Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Here’s a great article on Federal funding-induced bias in science.

I’ve been harping on this for years.  Any scientific study that is funded by the government will be biased in their results to make the “customer” happy and continue to get the funding needed to continue their studies, regardless of the science involved, there will be a bias that leans towards the answer that the policy makers in question are looking for.

A prime example of this is global warming.  The pile on mentality, and the bias needed to continue to receive funding from the government cannot be denied.

Is the Government Buying Science or Support?
A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-induced Biases

The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for doing research on the problem of bias in science, especially bias induced by Federal funding of research. In recent years the issue of bias in science has come under increasing scrutiny, including within the scientific community. Much of this scrutiny is focused on the potential for bias induced by the commercial funding of research. However, relatively little attention has been given to the potential role of Federal funding in fostering bias. The research question is clear: does biased funding skew research in a preferred direction, one that supports an agency mission, policy or paradigm?

Federal agencies spend many billion dollars a year on scientific research. Most of this is directly tied to the funding agency mission and existing policies. The issue is whether these financial ties lead to bias in favor of the existing policies, as well as to promoting new policies. Is the government buying science or support?

Our working definition of “funding-induced bias” is any scientific activity where the prospect of funding influences the result in a way that benefits the funder.

While the basic concept of funding-induced bias is simple, the potential forms that this bias might take are far from simple. Science is a complex social system and funding is a major driver. In order to facilitate research into Federal funding and bias it is necessary to isolate specific kinds of bias. Thus the framework presented here is a taxonomy of funding-induced bias.

Read the report here: Is The Government Buying Science or Support? A Framework Analysis of Federal Funding-Induced Biases

An interesting look at NASA and the costs involved with some of the hair brained schemes that seem to come out of the Agency and Washington.

NASA Adrift in Interplanetary Space

By S. Fred Singer

Since the first Apollo landing in 1969, NASA has been looking, unsuccessfully, for an overarching goal to match this spectacular achievement: landing men on the Moon. The International Space Station (ISS) has not turned out to be what it was advertised. It has made no breakthrough scientific contributions; it has not explored the solar system further; and it has not excited a great amount of public interest since it was set up. In retrospect, many would refer to it as a white elephant. Its annual maintenance costs are a drain on the NASA budget. Even worse, its supply has to be contracted out — to Russia. The trouble is: ISS had no well-defined goal.

Yes, there have been plenty of proposals. During the first Bush administration, NASA thought it had a clear go-ahead and proposed a manned Mars mission, in addition to putting a manned base on the Moon (to do what?). But once the price tag was revealed, around 400 billion dollars (which was then real money), the NASA plan was DOA (dead on arrival).

Since then there have been proposals to establish a permanent colony on the Moon — again without any clear justification. Many have compared it to the ISS and labeled it another white elephant. In fact, it would add little to our knowledge of the Moon, and probably would not even create much public excitement: “Been there, done that” — to much of the public, just a repeat of the Apollo mission.

via Articles: NASA Adrift in Interplanetary Space.

…has always been a fascination for me.
But this science is pretty cool. After you’re dead, you have cells that can live for weeks afterwards that can be turned into stem cells.
Here’s an interesting article that talks about it.

Human cadaver brains may provide new stem cells

Death will come for us all one day, but life will not fade from our bodies all at once. After our lungs stop breathing, our hearts stop beating, our minds stop racing, our bodies cool, and long after our vital signs cease, little pockets of cells can live for days, even weeks. Now scientists have harvested such cells from the scalps and brain linings of human corpses and reprogrammed them into stem cells.

In other words, dead people can yield living cells that can be converted into any cell or tissue in the body.

As such, this work could help lead to novel stem cell therapies and shed light on a variety of mental disorders, such asschizophrenia, autism and bipolar disorder, which may stem from problems with development, researchers say.

Making stem cells.

Read more.

