Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 11:04:26 AM
537978 Posts in 40728 Topics by 5128 Members
Latest Member: hfraschilgreg
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  The Science Thread « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: The Science Thread  (Read 3006 times)
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1412
Posts: 8337


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2011, 08:32:46 PM »

On the issue of homosexuality, leaving my religious views aside, I think it is probably a combination of nurture and nature.  A large number of male homosexuals share certain common background factors (lack of a strong relationship with a father figure during early childhood being one of them).  I think female sexual identity is less strong, but many who choose a purely lesbian lifestyle will also have common background factors.  But there are common genetic factors as well.  The question I have not found an answer to is how often those genetic factors are found in the heterosexual community?

I do have a different science related question, though.  Does the hard data conclusively prove that the current trend towards global warming is manmade?  Is it not possible that what we are experiencing is a purely natural fluctuation in global temperature?  I saw that Al Gore's environmental horror film was banned from classrooms in Great Britain on grounds of scientific inaccuracy.  Was this purely political, or did he overstate the case?
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Zapranoth
Eye of Sauron and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 138
Posts: 1165



« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2011, 08:43:04 PM »

If you are trapped in a singularity, and if Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks you, do you achieve escape velocity and exit the singularity?  (we shall for the purposes of this assume that you are wearing an unbreakable space suit, or perhaps that you are surrounded by a Slaver stasis field.)
Logged
Doggett
Bustin' makes me feel good !
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 967
Posts: 8391


I've seen things you people couldn't imagine...


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2011, 08:45:20 PM »


I saw that Al Gore's environmental horror film was banned from classrooms in Great Britain on grounds of scientific inaccuracy.  

Itwasn't actually banned.
Just a small, insignifcant political party wanted it too (UKIP).
Political parties always say stupid things just so they can get noticed.

There was also a judge who pointed out some inconsistancies in it. I liked the film and agreed that Global Warming is speeding up by man. We certainly didn't start it (it's a natural process, otherwise we'd still be in an ice age) but we're sure speeding it up too fast for the globe to catch up.

I'm not entirly convinced by the Judges conclusions myself. But its always important to hear the othersides point of view (Is't it, Newt  Wink).
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 08:52:20 PM by Doggett » Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3833


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2011, 09:28:03 PM »


I do have a different science related question, though.  Does the hard data conclusively prove that the current trend towards global warming is manmade?  Is it not possible that what we are experiencing is a purely natural fluctuation in global temperature?  I saw that Al Gore's environmental horror film was banned from classrooms in Great Britain on grounds of scientific inaccuracy.  Was this purely political, or did he overstate the case?


Ah, another can of worms!   TeddyR

A couple of answers:

First, the data absolutely do NOT conclusively show that any trend in the global climate is manmade.  There has been a body of work that contradicts the anthropogenic causes and this cannot be disputed to the degree that it's "known" one way or another.

As a physical scientist who has spent my professional career and adult life seeking the carrot-on-a-stick of scientific objectivity, I can earnestly say that the ENTIRE 'anthropogenic global warming' drama has been a lesson in how not to conduct science and how not to communicate science to the 'public.'  It has now been so politicized that pretty much no one in either camp will objectively look at any of the data and seek "the truth" that that data has to tell.

What we are "experiencing" can well be part of natural cycle, and I've posted about this in detail before.  To get at something resembling 'fundamental truth' in this issue, you have to step back a little bit and examine some science history.

A big part of the case for anthropogenic climate effects rests on the following syllogism:

Premise 1: "Natural" geological change is slow...takes a long time.
Premise 2: We are observing rapid changes in a number of global parameters.

Conclusion: Therefore, man is causing the changes.

Now, this is a logically valid argument, but it is not sound.  Valid means the conclusion follows from the premises, whereas sound means the premises are true.

A valid argument, logically:

All cows are purple
Bill is a cow
Therefore, Bill is purple.

Valid, but not sound.

The problem with the AGW syllogism is Premise 1, though Premise 2 is certainly debatable.  Premise 2 gets all the press, and that's because Premise 1 is accepted as "conventional wisdom," especially by those making the argument as if it were, indeed, logically sound.

Let's put Premise 2 aside.  I'll even accept for the moment, for the sake of argument, that it is true.  Do we now have a sound argument?

No.  Premise 1 is false.  And this is very easy is to show.  The problem, however, is the number of people that wrongly accept Premise 1 as true.  Even in the face of a tremendous body of evidence to the contrary, this notion of 'natural geological change is slow' persists.

In the 1990's, Spencer Weart (if I recall correctly) published an article in Physics Today, the 'trade rag' of the American Physical Society.  In the article, he outlined some of that body of evidence, which included things such as forest regions completely switching from evergreen to deciduous in a span of decades, ocean currents completely reversing in less than a century and very large scale temperature fluctuations on very small time scales.  All of these were pre-Industrial Revolution or indeed, pre-human civilization completely.

He went on to describe how all of this was known around the turn of the 20th century, but for some reason, several key scientists of that time denied the evidence available and "bulldozed" through the notion that geological change MUST be slow.  He who writes the textbooks controls the beliefs of the next generation, and once that idea was accepted as "truth," it stuck.  Now, 5 generations later, it is indeed, taken as 'established fact.'

