The reign of terror is almost over. What’s not mentioned, though, is that even if the kids were eating the food, it’s not healthy for them. Low grains are only a little less terrible than refined ones, and low fat constitutes physical child abuse, because they need fat to grow their brains.
Category Archives: Science And Society
The Planetary Society
Entirely not unexpectedly, they have some terrible suggestions for Trump and NASA:
- Maintain the exploration of Mars as the organizing principle for NASA’s human spaceflight program
- Direct NASA to plan an executable, affordable path for sending humans to Mars orbit by 2033
- Expand NASA’s highly successful science portfolio
- Continue to grow and support the commercial space industry
- Initiate annual five percent increases to NASA’s budget for five years
The only good one is the fourth. Here are mine:
- Make the continuous reduction of the cost of space activities the organizing principle for NASA’s human spaceflight program
- Direct NASA to end development of its own launch systems and to start to procure propellant in LEO to enable trips beyond
- Expand NASA’s science portfolio with data purchases
- Continue to grow and support the commercial space industry
- Direct funding from SLS/Orion to support 1-4
The EPA Climate Regulations
How Scott Pruitt could gut them:
s Pruitt and President Trump look to unwind Obama’s major climate policies, the endangerment finding might be imperiled.
“You know what’s interesting about the situation with CO2, Joe, is we’ve had a Supreme Court decision in 2007 and then the endangerment finding that you’re making reference to in 2009,” Pruitt told CNBC host Joe Kernan, referring to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision — the court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and the EPA has to determine whether they should be regulated.
“Nowhere in the continuum, nowhere in the equation, has Congress spoken. The legislative branch has not addressed this issue at all,” Pruitt said.
“The decision in 2007 was not that the EPA had to regulate. The decision in 2007 was they needed to make a decision.”
And what was decided can be undecided. Live by the pen and the phone, die by the pen and the phone. Though I’d like to see Massachusetts v. EPA reversed as well, given that we now know, since the release of the emails from CRU, that it was based on junk science. The notion that plant food as a trace gas is a “pollutant” is nonsensical.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of Massachusetts, it could get up to two feet of snow tomorrow, a week before the vernal equinox. Because, you know, the earth is overheating.
[Update early afternoon]
Yes, Scott Pruitt is right on CO2. But he’s a religious heretic, so he must be condemned.
[Tuesday-morning update]
Let’s talk about Scott Pruitt’s “denial” of global warming.
High-Intensity Interval Training
It seems to have a rejuvenating effect at the cellular level. I’ll have to start doing this.
Scott Pruitt On Climate
I agree with Professor Curry that the media has distorted his statement beyond recognition (and I basically agree with his position, as does she). I also agree that this statement is nonsense:
The right’s refusal to accept the authority of climate science is of a piece with its rejection of mainstream media, academia, and government, the shared institutions and norms that bind us together and contain our political disputes.
The “authority of climate science.” Sorry, but “climate science” has no “authority” (no science does). It and its ignorant defenders have beclowned themselves.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related: A new paper says that only five out of thirty climate models can capture the Asia Pacific Oscillation. But sure, let’s use them as a basis to pauperize much of the world.
[Update a while later]
Oh, look, here’s some insanity from NBC News:
Pruitt’s view is at odds with 99.99 percent of climate scientists, according to peer-reviewed studies.
At least it’s precise, if not accurate.
The Far Future Fund
This looks interesting. I wonder what they’re doing in terms of opening up space?
An interesting scale. https://t.co/VKZ42jPZZm
— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) March 3, 2017
Science And Policy
Words of wisdom from Daniel Sarewitz:
Whatever science you’re doing on a post-normal problem, it is always going to be incomplete, and it is always going to be subject to revision, and highly uncertain. It can be viewed from numerous scientific perspectives. So multiple scientific studies can come up with multiple results, so it leads to a profusion of truths that can be mobilized on behalf of different sets of values. Values and facts can pair up with each other in different ways.
