First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.
The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.
I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC
Sea
Wootsy I agree with you that floating trash in water is a terrible terrible thing. As a person who partakes in water activities surfing,fishing,swimming wake boarding I take it to heart. I am making reference to the supposed garbage patch floating IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN the size of Texas. If you watch the video you just posted you will see they are all coastal or river single images. None are dated or have a location. What we do know of those images is it is a huge amount of trash of the worst kind,why? because it’s floating in water. If it was on land in a landfill at least you have somewhat of control. What we don’t know from the video is how much of that debris/trash was due to a catastrophe such as a tsunami or other catastrophic event that could have washed it from the land to the see.
this may have the graphics that you crave….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta8HaHP_9rE&feature=related
I know it is difficult to force yourself to look for the facts beyond your bias but I suggest you make the effort to do your own legwork, rather than forcing others to expend the energy to convince you….an obviously impossible feat.
This conversation goes around in circles because of the arrogance of your manner of disbelief (which I think is probably more posturing than actual disbelief)….
It’s Woosty, but you know that don’t you Bdaman.
:p
So I guess the answer is yes or could it be no ? I know do you?
Bdaman,
One thing’s for sure–I haven’t “warmed” to your climate change denial argument.
At about the 8 minute mark they show a seagull pecking at a plastic bag. Then in the next segment until the 9 minute mark we see the boat tied up at the dock showing plastic floating. Did not see an aerial shot from a plane showing a garbage patch the size of Texas. Will watch part II shortly. I’m not trying to dismiss it. This is the whole problem. There are greater environmental concerns than the fake CO2 scam.
Wootsy you are right. But lets exam this for a moment. First off do you believe the garbage patch is the size of Texas? If you do could you show us some aerial shots of it. If it is the size of Texas you should be able to see it flying over it just like they did the oil spill in the GOMEX.
——————————-
Go to about 6:30and watch from there… don’t forget to click on part 2…
Wootsy you are right. But lets exam this for a moment. First off do you believe the garbage patch is the size of Texas? If you do could you show us some aerial shots of it. If it is the size of Texas you should be able to see it flying over it just like they did the oil spill in the GOMEX.
For your reading. Remember this, the problem has been exacerbated recently by tsunami’s most recently Japan. If they can circle moving schools of Tuna they can certainly circle floating trash. There is a discussion underway that started this year to address that.
“We could just go out there and scoop up an island,” Bamford says. “If it was one big mass, it would make our jobs a whole lot easier.”
Instead, it’s like a galaxy of garbage, populated by billions of smaller trash islands that may be hidden underwater or spread out over many miles. That can make it maddeningly difficult to study — Bamford says we still don’t know how big the garbage patch is, despite the oft-cited claim that it’s as big as Texas.
“You see these quotes that it’s the size of Texas, then it’s the size of France, and I even heard one description of it as a continent,” she says. “That alone should lend some concern that there’s not consistency in our idea of its size. It’s these hot spots, not one big mass. Maybe if you added them all up it’s the size of Texas, but we still don’t know. It could be bigger than Texas.”
While there’s still much we don’t understand about the garbage patch, we do know that most of it’s made of plastic.
http://surf.transworld.net/1000082572/news/the-myth-of-the-great-pacific-ocean-garbage-patch/
That’s why the SEAPLEX team has done our best to accurately relay our observations from our own voyage to the North Pacific Central Gyre, and to refer people to reliable sources such as the NOAA Marine Debris Program’s FAQ. But I suspect the persistence of these misconceptions is why Oregon State University oceanographer Angelique White stated in a press release last week that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is “grossly exaggerated.”
Since that press release and the ensuing media coverage, I’ve received many requests for clarification. If there’s no garbage patch, what the heck were we measuring back in 2009? But actually there’s no conflict between Dr. White’s statements and SEAPLEX findings. In this blog post, I’ll explain a few of the key points from the OSU press release.
http://seaplexscience.com/2011/01/10/does-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-exist/
How could DeSmogBlog expect to compete with Heartland when it came to messaging, it’s not like they’re a PR firm or anything. Oh, wait:
The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms. By training a lawyer, by inclination a ski instructor and cyclist, Jim Hoggan believes that integrity and public relations should not be at odds – that a good public reputation generally flows from a record of responsible actions. His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions. He is also a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.
http://dailybayonet.com/2012/02/fakegate-desmogblogs-epic-fail/
The analysis, written by Heartland President Joseph Bast, refutes the most damaging claims that appear in the forged memo:
The Charles G. Koch Foundation does not fund Heartland’s climate change efforts and did not contribute $200,000 in 2011. The foundation has issued a statement confirming that its 2011 gift of $25,000 – its first to Heartland in ten years – was earmarked for a health care reform project.
