Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:05:31 — 30.0MB)
Serial Killer Math, Permafrost Problems, Happy Meals?, Snake Senses, Creepy Cold Fingers, Interview W/ Eugenie Scott From NCSE, And Much More…
Disclaimer, Disclaimer. Disclaimer!!!
This week in science… coming up next…
The math of a serial killer
UCLA scientists have analyzed the behavior of a serial killer in the Ukraine – they believe that a pattern in neuron firing influenced the timing of his murders. When new serial killers are discovered, can we predict when they will murder again?
Permafrost Problems
Carbon Dioxide and Methane were found trapped in permafrost – as the polar ice caps melt, more greenhouse gasses will be released into the atmosphere.
happy meals
Blair’s Animal House
Two stories this week about animals! Energy Conservation tactics within extreme feeding adaptations in:
Snakes
Snakes can sense their prey’s heartbeat, so they can acquire their food with as little strength and time of constriction as possible.
And Aye-Ayes
Aye-Ayes can restrict blood flow to those creepy extra-long middle fingers when not in use, so as to reduce heat loss through the large surface area of the digit.
Get a free audiobook at Audible.com!
Are you reading along with the TWIS Bookclub? This month, check out ‘Fool Me Twice’ by Shawn Lawrence Otto.
Interview with Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education
– NCSE tackles Climate Change –
NCSE is known for its defense of evolution-inclusive science curricula, but recently announced that they are expanding their assistance to cover climate change. NCSE hired some climate scientists to help them in their quest to spread “good science,” and they hope to bring scientific literacy to youth in the US. Unfortunately, there are people who would like to push forward bills that would prohibit or inhibit the instruction of climate change in schools. Science alone cannot stop climate change, so we need more people to believe and understand the issue in order for them to help initiate change. Best of luck to NCSE!
If you love TWIS, please support us by donating below:
This is an honest opinion. I can’t understand what Justin is saying!!!!
He mumbles on his words and he speaks like he is drunk. I just hate how he delivers everything.
Honestly, Justin, get out of that show.
And why exactly can’t electric cars be run on electricity from nuclear generation?
(Other than the fact that it would offend Jane Fonda’s sensitivities?)
It’s renewable, it doesn’t generate carbon, it doesn’t use fossil fuel, it isn’t unpredictable (like wind or solar)…
Electric cars and nuclear power seem to be the ideal union… yet you don’t even consider it.
Pursuit of truth? … or an agenda…
When I was in the 5th Grade, science education conventionally was that we were seeing the ‘brief period of warming that precedes every impending Ice Age’.
At the time, the science was solid.
To date, no one has disproven this, and from my point of view the “Global Warming” crowd are really the “impending Ice Age deniers”.
Your guest talks about faulty science from the anti-Evolution/anti-Global Warming crowd.
That doesn’t seem to be exclusively on one side.
I hear a lot of discussion about “Greenhouse Gases” that completely ignores the huge variations of solar output (which incidentally track warming trends closely).
That sounds like bad science to me: throwing away data that disagrees with your hypothesis.
And the thermal mass of the oceans is significantly greater than that of the atmosphere, but we focus on atmospheric gases while ignoring oceanographic phenomena, such as costal desalinization.
Again, “good science” doesn’t involve cherry picking your data points.
And gratuitously bashing Fox News? Really?
Loosen up your red bandana… it’s not meant to be tourniquet to your brain.
Rather that presenting well-reasoned arguments, you’ve decayed into tired mantras and cliches… Fox News isn’t so much relevant to this discussion as it is a rallying cry in the “us versus them” monologue of division.
Fox News was one of the few outlets to report that Russian climatological data had been forged, and that University of East Anglia had been cherry picking data that disagreed with their models.
That they disagree with your agenda doesn’t mean they lack relevancy or value in this debate.
If your science is indeed solid, it will undermine the position that you claim Fox has, rather than you needing to undermine their credibility with unsubstantiated attacks and innuendo.
I guess anyone who criticizes the program ends up in “waiting for moderator approval” limbo…
Goes to my point about throwing away data points that disagree with your hypothesis being bad science.
Your 5th grade education on the looming ice age (mid 70’s) was based on a few researchers who were in the minority yet were picked up by the likes of TIme magazine… they were not a concensus of scientific opinion then and they have been proven wrong by the data, yet were hyped enough by the media at the time to continue in peoples memory.
Global warming was first predicted in the 30’s based on our contribution of greenhouse gasses. The temerature data came much later, as well as a greater historical understanding of past carbon levels linked to climate on earth. The data of temperature is a confirmation of the green house effect model, not the source of the scientific concern.
Our oceans sequester carbons over a 50 year cycle… so the greenhouse effect of today is based on the carbon output of the early 60’s. We’re in for a lot more warming regardless of the actions taken today, yet today we are at the height of our output.
Fox news, the heritage foundation and the koch family foundation are all very relevent in the conversation about global warming. They have chosen to raise doubt about hard science in the interest of financial gains and have ground rational action to a halt. It’s political, not scientific and it has worked to undermine the hard work of serious people who have attempted to warn you of the trouble ahead.
And to the question of nuclear power… we agree completely. I am absolutely 100% in favor of nuclear power. I have argued against the switch to coal powered electric vehicles and in favor of nuclear powered electric vehicles many times. Coal puts more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere each year than if we simply incinerated nuclear power plant waste and it’s a major greenhouse gas emitter. Nuclear power should have been turned to decades ago, it is the best current solution we have today and may continue to be so for many years to come.