oh, come on.

5. Analogy biatch. Can you think of a better way to describe the immensity of 14 billion years that a 12 year old might wrap his brain around. STFU.
 
2014-03-14 04:11:49 PM  
look libs how can it be GREENHOUSE gasses when venus is clearly a whitish color
 
2014-03-14 04:13:46 PM  
FFS, the greenhouse effect is what keeps Earth at the temperatures it has. Not just the anthropogenic 'global warming" part.

It's why we have a survivable climate at all.
 
2014-03-14 04:20:26 PM  

sprawl15: look libs how can it be GREENHOUSE gasses when venus is clearly a whitish color


Again, check and mate, libtards!
 
2014-03-14 04:20:28 PM  

lockers: Mikey1969: Is there a link to the blasphemous "space ship making sound in space" thing that this guy has his panties in a bunch over? I didn't watch the show, and I'm curious what has him so weepy.

It's on hulu.


And 30 seconds in, it's already got an error... It says "wandering bands of hunters and gatherers found their way to the stars". Well, we aren't hunter/gatherers anymore, so obviously he failed.


Did I do that right?
 
2014-03-14 04:21:30 PM  

Mikey1969: Did I do that right?


Look like we got a natural here, boys! You're Science 2.0 material, son!
 
2014-03-14 04:25:26 PM  
loki see loki do:
2.Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics  is enough of a scientific theory to have an acronym. It's science.

Is it currently falsifiable?

Because if it's not currently falsifiable,or if there isn't even a proposed test, it's more.. I mean, yes. The math works out. The math worked out for geocentric epicycles (and worked out WAY BETTER than the initial coppernican system), too.That doesn't mean it wasn't simply mathematical wankery.

/Not a theorist, mind.
//Just get irked when I hear Brian Greene on NPR talking about Many Worlds as though it's more-or-less proven fact.
///Wheee experimental physicist.
 
2014-03-14 04:25:30 PM  
Holy fark, he even admits his whole 'Greenhouse gases don't exist' thing is bullshiat right here...

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.
 
2014-03-14 04:25:57 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Nice in-depth rebuttal there.


It wasn't a rebuttal. You didn't put forth an arguement to be rebutted.
You made an assertion with no supporting evidence.
 
2014-03-14 04:29:55 PM  

Mikey1969: lockers: Mikey1969: Is there a link to the blasphemous "space ship making sound in space" thing that this guy has his panties in a bunch over? I didn't watch the show, and I'm curious what has him so weepy.

It's on hulu.

And 30 seconds in, it's already got an error... It says "wandering bands of hunters and gatherers found their way to the stars". Well, we aren't hunter/gatherers anymore, so obviously he failed.


Did I do that right?


Not only that, no human has ever set foot on a star, so the claim is utter bullshiat.
 
2014-03-14 04:33:54 PM  
So TFA got called out on the whole Vnus thing, and this was his answer:

If you want to believe that a lack of gravity, proximity to the sun and solar radiation are the 'greenhouse effect' then anything is the greenhouse effect. You might as well call the greenhouse effect 'Smurf' and be done with it.

Funny how Mercury has a WEAKER gravitational pull than Venus AND is closer to the sun, yet THOSE are this guy's root "causes" of Venus' heat, not the atmosphere... Anyone signed up for his message boards? I don't want to get even my throwaway gmail address on this guy's radar, but someone should point this out.
 
2014-03-14 04:35:58 PM  
I've never heard of this guy before, but his original article is like a generous dollop of derp, wraped in herp, and then stuffed in a potato--a retard turducken, if you will.

Also, people who complain about stuff in movies not being able to make sound in space need to learn the difference between diagetic and non-diagetic sound.
 
2014-03-14 04:36:34 PM  

doyner: Mikey1969: lockers: Mikey1969: Is there a link to the blasphemous "space ship making sound in space" thing that this guy has his panties in a bunch over? I didn't watch the show, and I'm curious what has him so weepy.

It's on hulu.

And 30 seconds in, it's already got an error... It says "wandering bands of hunters and gatherers found their way to the stars". Well, we aren't hunter/gatherers anymore, so obviously he failed.


Did I do that right?

Not only that, no human has ever set foot on a star, so the claim is utter bullshiat.