“[D]issuading teachers from teaching science” is not and never has been Heartland’s goal. Heartland is working with highly qualified and respected experts to create educational material on global warming suitable for K-12 students that isn’t alarmist or overtly political.
Heartland does not pay scientists or their organizations to act as spokespersons or to “counter” anyone else in the international debate over climate change. It pays them to help write and edit a series of reports titled Climate Change Reconsidered, in much the same way as any other “think tank” or scientific organization pays the authors of its publications.
Heartland does not try to “keep opposing voices out” of forums, such as Forbes.com, where climate policy has been debated. The truth is just the opposite: We send Heartland spokespersons to debate other experts at fora all across the country and invite persons who disagree with us to speak at our own events.
At first Gleick claimed he obtained the fake memo along with other documents from The Heartland Institute. Now he claims it came from an anonymous source before he stole the documents. Heartland has consistently and unambiguously said the memo is a forgery and was not produced by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute.
UPDATE, Feb. 27: Heartland Institute President
Debunks Fakegate Memo.
Analysis here. Fake Memo here.
http://fakegate.org/
“His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. It is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public. Here are a few things that come immediately to mind.”
AGU President’s message
We must remain committed to scientific integrity
27 February 2012
During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.
Peter Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics on 16 February, prior to admitting in a blog post that he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses. His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. It is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public. Here are a few things that come immediately to mind:
The success of the scientific enterprise depends on intellectual rigor, truthfulness, and integrity on the part of everyone involved. The vast majority of scientists uphold these values every day in their work. That’s why opinion polls show that public trust in scientists is among the highest of all professions. Public trust is essential because it provides the foundation for society’s willingness to invest in scientific exploration and discovery. It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust.
As a community of scientists, we must hold each other to the highest ethical standards. This is why AGU established its Task Force on Scientific Ethics, in 2011, to review and update existing policies and procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct. Long before the Heartland incident, we recognized the need to have clear and broad principles and procedures that expressed the value of scientific integrity and ethics embodied in our new strategic plan. More than ever, AGU needs a clear set of guidelines that encompasses the full range of scientific activities our members engage in. The task force, now under the leadership of Linda Gundersen, director of the Office of Science Quality and Integrity at the U.S. Geological Survey, will complete its work with a renewed sense of urgency in view of recent events. Union leadership will ensure that these standards of ethical conduct are widely communicated to the membership and that they become an integral part of AGU’s culture.
All of this must be done with an eye to the future and to nurturing the next generation of Earth and space scientists. Today’s students must learn, especially through the example of senior scientists, that adherence to high standards of scientific integrity applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the public and policy makers. The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor.
This has been one of the most trying times for me as president of AGU, as it has been for many AGU volunteer leaders, members, and staff. How different it is than celebrating the news of a new discovery or a unique scholarly achievement. These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.
Mike McPhaden
Woosty:
you are right, it is pretty bad. we ought to try and clean it up.
I’m not a “warmer”–just an ordinary person interested in what is ACTUALLY happening in this world…on and around this planet.
Well Ms. Elaine here’s your chance.
Do you believe the planet has warmed in the last 15 years?
The 350 million people that survive will be almost entirely composed of low-tech cultures that do not require electricity, roads, refrigeration or non-locally produced food to survive.
Tony C isn’t high tech, like computers, refrigerators, the combustion engine etc. etc. what got us into the so called mess of global warming in the first place? If it reverts back to the stone age without electricity won’t those people that are left be better off. At least they will know not to make the same mistake.
Tony C:
Which indisputable data? So there is indisputable data showing man made temperature increase?
Please show me where you found the data.
Elaine,
You should know Bron well enough by now to know that the only way he can “win” an argument is to put his words in someone else’s mouth. If he let’s them use their own words, he gets cudgeled.
Bron,
I’m not a “warmer”–just an ordinary person interested in what is ACTUALLY happening in this world…on and around this planet. I never said anything about anyone being pure as the driven snow. That is YOUR perception of what I’m implying/saying with my comments and arguments. Don’t put words in my mouth.