What a shock.
What a scam.
…burning hydrogen-boron fuel requires truly enormous temperatures, more than 3 billion degrees Celsius, and that will be “very challenging,” says plasma physicist Jon Menard of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey, who is not involved in the project. He says it’s very hard to predict how the gas will behave at higher temperatures. “I’m a little concerned that their [simulations] lag behind their experience,” he says, but the approach “is worth further investigation.”
I hope that one of these ideas works out at some point.
Burning down the field in order to “save” it:
…while I am not upset at the results (except insofar as it proves a large number of my field is running the Marxist malware to such an extent that it will vote a slate to avoid an imaginary slate) I am upset at the display of infantility or senility or perhaps roboticity in my field yesterday (Though who would program robots that way?) No one watching that live stream — and there was a lot of it captured and it will be replayed — can imagine that those who proclaim themselves the “intellectuals” of our field have an IQ above room temperature. And certainly no one can imagine they have an emotional maturity above that of a toddler displaying to one and all the magnificence of the turd just deposited in the middle of the floor.
Related: And you cheered:
We saw those no-awards coming from a mile away. By voting no-award, you proved the Sad Puppies’s point. And most of you are too damn stupid to know it.
You’d rather no one win, than see someone you don’t agree with walk across that stage.We only wanted a fair ballot; real diversity among the Hugos, books by authors who don’t all think the same way. Books that tell stories rather than try to force-feed us messages. But you couldn’t have that.
It was you, not us, who brought the Hugo Awards down last night.
And you cheered while you did it.
A lot of this is why I haven’t read much science fiction in the past couple decades.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Uh oh. Hitler found out what happened [language warning, but only in subtitles]
[Update a while later]
See? I told you so.
People have asked me if I’m disappointed in the results. Yes. But maybe not in the way you might expect. I’ll talk about the slap in the face to specific nominees in a minute, but I can’t say I’m surprised by what happened, when it was just an extreme example of what I predicted would happen three years ago when I started all this.
I said the Hugos no longer represented all of Fandom, instead they only represents tiny, insular, politically motivated cliques taking turns giving their friends awards. If you wanted to be considered, you needed to belong to, or suck up to those voting cliques. I was called a liar.
I said that most of the voters cared far more about the author’s identity and politics than they did the quality of the work, and in fact, the quality of the work would be completely ignored if the creator had the wrong politics. I was called a liar.
I said that if somebody with the wrong politics got a nomination, they would be actively campaigned against, slandered, and attacked, not for the quality of their work, but because of politics. I was called a liar.
That’s how the Sad Puppies campaign started. You can see the results. They freaked out and did what I said they would do. This year others took over, in the hopes of getting worthy, quality works nominated who would normally be ignored. It got worse. They freaked out so much that even I was surprised.
Each year it got a little bigger, and the resulting backlash got a little louder and nastier, culminating in this year’s continual international media slander campaign. Most of the media latched onto a narrative about the campaign being sexist white males trying to keep women and minorities out of publishing. That narrative is so ridiculous that a few minutes of cursory research shows that if that was our secret goal, then we must be really bad at it, considering not just who we nominated, but who our organizers and supporters are, but hey… Like I said, it is all about politics, and if it isn’t, they’re going to make it that way. You repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it.
It isn’t about truth. It is about turf.
#ProTip to journos trying to cover the Hugo story: We know from experience that the Puppy kickers will lie to you without compunction.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) August 24, 2015
[Evening update]
Why the “war on nereds” is a war on art.
While the author comes across as supporting the consensus, the paper presents some insightful perspective on the ‘consensus enforcement’ by the establishment and why a substantial portion of the public is not buying the expert consensus on climate change. It boils down to a lack of trust, and concerns about deceit, conspiracy and groupthink.
Where do these concerns come from? Climategate and explicit advocacy by scientists are two obvious sources. Disagreement portrayed in the media and distrust of the government’s politicization of the issue are others.
Yes, the lack of trust and concerns are well justified.
Have they found a “master genetic switch” to turn off fat storage?
They are not an oxymoron.
There are libertarians on both sides of the issue, and always have been. It’s a philosophical issue of when one judges that a human has a right to life.
A “Godzilla El Nino“?
A strong El Niño can shift a subtropical jet stream that normally pours rain over the jungles of southern Mexico and Central America toward California and the southern United States.
But so much rain all at once has proved devastating to California in the past. In early 1998, storms brought widespread flooding and mudslides, causing 17 deaths and more than half a billion dollars in damage in California. Downtown L.A. got nearly a year’s worth of rain in February 1998.
Of course, the problem with that is that most of it just goes into the ocean, no way to catch water that rains downtown. We really need snowpack up in the Sierra, and to fill the reservoirs, but at least amidst all the upcoming damage, it looks like that might happen this winter.
On another note, if the Panama Canal is low on water due to drought, couldn’t they pump it up the locks? But I guess they want fresh water in the upper canals, not salt.
Some commentary from the author on its reception so far.
I’ll be interested to see what people like Phil Plait have to say. I suspect they’ll try to pretend it doesn’t exist.
[Thursday-morning update]
Thoughts (and a lot of excerpts) from Judith Curry.
I’m not sure that the fact he’s making a lot of money on the book reduces his chances of getting damages from Mann. I’m sure he would have preferred to have been writing other books, and he needs the money for his legal defense.
I suspect that Professor Mann is going to be very sorry he poked that hornet’s nest. Steve Milloy has been tweeting devastating excerpts.
[Afternoon update]
A review from Anthony Watts.
I’m not inclined to comment much myself until my legal issues are resolved.
As with most of these studies, it’s junk science:
At 8:30 in the morning for four weeks, one group of subjects got oatmeal, another got frosted corn flakes and a third got nothing. And the only group to lose weight was … the group that skipped breakfast. Other trials, too, have similarly contradicted the federal advice, showing that skipping breakfast led to lower weight or no change at all.
Emphasis mine. I guess it didn’t occur to them to have a group that got a healthy breakfast, like bacon and eggs.
But at least they do admit that observational studies are worse than worthless.