…is a waste of time, money and will do nothing to improve the health, or safety of foods.
Voting NO on this POS proposition is a no brainer. I’ll bet the morons in Kalifornia screw this up anyway.

In fact it will create problems through out the country for food producers.
It’s a proposition written by a trial lawyer for trial lawyers.
This proposition needs to be shit canned.
Here’s a great article about it.

“Genetically Engineered” In California: A Food Label We Don’t Need
By Gregory Conko, Henry I. Miller

October 08, 2012
Originally published in Forbes

From “food miles” to farmers’ markets, it seems that consumers have never been more interested in the ways their food is grown. That’s one motivation for Proposition 37, an initiative on California ballots in the coming election that would require labeling of “genetically engineered” (GE) foods.

It is a bad idea, and also an unlawful one. We discussed its legal problems in a previous Forbes.com column.

Labeling advocates claim that GE foods are somehow “unnatural” and might be unsafe. At the very least, they say, consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, so, why not tell people if their corn flakes have been engineered and let them decide what to buy?

That might sound reasonable and seem to reflect how our choice-driven marketplace works, but there are several problems with it. For starters, GE foods are not in any way a meaningful “category,” which makes any choice of what to include wholly arbitrary. Nor are they unsafe or any less “natural” than thousands of other common foods. If anything, they are likely to be safer, because the techniques used to make them are far more precise and predictable than older, conventional methods of genetic improvement. But as federal regulators have said, a mandatory label implies erroneously a meaningful difference where none exists.

More

…the title should really get the traffic up today!
Muhahahaha!

I like boobs, I cannot lie…

New Theory on Why Men Love Breasts
Natalie Wolchover

Why do straight men devote so much headspace to those big, bulbous bags of fat drooping from women’s chests? Scientists have never satisfactorily explained men’s curious breast fixation, but now, a neuroscientist has struck upon an explanation that he says “just makes a lot of sense.”

Larry Young, a professor of psychiatry at Emory University who studies the neurological basis of complex social behaviors, thinks human evolution has harnessed an ancient neural circuit that originally evolved to strengthen the mother-infant bond during breast-feeding, and now uses this brain circuitry to strengthen the bond between couples as well. The result? Men, like babies, love breasts.

More

Today’s technology is awesome.
Here’s the latest from the Air Force:

Is that really just a fly? Swarms of cyborg insect drones are the future of military surveillance

By Daily Mail Reporter

The kinds of drones making the headlines daily are the heavily armed CIA and U.S. Army vehicles which routinely strike targets in Pakistan – killing terrorists and innocents alike.

But the real high-tech story of surveillance drones is going on at a much smaller level, as tiny remote controlled vehicles based on insects are already likely being deployed.

Over recent years a range of miniature drones, or micro air vehicles (MAVs), based on the same physics used by flying insects, have been presented to the public.

The fear kicked off in 2007 when reports of bizarre flying objects hovering above anti-war protests sparked accusations that the U.S. government was accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies.

Read more

Still not convinced eh? I am. CO2 is a gas, natural to the Earth. Plants eat that shit up. People and cars exhale that shit. More CO2, more plants, more food. Less starving people on the planet. Hmm, sounds like a good thing to me.

The sun heats up the Earth, sometimes a lot, sometimes not. The clouds cool the planet and recycle water through evaporation, which also cools the planet. Funny how that shit all works together to make a nice cozy planet to live on.

I know it’s a simple explanation, but it works.

At any rate, there are a couple converts from the green moron farm in Germany.

Via Hot Air Green Room:

Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate

In fact, it seems as if it isn’t really much of a debate anymore.

First, let me be clear, the debate among scientists isn’t whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether, even, it can cause warming, but instead on what real (if any) total effect it has overall on the climate. In other words, is there a saturation point where additional CO2 has little marginal effect, or does it build to a tipping point where the change is radical? Robust climate or delicate climate?

Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate. That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd’s theory.

So, on to the latest high profile defections:

One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

via Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate « The Greenroom.