Scientific articles and weasel words

So that I cannot be accused of weasely appropriating images on the internet, you could potentially consider buying this

Take this Science Alert article: Quantum Batteries Could Provide a New Kind of Energy Storage by Messing With Time. This is a prime example of readings that have the only effect of turning me off.

The `could,` `would,` `mays,` `potentially,` and `in principle` do not belong to the scientific parlance.

But this is OK, one might object; this is not the science; it is just pop science!

And yet, digging deeper into the actual hard-science articles, one finds the exact weasel words and, mind you, not under a dedicated `Speculations` header, but throughout Methods, Materials, and Conclusions. This is unacceptable and a huge issue that serious (ahah) Journal Editors should crack down upon.

I want to share an interesting opinion article that illustrates my point more eloquently than I could ever do: Hedging, Weasel Words, and Truthiness in Scientific Writing, by Dr. D.E. Ott.

By the way, it is OK to speculate. Had we never had Jules Verne write on getting to the moon, we would have probably never planted a flag (ahi, more speculation!). Imagination (as individuals and as a society) is progress's most potent driving force. I cheer anyone with the bravery and moral fortitude to move the goalpost farther than anyone else could reach.

But I decry in the strongest terms any attempts at swaying economic interests. under the pretenses of potential science.

Let's go back to real accountability.

Do you, the researcher, or their scientific institution have a speculation you would like to propose? OK, put your reputation (your only real currency) on the line and tell us about timelines, stepping stones, investments, risks, and mitigations. We will believe you because we, as a society, will hold you accountable to those. If your predictions hold water, we will give you more research money.

But if your predictions are just vague speculations based on weasel words and aggressive PR push, good luck!

Funny Countries Facts

        Funny Countries Facts

Which country has the highest reverse immigration?  

Isbackistan

Which country has the most banks?                           

Cheque Republic

Which country has the fastest people?                       

Rusha

Which country has the highest rate of skeptics?             

Noway

Which country has the most relaxed citizens?                

Slowakia

Which country has the highest rate of stomach reflux?       

Belchium

Which country has the strongest soccer team?                

MonGOOOLia

Which country has the most electric guitar players? 

Morerocko

Which country has the fanciests fast food restaurants?

Luxenburger

Which country has the most classically trained musicians?

Mozartbique 

Which country has the most percussionists?

the Democratic Republic of Bongo

Which country has the most off-road vehicles?

Ejeept

Which country has the least number of food banks?

Hungry

Which is the most fragile country?

China

Where do John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John live?

Greace

Which is the most infected nation?

Germ-many

Which country has the most diabetic patients?

Sweeten 

Which has the most sheep?

The Baahaamaas

Which is the country with the fewest dissidents?

Yesmen

The country with the most marathon athletes?

Iran

The country with the least traffic issues? 

Parkistan

Which country has the largest number of black birds?

Crowatia

The country with the most singers?

Singamore

Which country has the strongest opposition movement?

Nopal

Which country has the worst traffic?

Honk-Kong

Which country has the most rocky terrain?

Stonia

CNN = Certainly Not News

I find it absolutely disgusting how the media outlets are treating the case of Edward Snowden. In this post I would like to focus on what I saw on the CNN website this morning. Take the CNN trends bar on their home page, how important do you think is the "NSA leaker" case?

Yet, when you click on the CNN trends page itself, all of a sudden it appears as the item number 3

Now read the incipit of the CNN article, "(CNN) -- European officials reacted with fury Sunday after a report that the U.S. National Security Agency spied on EU offices."

On Sunday???? I do not think so! The news , with all Schulz's declarations, was already news on Saturday morning (US time of course) on all the European newspapers ... but of course you could not find on CNN or elsewhere in the US mainstream media.

Of course, this is not just about the CNN, but all the mainstream USA media outlets, including NPR that, as of the time of writing, has not reported yet this news.

