Comments

It's a good thing they figured out how to let us wear regular clothes on planes. Those space suits look itchy, or maybe the person at :50 in the video just likes to scratch.

It seems like a great idea because it would be a lot cheaper. The drawback is the acceleration the payloads would undergo, something like 1500g. That's a lot. That limits the kinds of payloads you could launch this way.

A few questions: What scale are they using? What did they define as the "danger zone?" How did they quantify their results? What data did they use? As far as I can tell from reading the related link, they arbitrarily chose numbers that they felt represented a danger zone. It's pretty obvious they started wtih a strong bias toward the problems they consider catastrophic. Disregarding the appearance of legitimacy that comes from publishing in Nature, it's apparent that the assumptions they based their studies on are flawed. For example, they say "Observations of...melting of almost all mountain glaciers around the world." It's hard to believe that a sampling of only 40 to 300 glaciers--depending on how long a timeline the sample is from (2 years to 10 years)--could accurately represent the roughly 160,000 glaciers around the world which differ dramatically by climate, humidity, soot accumulation, precipitation and local environmental changes. They did give a brief nod to the fact that many of the small number of glaciers being studied actually grew. Did you notice it? It's the part where they said: "...almost all mountain glaciers..." Almost. If the study scientists can tell us that their glacier data accurately represents what's going on around the world with a straight face, it's hard to accept the other assumptions they made. I guess when they say they're using a "novel framework" what they mean is they've conjured up a new way to cherry-pick data and produce erroneous and alarming results. By the way, I'm dying to know why they couldn't quantify the results of chemical pollution. That has been one of the most studied and quantified areas of environmental science in the last 30 years. Maybe it's because in many countries chemical pollution has been reduced significantly, as we've seen here in the U.S. I dunno. Just thinking out loud.

Seeing the Milky Way sprawled across the sky on a clear night is one of the most awe-inspiring and humbling spectacles in nature. I'm glad someone put this together for the rest of us with too much light pollution to appreciate it.

Okay, it needs to be said because your editor certainly isn't doing it. Here goes. Stuart Fox, the tenor of your articles demonstrates that you are a narrow-minded, condescending, self-important, sorry excuse for a journalist. Or science writer. Or whatever you call yourself. Rather than simply report science, you go out of your way to interject snide and derogatory comments dismissing those who don't hold your rather narrow views as closer to rocks in evolutionary ascension. You may think you are illuminating us with your exalted opinions, but what you are really describing is how high a wall your lofty hubris perches upon and how ignorant you are. An example from this article: 'Considering all the evidence that supports a link between carbon emissions and global warming, the Chamber should have called it "the OJ Simpson Trial of Global Warming."' Any mouth-breather with half a brain can find numerous peer-reviewed studies that refute the common claims about the so-called link between carbon emissions and global warming, or at the very least, question whether there is one. So far no one has credibly demonstrated a link, though the computer modelers like to imagine that they have. The jury of real scientists is still out...studying what causes regional and global climate change with open minds. Then there's the more egregious example from an article you wrote that someone at Popsci decided not to allow comments on. Remember that? "Most Comprehensive Poll to Date Finds Americans Actually Love Scientists, Science." (July 9, 2009) Unbelievably, though the poll you cited showed that people from all walks of life and belief systems have a strong grasp of science in their daily lives, and look positively on science and scientists, you chose to insult those people who didn't agree with your--I'll say it again--very narrow view of science. Here's you: "So if anti-evolutionists and the global warming denying tin-foil-hat crowd don't understand science..." Yes, that must be it. Those of us who have very reasonably taken the time to inform ourselves on climate studies don't understand science. The thousands of scientists around the world who have signed public statements and spoken out against the murky tide of global warmism--putting their careers on the line--must not understand science. Sorry Stuart. I think not. I think it is YOU and those of your ilk who do not understand science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the real world. In many areas of study it is conclusive, in others it is still searching and learning. Unfortunately, just like all other topics fizzing in the froth of 24/7 media coverage, the interpretation of science is skewed by biased and opinionated people with loud voices or influence. Problem is, some of those people--like you--are gallingly ignorant of their bias and erroneous presumption. If I were running a layman's science magazine, I would hire journalists and writers who knew how to report science rather than editorialize; who knew how to fascinate their audience with the wonder of scientific discovery rather than interject their own stupid commentary and insult a large group of readers. Guess what? Lots of people are fascinated with science and your juvenile insults won't change that, though it might compel them to move on to other science web sites and magazines that are more welcoming. Go back to journalism school. Or swallow a large slice of humble pie. It will do wonders for your science.