Again, this 'truth' was in direct denial of the testable, measurable evidence available even at the time it was posited.

There have been a LOT written on this topic over the past few years.  A number of geological 'events' that you and I were taught took "millions of years" to happen, now have bodies of evidence suggesting that those timescales were overestimated by several factors of ten...enough to lead to very different 'modes of thought' on the nature of geological change.

Indeed, ask the Japanese just how long "island shaping" geological change must take.

So, the truth of Premise 1 is certainly in question.

Is that alone enough to falsify AGW?

No.  Man could be a driver on top of natural events.  Or, those natural events could be in a period of quiet.  Indeed this seems to be the case, at least with temperatures.

Part of the problem with historical global temperature 'data' is that it is ALL what is called proxy data...the temperatures are not measured directly but some "proxy" is used for temperature.  Whether the proxy is trapped CO2 in ice cores, tree rings, sea levels, etc. there MUST be some mathematical manipulation that leads to "temperature" from the measured proxy.

A few years back, McIntyre and McKittrick, vile and hated as they are, published an incredible piece of work.  They used the 'global climate model(s)' that was used to 'reproduce' Mann's Hockey Stick, but used a random driver rather than any real proxy data.  In other words, they fed the mathematical model a random stream of numbers, and REPRODUCED THE HOCKEY STICK.

This shows that the math used to model the hockey stick data is pure, unadulterated crap.

But again, this alone does not falsify man-made causes of climate change.  But it does call into question ANY conclusion based on those particular models.

One fact that cannot be denied is that the mathematical modeling of temperature proxies show HUGE temperature fluctuations in the historical record, and these fluctuations occur on VERY SHORT time scales.

Finally, I note that another idea in the global warming debate that is pure bunk is the notion of "consensus."  There never was consensus, and there certainly is not now.  Two key biases have caused the 'appearance' of consensus in the eyes of SOME people:

publication bias - it's much harder to get a paper published that challenges the cause du jour, and

funding bias - you don't get federal money for a proposal that essentially says "I want to falsify man made causes of climate change.'

It's an interesting phenomenon.  But one thing is definitely clear, and can be shown: since this 'debate' has started, there have been scientists that refused to step onto the bandwagon and sing "the party line;" often, they were dismissed as crackpots for this fact alone, when no flaw could be found with their science.  Ad hominem is the tactic of a politicized debate, not one of true science.

I hope that's a reasonable overview.  I am not trying to answer the question of whether not the conclusion of anthropogenic causes are real, but merely to outline the 'debate' as it exists from a scientist's perspective.

Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1412
Posts: 8337


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2011, 10:19:26 PM »

Impressive and eloquent, thank you.
Someone care to argue the opposite point? 

I really am curious to learn here.
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 351
Posts: 2866



« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2011, 01:20:16 AM »

Can anyone ID these berries?

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=39971&id=100000649166219
Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
Newt
Mostly Harmless
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 645
Posts: 2979


I want to be Ripley when I grow up.


« Reply #36 on: April 09, 2011, 02:51:45 AM »



The ones with the yellow 'jacket' that splits to show a dark orange berry inside are called "Bittersweet".   Purely decorative: people used to pick and dry branches of it and put bunches of them in vases as fall decor.  Are all the pictures of the same plants/berries?  I am not sure what the smooth yellow ones are, if they are different.
Logged

"I absolutely adore movies. Even bad ones. I don't like pretentious ones, but a good bad movie, you must admit, is great." - Roddy Mc Dowell
"May I offer you a Peek Frean?" - Walter Bishop
"Thank you for appreciating my descent into deviant behavior, Mr. Reese." - Harold Finch
 "I'm going to need a swat team ready to mobilize, street maps covering all of Florida, a pot of coffee, 12 jammie dodgers and a fez." -  11
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 351
Posts: 2866



« Reply #37 on: April 09, 2011, 03:24:23 AM »



The ones with the yellow 'jacket' that splits to show a dark orange berry inside are called "Bittersweet".   Purely decorative: people used to pick and dry branches of it and put bunches of them in vases as fall decor.  Are all the pictures of the same plants/berries?  I am not sure what the smooth yellow ones are, if they are different.


Not sure if they're the same or not.  They were growing in the same area, but I can't remember if they were all from the same tree or not (I think there were a couple different berried trees there so it might be different types of berries (or do "Bittersweets" come in red as well as yellow?)

Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
RCMerchant
Bela
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 0
Posts: 11030


"Charlie,we're in HELL!"-"yeah,ain't it groovy?!"


WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 09, 2011, 05:53:34 AM »



The ones with the yellow 'jacket' that splits to show a dark orange berry inside are called "Bittersweet".   Purely decorative: people used to pick and dry branches of it and put bunches of them in vases as fall decor.  Are all the pictures of the same plants/berries?  I am not sure what the smooth yellow ones are, if they are different.


Not sure if they're the same or not.  They were growing in the same area, but I can't remember if they were all from the same tree or not (I think there were a couple different berried trees there so it might be different types of berries (or do "Bittersweets" come in red as well as yellow?)