Now, is it so unplausible that all this stirring about gay marriage is not an elaborate cover-up for covering up the patently unconstitutional character of the actions of this and the past administrations towards the privacy of world citizens?

Solar Eclipse

Some backyard pictures of the shadows generated by the Solar Eclipse 2012 in California.

Free Exercise Clause

In defense of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

... but the Obama administration just imposed a Trojan horse that, with the excuse of providing health care for all, forces employers to provide medical insurance for abortion and contraception, regardless of the moral beliefs. I did believe in Obama's promise of providing health care for all. Only now I understand what Chesterton meant when he said:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.

Gilbert K. Chesterton, The Suicide of Thought, Orthodoxy.

Another Cubicle Wall

Daddy's flown across the ocean

Leaving just a memory

Snapshot in the family album

Daddy what else did you leave for me?

Daddy, what'd'ja leave behind for me?!?

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy!"

We don't need no education

We don't need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the Division

Don leave them kids alone

Hey! Don! Leave them kids alone!

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!"

"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding.

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"

"You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

I don't need no pals around me

And I don't need no drugs to calm me.

I have seen the writing on the wall.

Don't think I need anything at all.

No! Don't think I'll need anything at all.

All in all it was just another cubicle wall.

All in all it was all just another cubicle wall.

A little math on the value of compressed air cars

I am looking forward to trade my 1995 BMW740i for a compressed air car:
hopefully I will able to fulfill this dream soon when MDI will be offering their model in the USA market.


These cars will sell in Europe for about Euros 3,500 (about $5,000) and they will make 125 miles without recharge at a $1.5 cost, or in other words, with a conservative estimate for the cost of gas at $3/gallon, an equivalent fuel consumption of 250 miles/gallon. If we compare to the current 25 miles/gallon this is a tenfold increase in the efficiency.

So let's do a little math ... how many of these cars could have been introduced on the USA roads by using the $25 billions used in the car industry bailout money? Easy math

25,000,000,0000 / 5,000

or 5 million air compressed cars, i.e., 2.5% of all the cars currently running in the US (about 200 millions).

This figure is certainly very conservative as we did not include the gas saving costs that derive from the use of the car. At an average of 12,000 miles/annum and cost of gas at $3, a 25 miles/gallon car costs about $1,250 /annum in gas, whereas the equivalent gas cost for a compressed air car will around $50/annum.

Moreover, the bailout assumes that part of the efficiency increase of going from 25 to 35 miles/gallon (in year 2016!) will be transfer to the cost of the car, and the estimate has been given in $1,300 which I will have to pay anyways to run a car that is 10 times less efficient than what I can buy in 2009.
Moreover, given the relatively cheap cost of this air compressed car, it will be easier to introduce the already announced "guzzlers junk trade" incentive for buying new cars ... say I will be able to get $1,000 for my old BMW

So let's take these costs off

25,000,000,0000 / (5,000 - 1000 - 1300 -1250 + 50)

and we are at about 8.5% of the number of cars currently running in the US, which reduces directly in a 8.5% CO2 emission reduction from cars ... now, not in 2016!
Such a number of cars is no doubt more than sufficient to pass the psychological threshold of changing the use of the car from status symbol back to its original purpose, a mean of transportation. Obviously, the more people you see running these cars, the easier it will be for you to accept the change, not counting peer pressure.

So, what's wrong in Washington these days? Is the current Administration a little weak in math?

Odd, as President Obama hired a Noble Prize winner for Physics as the US Secretary of Energy, who is absolutely familiar with the math level used above. So, what's wrong President Obama?

Maybe your "no-lobbies" policy isn't working after all? Or maybe, you are not really serious about the climate change to consider negligible such a reduction in carbon emission? Or perhaps, it is not worth the reduction in oil import from hostile countries to the US?

Just a few open questions ...


June 1st, 2009, Addendum
With today's announcement of GM's bankruptcy, there it goes an additional $30B ... and uncontrolled rumors give the cash for clunkers incentive in the $4k range ... do you really want me to redo the math?