Science Squabbling

I don't buy it. The mechanical and agricultural advantage gained from industrial automation and intensification of farming has been fuelled by hydrocarbon development and use over the last 100 years or so. Peak oil and the impossibility of sustained compound growth will prevent pervasive development of 'bots' as sketched out in the vid - also we're not stupid enough to allow it to happen ... are we?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/if-we-cant-change-economic-system-our-number-is-up

Once 'autos' roll out replacing human drivers and car ownership then the big petrol-car companies will release their tech which enables water powered vehicles
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/28/water-powered-car-unveiled-yes-its-real/

Please refrain from polluting the science thread with that BS.

That article links to this one, which is lulz.

An 'energy generator" removes hydrogen from the water, which is used to power the car...
What does the energy generator run on then?

Free quantum vacuum energy from bendy space and magnets.

http://xkcd.com/808/

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3554

Immanuel Kant, Second Antinomy :)

Can we get the energy we need without the emissions we don't want?

If anyone is interested in submitting a question or following the discussion.

Every aspect of modern life, be it education, healthcare, agriculture or manufacturing, requires energy. But in the UK and the rest of the world, generating the energy we need causes emissions we don’t want. What are the technologies and innovations that could give us more cheap energy while reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced?

How much of the world could get its energy needs reliably from solar panels? Will the next generation of nuclear power plant mean we can use up all the nuclear waste in Sellafield? And it’s hard to know whether carbon capture will mean fossil fuels will be less of a problem or if we’ll be able to effectively store energy to use when we need it most.

This is why we have set up a Q&A for Monday 22nd December, to start asking people working on these technologies - or calculating their effects - what their real significance is.

If you want to ask a question then contact us via Twitter, @senseaboutsci using #energypanel, or email us at energy@senseaboutscience.org.

See more at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/can-we-get-the-energy-we-need-without-the-emissions-we-dont-want.html#sthash.0KH52Prl.dpuf

Disclaimer - my gf works for Sense About Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2awbKQ2DLRE

WHO Report Links Weed Killer Ingredient to Cancer Risk

glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides, was "classified as probably carcinogenic to humans.

Monsanto, owners of Roundup, and all of the GMO crops that are Roundup resistant, and the multi-billion dollar industry around Roundup, Disagrees with IARC Classification for Glyphosate

Nu-uh - Roundup is, like, totally safe, and won't, like, totally give you cancer and shit.

Is it just me that's super excited about the LHC going back online? Ooh...

The world will implode.

Can't find the thread on why riding a bike works from a physics perspective. I'll post this here instead. Pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0

thats oretty cool.

This is also pretty neat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7s4PfvCZg

explained (kind of) here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUCSSJwO3GU

I have often tried to ride one of these on the southbank. I know the principle and according to the bloke, I did better than most. he said the secret is hours of practice as does the guy in the video. Next time I will challenge that bloke on the southbank to ride my bike

I remember failing miserably as a kid on one, always wanted to have another go, think I'd just bosh it out no handed and win.

Clearly that's what would happen. I just haven't done it yet to save the guys emabaressment.

Amaze balls. My next headset bearings :)

Anyone else going to any of these this week?
http://pintofscience.co.uk
I'll be at this one http://pintofscience.co.uk/event/tracking-tumours-cancer-in-our-sights/ on Wednesday if anyone is up for a pint.

Misogynistic nonpology of the week: Sir Tim Hunt 'sorry' over 'trouble with girls' comments

"really sorry that I said what I said", adding it was "a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists".

"I did mean the part about having trouble with girls," he said.

Sounds like he is only sorry that he got caught.

Social awkward person delivers socially awkward apology about finding it difficult to handle his social awkwardness.

Not sure about misogynist. It's not as if he's said they can't do science and their brains overheat. My reading of it was that he expressed, very badly, that he finds it difficult to manage his relationships with the women that he works with. That's not particularly surprising given he's socially awkward and, by extension, going to be emotionally isolated and needy. Obviously that's not going away just because journalists and a pitchfork wielding horde of social media band-waggon jumpers are holding him up for pillory. There's a bit of misogyny in there because, you know, he could not refer to his colleagues as girls.
Still, I'll not suggest any wrongdoing by journalists because they've definitely never pounced on a minor misstep by someone even vaguely successful so they can be dragged through the mud for a bit of a story. And, as everyone knows, a good social media lynching is a guaranteed cure for social awkwardness and poor emotional management. He'll emerge as a smooth-talking, socially well-adjusted, emotionally competent individual by the end of the week.

Sorry he got caught? Sorry he said something a bit daft in front of a bunch of cunts that can't resist a whipping-boy more like.

they can't do science and their brains overheat.

Which is, of course, trufax.

the trouble with “girls” is that they cause men to fall in love with them and cry when criticised.

Also, of course, trufax.

Hunt said he was in favour of single-sex labs

Standard.