Damn, I missed one. You win!! :-)
 
2014-03-14 04:36:38 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.


I think he's self-consciously trying to finesse away the role of co2 by postulating conditions prior to co2 concentrations becoming as extreme as they are. Not denying co2  feedback but not mentioning it either.
 
2014-03-14 04:38:16 PM  
I'm kinda glad the internet as it is today was not around when Sagan did Cosmos.

You'd get a whole lot of comic book guy-esqe people picking it apart.
 
2014-03-14 04:40:42 PM  
Well, now I know what Science 2.0 is, and to never click one of their links again.
 
2014-03-14 04:40:46 PM  

Felgraf: Because if it's not currently falsifiable,or if there isn't even a proposed test, it's more..


well, not currently. That doesn;t make a hypothesis 'not science" though, does it?
 
2014-03-14 04:43:30 PM  

RyanAntiHero: How has no one mentioned the pic in TFA of Neil as PowerMan?

[i.imgur.com image 674x490]


this was indeed the only thing worth discussing.  i will always remember him as Luke Cage now.  that was one badass image.
 
2014-03-14 04:58:04 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?


It's a conservative "science" site, so it's basically truthy science; science that sounds right, but is presented so as to mislead. Also, the author of the article is a correspondent for The Federalist one of the Rs' many agit-prop rags.
 
2014-03-14 04:59:15 PM  

Heron: 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?

It's a conservative "science" site, so it's basically truthy science; science that sounds right, but is presented so as to mislead. Also, the author of the article is a correspondent for The Federalist one of the Rs' many agit-prop rags.


it revolves around the phrases "not a lot of people know this but..." and "while that is the common interpretation..."
 
2014-03-14 04:59:21 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.


He seems to be claiming that if a "greenhouse effect" wasn't the ultimate, original cause of Venus' high temperature, then it's not involved in the process at all. His ocean liners and barnacles comparison in the other article is a flawed metaphor for the argument he's trying to make. Also wouldn't be surprised to hear him argue that human actions are not the cause of climate change on Earth because the carbon (and other GHG's) emitted into the atmosphere through human actions was not originally created by humans.
 
2014-03-14 05:02:04 PM  

loki see loki do: Felgraf: Because if it's not currently falsifiable,or if there isn't even a proposed test, it's more..

well, not currently. That doesn;t make a hypothesis 'not science" though, does it?


Yeah, it kinda is. It makes it idle speculation talked about by scientists. That doesn't mean it doesn't have merit, or that Neil was "wrong".
 
2014-03-14 05:04:20 PM  

misanthropologist: His ocean liners and barnacles comparison in the other article is a flawed metaphor for the argument he's trying to make.


I think the part where he said global warming is the same thing as saying greenhouse effect is where the where the wheels fell off of his argument.
 
2014-03-14 05:18:52 PM  

loki see loki do: Felgraf: Because if it's not currently falsifiable,or if there isn't even a proposed test, it's more..

well, not currently. That doesn;t make a hypothesis 'not science" though, does it?


Eh, well, it makes it more of a conjecture than a hypothesis, I think? Since the later, again, implies if X then we should see Y, which suggests Z."

I suppose that doesn't necessarily make it not science, no! But it's just as much science as, say, epicycles to explain retrograde motion are/were.

/But, again, experimentalist.
 
2014-03-14 05:19:34 PM  
I read that at first as...

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-14 05:28:16 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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?


No, but when you're faced with ignorance that is so sure if itself that nothing you can say will ever change its mind, the only thing left is open mockery.
 
2014-03-14 05:29:49 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.


Your blog sucks.
 
2014-03-14 05:34:56 PM  

give me doughnuts: 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?


Moon?

According to Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek was originally supposed to have no sound in space, but the network made him add it back in because it wasn't exciting or convincing enough for TV.
 
2014-03-14 05:35:48 PM  
You know, I think the real take away from all of this is, that if just the series opener has gotten the conservative panties already in this much of a twist, we really should be in for some epic levels of hate and vitriol as the show progresses.  And I don't know if there is enough popcorn in the world.
 
2014-03-14 05:42:47 PM  
THIS gets a greenlight?

Drew, your mods might as well come over to my house and type reddit into my address bar for me.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report