One example I love is how everyone talks about how there’s a consensus on GMOs. Well there is consensus around a narrow part of the GMO issue, like there is a consensus around a narrow part of climate change. But the real problems have to do with the ‚what could be done?‘ questions. So for GMOs for example, when people say there is a consensus, what they mean is ‚we know they’re not a health risk‘. So I’ll accept it on health risk, I don’t have a problem with it. But then you say, ‚and we know that they’ll be an essential part of the economic future of Africa‘. Well, maybe that’s true — whose model are you using? What kind of data have you used to generate that? What are your assumptions? I mean anything dealing with projections of the future and claims about how the world is going to look, in a multi-variate, open system, are going to be subject to different people coming up with different claims and conclusions. And that’s exactly what happens.
And when you bring science into the political debate, you have to pick and choose which science you want to use. You have to match that with particular priorities about what policy problems you want to solve. I think science is really important, I think we want to be factual, I think we want to have a grip on reality and I think science can help us do that. But for problems where there are so many paths forward, so many competing values, the systems themselves are so complicated, I don’t think science is a privileged part of the solution.
…The post-normal science idea really does challenge the notion of science as a unitary thing that tells us what to do, PNS really says that we have to think of science in a different way in these contested contexts, and I don’t think most scientists want to go there. The deficit model puts them in charge: “we communicate the facts, you listen and take action.” So if the problem isn’t solved it’s not science’s problem. This is a self-serving superstition that the scientific community generally holds. And superstitions are hard to destabilize.
Over on Twitter, I’ve been having arguments with people about the proposed cut at the EPA, in which the budget for “protecting the climate,” is reduced to “only” $29M.
What in the hell does “protecting the climate” even mean?
#ProTip: It's not within EPA's charter to "protect the climate" (whatever the hell that means). https://t.co/e5YvcgMtpX
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) March 2, 2017
a) There is no "the climate." Climate is local, not global.
b) The ideal climate is a subjective opinion, not a scientific fact. https://t.co/yq930Qp4pH
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) March 3, 2017
Cryonics
A breakthrough in thawing vitrified tissue. This is, of course, important whether you believe cryonics is a good idea or not, due to the benefits for organ preservation for transplants (which was how Greg Fahy was getting his funding back in the late 80s).
Trump’s Space Policy
…is hugely wasteful and pointless.
Actually, what’s pointless is Hiltzik’s “story” (which is an op-ed). He’s stuck in the sixties, and operating under the delusion that human spaceflight is about “exploration” and “science.”
Bill Nye On Tucker Carlson
Bill Nye the Pseudo-Psychology Guy was amazing to behold last night.
Scott Adams has a good take on it:
Tucker then asked Nye a simple question about climate science. He asked how much of the warming is caused by human activity. Nye’s entire ego depended on knowing whether human activity is contributing to climate change in a big way, a medium way, or a small way. Tucker wanted some details. How much difference do humans make? After all, Nye had said this was settled science. Tucker just wanted to know what that settled science said.
Nye didn’t know. And by not knowing that simple answer about the percentage of human contribution to warming – the only issue that really mattered to the topic – he proved in public that his opinions on science are not based on facts or knowledge. Nye tried and tried to dodge the question, but Tucker was relentless. That was the trigger. Nye could plainly see, thanks to Tucker’s simple question, that his belief in science was just a belief, because he didn’t actually know the science. When your self-image and ego get annihilated on live television, you can’t simply admit you have been ridiculous all along. Your brain can’t let you do that to yourself. So instead, it concocts weird hallucinations to force-glue your observations into some sort of semi-coherent movie in which you are not totally and thoroughly wrong. That semi-coherent movie will look like a form of insanity to observers.
Look for Nye to go totally mental in the last minute of the clip, changing the topic to political leaks for no apparent reason. That’s your tell. His brain just sort of broke right in front of you.
If I’d been debating him, when he started ranting about being able to grow grapes in England, I’d have asked, “Bill, have you ever heard of Hadrian’s wall? Because the Romans were growing grapes that far north 2000 years ago. Do you know why Greenland was called that, and why North America was called “Vinland” by the Vikings? Are you blaming their SUVs?”
[Wednesday-afternoon update]
Nine reasons you shouldn’t listen to Bill Nye about science. Or anything else. And only nine?