9 comments by Cesar
Strange account of another partisan motivated action against the new administration in USA. As far as I know a lots of scientists in USA opposed Bush (son) views on climate science. An in which sense CO2 hypothesis of global warming is evidence based? It is a theory which for obvious reasons could not be validated by evidence because it is not possible to make the experiment. The point is that policy based on the theory could be as catastrophic as China's one child policy which incidentally was praised by the same "scientists" which push now CO2 reduction.
It is quite depressing to see chemistry world used to hail propaganda features made by obvious ignoramus in scientific matters. It is interesting to know that artic ice cap will now be melted for 2040 when Al Gore claimed that for 2013, which it was obviously wrong. The estetic discussion about oil sands is really ridiculous. The worst contamination could not be seen and a show of the thousands of birds killed by "green" windmills could be a good part of a balanced film.
Probably the two individuals with scientific formation whom hold highest office were Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel. They have a wonderful record of science support?
The work is quite interesting. However, the biocompatibility compared with other alternatives is exagerated. N-methylpyrrolidone, widely used to disperse graphene and related layered compounds, is quite biocompatible and it is extensively used in dermal patchs and dental barriers. Moreover, unlike those applications in electronic implantable devices the solvent is not present in the final device.
Obviously the episode has nothing to do with climate research but it is interesting to remember that Obama's department of justice begun an investigation on scientists whose opinion differ from the IPCC dogma alleging that were paid by oil companies. I am not awarer that Prof. Cohen or other climate scientists from Berkeley make a defense of scientists with a different view of a complex issue explaining that scientific community has its own mechanisms to clarify debate and suit menace is not one of them.
Wether Trump knows that UCB is a major research university is unknown and the hypersensibility of global warming (excuse me, now climate change) advocates is uncalled for. The data is that one individual was expected to talk at the student union of UCB and it was shut up by masked rioters. The modern McCarthy's trow Molotov bombs and destroy UCB property but the UCBPD make 0 arrests. Fo people with memory, this was the behaviour of communist dictatorships, arrest the dissident to "protect" him. Since federal government does not control a state university the usual way to press them to comply with the law, in this case title IX (incidentally the speaker is jew and gay and his gay partner is black) is to withdraw funding. It could be thought unreasonable but it has been done extensively to press any kind of institutions and even countries by Obama for example. The simple solution is to program the speech again and detain anybody who try to censor the free speech.
Quite a distorted report. It would be nice to know where the term "un-american" is found in the list. I could not find it. I only found links to news about professors which express radical ideas which try to force others to please the professor, such as asking for a prohibition to thank god at graduation. To put in context in my country, Argentina, now we can take the professional oath with jesus, god or the person honor as witness but nobody would think of forbid to mention god in a graduation. As far as I know when Democratic senator McCarthy was persecuting intelectuals in the US, in the UK they were prosecuting Alan Turing for homosexuality. Maybe the beam in your eye parabole is called for. Or it is too christian?
Nice that RSC cheer the temporal sucess of an extortion by the UE on the swiss government. There is not relation between the participation in science projects and free movement of job seekers. This was an extortion like US embargo to Cuba or EU-US sanction to Russia over Ukraine. And the swiss government abide for it while the people said otherwise in a referendum. We will see if that stays. However, the ways of EU does not bode well for UK science if they use science budget to extort.
Quite wrong news. The ammendment freezes the TOTAL expenses of the state, not specifically science or education. Not unlike similar cap in Switzerland which does not damage science there. Kowing that Brazil spend 12 % of GDP to fund the corruption plagued bank (BNDES) while science got less than 0.7%, theres is a lot of room to cut before cutting science budget. It is not very good when reporters peddle on the panic of poltiticians which cause the problems in the first place.