Is Curiosity a sign of a new NASA?
I’ll believe there’s a new NASA when Webb and SLS are finally put out of their misery. But the problem isn’t just NASA — it’s Congress.
Is Curiosity a sign of a new NASA?
I’ll believe there’s a new NASA when Webb and SLS are finally put out of their misery. But the problem isn’t just NASA — it’s Congress.
Lileks, with some thoughts on evangelistic atheism:
Religion seeks the metaphysical truth to existence, and science explains the physical truth. The former is predicated on accepting the unprovable, and hence science is not its opposite. That’s the part I don’t get: the need to set up science as a contrapositive model. It’s like saying you shouldn’t want to see the Batman movie because the jetstream is dipping south and dragging cold moist Canadian air over the planes. Huh? I want to see Batman. But rain will be falling over most of the Dakotas. Why does that matter? It’s the Batman movie. The rain will be too late for the small grains, but may prepare the soil for next year. I think we’re talking about two different things.
I’ve never understood it, either. Of course, these are the same people who idiotically assume that because I’m skeptical about Warmageddon, that I must be a Christian creationist.
This is stupid. Do these charlatans really think that minority Senate staffers can’t read?
By the way, on Muller’s “conversion” from “skeptic” to “believer,” Judith Curry is unimpressed.
I missed this while traveling, but apparently Mark Steyn (as I predicted) is not only not backing down, but saying bring it on:
I’m heartened to hear Mr Williams doesn’t bluff, and look forward to being cross-examined by him in court.
Me, too, except I still think he’s bluffing.
It’s not just the guys.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. My evolutionary explanation (and I think that whatever explanation there is is evolutionary, not the media, which is just reflecting viewer and reader preferences) is that women compete more on their physical attractiveness to men (men compete on power and wealth), so both men and women are acutely aware of women’s…interesting…body features (which is also why women have less of a problem being physically attracted to other women than men to men).
This is an illustration of a pet peeve, though. I hate misleading scaling of graphs and bar charts. Because they chose to use $900 as a baseline, it makes it appear that the estimates have increased by more than an order of magnitude over two years, when in fact they have only doubled. It seems to me that doubling is bad enough without playing games with graphics.
The medical mystery continues.
There’s still a hell of a lot we don’t know about human physiology and disease.
When I saw this headline, I thought that science had come up with a huge breakthrough, and a great alternative to fly swatters. Needless to say, I was disappointed.
Is it time to panic?!
No.
More publishing and transparency could go a long way toward cleaning up the climate “science” mess.