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 55
    More: Followup, smurf, greenhouse effect, Alessandra Ambrosio, Universe Today, carbon dioxide  
•       •       •

3010 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2014 at 2:15 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-14 02:54:44 PM
5 votes:

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 02:51:58 PM
5 votes:

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 10:49:58 PM
4 votes:

Khellendros: jigger: From the comments:

I want to thank you for some soberness in your review, What these multiverse disciples seem to miss, is this; if an infinite multiverse exist then every conceivable god, from TFSM right to Jesus exist with absolute certainty. Multiverse theory makes ALL gods an absolute guarantee.....

Um yeah, no. Just because there would be infinite universes doesn't mean that everything imaginable is possible somewhere. What if there are infinite empty universes and one with stuff?

This has always been a problem with people having limited understanding of mathematics. If you have any quality that can be expressed in infinite varieties (color, position, etc), you can have an infinite number of universes where not only has everything not happened, but only one trivial quality of one object has been changed.


The best way I can describe this to people is "There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2. None of those numbers is three."
2014-03-14 02:45:58 PM
4 votes:

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 04:13:46 PM
3 votes:
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 03:35:30 PM
3 votes:
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 03:19:07 PM
3 votes:

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 03:15:27 PM
3 votes:

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 03:10:09 PM
3 votes:
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 03:07:02 PM
3 votes:

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 06:11:12 PM
2 votes:

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.


Did you just accuse someone of using circular arguments with a circular argument spinning around a strawman?
2014-03-14 03:56:03 PM
2 votes:
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 03:53:26 PM
2 votes:
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 03:48:31 PM
2 votes:

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 03:28:48 PM
2 votes:
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 03:27:50 PM
2 votes:

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 03:21:52 PM
2 votes:
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 03:14:16 PM
2 votes:

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 03:06:57 PM
2 votes:

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 02:55:19 PM
2 votes:

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 02:34:39 PM
2 votes:
echo '127.0.0.1 www.science20.com' >> /etc/hosts
/etc/init.d/networking restart

memecrunch.com
2014-03-14 02:28:40 PM
2 votes:
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 02:26:45 PM
2 votes:
Who is Hank Campbell, and why should we give a shiat?
2014-03-14 02:13:15 PM
2 votes:

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 02:11:15 PM
2 votes:
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 02:07:07 PM
2 votes:
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 01:51:48 PM
2 votes:
1 Reason to not click that link: You're giving the moron attention.
2014-03-15 09:42:54 AM
1 votes:

stonelotus: if I live long enough for it to make this planet uninhabitable I'll have probably moved on through the cosmos to find another planet to consume.


We're around .9C of warming. The chief real scientist of the deniers is actually a luke-warmer. (Lindzen) He's predicting 1.5C of warming. (That's per doubling of CO2 at short time scales. Not total warming.) The same year Russia and Australia lost their crops to drought, Pakistan lost theirs to flood. That was (IIRC) 3-4 years ago. Two summers ago, temps in Kansas killed corn in the field.

Moral of the story. Unless denialist think we're vacating the planet around 2025, they're going to live to see the damage. (Sea level rise is window dressing. Agriculture has always been where the threat lay.) Me? I favor Nuremberg-like trials to make it official.
2014-03-15 02:20:06 AM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
2014-03-14 08:34:12 PM
1 votes:
Multiverse theory is a mathematical construct originated as an "easy way" to explain delocalization and entropy at the same time, and to give an analogous physical context to certain interactions.  It's not a literal, physical thing (by definition, since different 'universes' are by definition non-interacting) but it is nonetheless a legitimate way to look at a few of the big physics phenomena.
2014-03-14 06:36:09 PM
1 votes:
The multiverse idea is usually currently formulated in branal theories, where D-brane intersections can describe the spacetime of a universe of interactions.  These are actually testable models.  For one, they imply that there may be observations of deeper intersections.  Or there may be remnants from the big bang of previous intersections.  In fact, some fingerprints in the cosmic background have been interpreted in this way.

Check one.

The greenhouse effect did cause the rise in temperature on Venus.  That is clear.  Causes of causes does not invalidate the first causal relationship.  No one says (except maybe this waste): "The rocky material in the solar system was not caused by a previous sun's nucleosynthesis that was dispersed after it's subsequent supernova because that sun was caused by there being an excess of hydrogen that gravitationally collapsed.  So that nucleosynthesis was an effect of the excess hydrogen and not a cause of our rocky material."  Causation doesn't work like that.  You would think someone who desperately wants to argue the first cause pseudo argument would not bite themselves in the knee so easily.

Check.

Giordano Bruno's story has been central to the cause of science for a long time.  The point is that Galileo was indeed intimidated from pursuing his research and recanted precisely because of the example of Bruno.  Railing against fundamentalism-by-intimidation by discussing Bruno is perhaps the most relevant way to do this, though clearly there was Darwin and other cases later.  But they were later.

And Hermeticism is nothing as described.  Yes, it is belief in magic, but that last sentence is about the only real truth there.  Hermes in Hermeticism is Hermes Trismegistus, not the god, and the Thoth connection has a lot more gnostic appreciation for appearances and emanations of magical ritual and much less to do with Egyptian mythology.  This part is horribly painful.

Check.

And if you want to argue against literalism, then do so.  Grow a pair.  Say how silly creationism is to your mostly creationist audience and stand up for something.  Afraid of being burned at the stake?

Goose.
2014-03-14 06:34:17 PM
1 votes:

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


You actually bolded the less-derpy part of that:

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.

... So CO2 warms things up but isn't the reason things are warm.  Gotcha.
2014-03-14 06:13:27 PM
1 votes:
Science 2.0: It is the 4Chan of Science but not as smart.
2014-03-14 05:29:49 PM
1 votes:

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 05:28:16 PM
1 votes:

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 05:02:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:58:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:40:42 PM
1 votes:
Well, now I know what Science 2.0 is, and to never click one of their links again.
2014-03-14 04:33:54 PM
1 votes:
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 04:25:57 PM
1 votes:

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 04:25:26 PM
1 votes:
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 04:09:22 PM
1 votes:
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 03:59:43 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:34 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:01 PM
1 votes:

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 03:48:28 PM
1 votes:
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 03:41:46 PM
1 votes:

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 03:37:44 PM
1 votes:

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 03:08:13 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:01 PM
1 votes:
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 02:56:33 PM
1 votes:

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 02:45:36 PM
1 votes:

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 02:40:02 PM
1 votes:
Never heard of this guy before but he has no credentials beyond "I know some people that have PHDs."
2014-03-14 02:33:15 PM
1 votes:

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 02:32:02 PM
1 votes:
How has no one mentioned the pic in TFA of Neil as PowerMan?

i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 55 of 55 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report