If they turn red-they are chokecherries.


Logged

\"Supernatural?...perhaps. Baloney?...Perhaps not!\" Bela Lugosi-the BLACK CAT (1934)


Interviewer-"Does Dracula ever end for you?"
Lugosi-"No. Dracula-never ends."





http://www.tumblr.com/dashboard
http://www.tumblr.com/dashboard
http://rcmerchant.tumblr.com/
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #39 on: April 09, 2011, 12:32:26 PM »

Humans aren't the only creatures that can be gay. There's pleanty of reports of gay animals too. Heck, I live with two male dogs and the little one is always trying to hump the bigger one.

Anyway, I think the problems rise when people try to work out whats 'Right and Wrong' for a person to behave. But thats a whole different kettle of fish.


Actually, the humping is more about dominance with dogs. Female dogs will even do it to show a rival who's boss.  It's not unlike homosexuality in prison as a means to assert dominance, although there's also an element of necessity there, what with the reduced options.

I'm finding homosexuality is not as clear a thing to define as I once thought. Most of us have pretty much seen sexual orientation as a three-way choice. You're either this, that or both. I've come to see it more the way Kinsey figured it out, as a scale of 0 to 6, with zero being straight, six being gay and three being equally bi. That still leaves two degrees of mostly straight and two degrees of mostly gay.

And then you have to consider what makes someone male or female. Thanks to medical science, it's not as simple as it used to be. If you like shemales, for example, what does that make you? They have the male equipment, but all the secondary sexual characteristics are female. The convincing ones really are hard to think of as anything but beautiful women. As I understand it, the attraction for men is that all of the feminine beauty is there, while the male parts allow for a degree of empathy. Guys have a very close relationship with their own naughty bits, and they know all of the sensations. They can relate. For their fans, a shemale is a woman who is not a mystery sexually. She has the same equipment, feels the same sensations, and thinks more like a man, but she provides nearly all the visual cues of a woman that men respond to. It's kind of a weird trick of crossed signals that shemales appeal to some otherwise straight guys.

On the other hand, there are the less common female to male transsexuals. If you just go by sexual anatomy, liking them would not make you gay. However, in terms of adult entertainment, that is who they appeal to. They might have all the female plumbing, but there's nothing else female about them. They look like men. Straight guys aren't going to be attracted to a transman regardless of what kind of plumbing he has. And where on the scale do you put a woman who likes a man with a hole instead of a pole? Is she gay? Straight? Both? Neither?

It's as though science and maybe a more openminded view of things have rendered the old labels very inadequate.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 02:58:54 PM by AndyC » Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
BTM
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 351
Posts: 2866



« Reply #40 on: April 10, 2011, 12:48:39 AM »

Here's a good one... okay, you have two substances that are poisonous to humans: sodium and cloride.  Put them together though, you get Sodium-Chloride, salt, which we use on a bunch of things.

Are there any other examples of two poisonous substances that can be combined into something not poisonous?  
« Last Edit: April 10, 2011, 10:41:24 AM by BTM » Logged

"Some people mature, some just get older." -Andrew Vachss
ghouck
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 583
Posts: 3750


Afro-Mullets RULE!


WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 10, 2011, 01:49:17 AM »


Here's a good one... okay, you have two substances that poisonous to humans: sodium and cloride.  Put them together though, you get Sodium-Chloride, salt, which we use on a bunch of things without thought.

Are there any other examples of two poisonous substances that can be combined to something not poisonous? 

Hydrogen: Highly flammable.
Oxygen: Supports combustion
Water: Comprised of the two, and is the most basic fire extinguisher.
Logged

Raw bacon is GREAT! It's like regular bacon, only faster, and it doesn't burn the roof of your mouth!

Happiness is green text in the "Stuff To Watch For" section.

James James: The man so nice, they named him twice.

"Aw man, this thong is chafing my balls" -Lloyd Kaufman in Poultrygeist.

"There's always time for lubricant" -Orlando Jones in Evolution
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 1412
Posts: 8337


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #42 on: April 10, 2011, 08:46:17 AM »

Is there a scientific explanation for why my nostrils are SO DARN SEXY???? BounceGiggle
Logged

"Carpe diem!" - Seize the day!  "Carpe per diem!" - Seize the daily living allowance! "Carpe carp!" - Seize the fish!
"Carpe Ngo Diem!" - Seize the South Vietnamese Dictator!
Doggett
Bustin' makes me feel good !
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 967
Posts: 8391


I've seen things you people couldn't imagine...


WWW
« Reply #43 on: April 10, 2011, 10:15:04 AM »

Is there a scientific explanation for why my nostrils are SO DARN SEXY???? BounceGiggle

I'd like to know why mine are so hairy.

Its tweezer time for Doggett...

 Bluesad
Logged

                                             

If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? Thats His first mistake.
El Misfit
The bullsh*t meter is up high ಠ__ಠ
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 740
Posts: 10624


Listen here you little s**t.


« Reply #44 on: April 10, 2011, 12:14:47 PM »

is there an answer?
Logged

yeah no.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  The Science Thread « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.