The second is that Hawking lecture was chopped up and edited in a way to make it sound like he saying things he isn’t. Actually, the whole video was assembled this way.

The third is the premise that scientist are willing to destroy the earth to avoid admitting that they did the “wrong calculus”. That’s just silly. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go burn down my house before my wife finds out I spilled some water on the carpet.

I know you didn’t make that video, but this is just wrong:

“In groenland all white men died because they wouldnt eat fish as the
eskimos were doing. Their ideology (Christianity) forbade it then.”

The Church allowed people to eat fish in those days. If they didn’t, most of northern europe would have died.

Also, the native Greenlanders will happily show people the fish traps and pens that have been discovered and dated to the Norse period, proving that the Greenland Norse caught and ate fish quite well.

He must be busy pushing Hawaii to Europe so Wagner can refile his frivolous suit.

What with Mark Millar’s lunatical ravings (http://io9.com/5052610/hollywoods-new-player-declares-war-on-science) and the attempting bombing of Dr. Arthur Rosenbaum (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/29/local/me-ucla29), I sometimes worry for their safety.

I really don’t want the 21st century to be remembered for physical attacks on science and scientists.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/microwavedpet.asp
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

This one is also of interest, and contains some examples of actual frivolous lawsuits, as well as legendary ones:

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Don’t type tired, folks.

Better a good legal technicality than an appealable “You’re but bunch of loons, get outta my courtroom!”

Look up the circumstances of the coffee lawsuit. You might change your mind.

My own theory on american coffee is that they need to balance the non-provoking (in their mind) absence of roast and strength with a provoking amount of heat.

I dunno why they think it’s a good balance – I was scalded more times than I care to think of, driving away from a drive-through. Mostly because I needed to add some hefty amounts of freeze dried espresso powder to make it taste like actual coffee, while juggling the steering with the other hand.

Phil + time = Farnsworth

On a more topical note, on behalf of Europe, thanks for the cranks.

I wanted to answer s’thing similar to what two europeans answered… but more.

“As a European I would have say….No thanks we…”
And I go on:
“we already have enough of them. We call them… you know, ecologists or politicians”

@Larian LeQuella: Yes, one of the Plaintiffs in the US suit was also trying to stop RHIC, for exactly the same reasons. I blogged a little bit about this (link in my name).

So thanks Phil, but no thanks, we have our own…

If you saw that one television program on cable, you might already know it. You see, the crank-theory posits that there is a micro-black hole in the middle of the Bermuda Triangle which causes all kinds of unrelated calamity. The TV program was so full of holes (pun, pun, pun in the sun, sun, sun) and inexplicable arguments that I was laughing most of the way. (“The opposite of a ‘black hole’ is a ‘white hole’ which scientists say create matter. Similarly, under the Bermuda Triangle, objects called ‘black smokers’ spew out new material into the ocean. The similarities are remarkable.)

Now, I’m wondering, of those people who believe that any micro-black holes that may be produced by the LHC will destroy the earth, are some the very same people that believe we have a black hole somehow situated in open water causing all kinds of paranormal activity? Is there a difference between a micro-black hole that’s produced by science which may actually lead to a new understanding of the universe and a naturally occurring micro-black hole in the open ocean which allegedly produces such things as “electronic fog”? Or, simply, are man-made black holes more powerful than natural ones?

And can anyone answer that, much less ask it, with a straight face?

The court didn’t come out and say it, but the reason they dismissed this case is probably because of forum non conveniens. US courts are actually very, very good about dismissing cases that, while they technically could have heard, would be better off in a different country (the USA is probably the best in the world about doing it, in fact). There’s no allegation that the Swiss (or French) have a court system that would be biased against an American plaintiff in this case, preventing a fair trial, so American courts feel no need to take the case. If the collider were in a nation known for kangaroo courts, you better believe the court would have taken the case.

Sigh, sorry for the legal nerd-ese. I didn’t mean for my comment to be that long.

Don’t these guys ever watch the movies? Everybody knows from Spiderman 2 that if there’s a runaway fusion reaction, you just pull the plug. And if that doesn’t work, then you simply dunk it into a river. No problem!

I think religious fanatics could start a world-wide holy war that could lead to the end of all mankind… should we sue to stop all religions?

If asteroids from space could lead to the end of all mankind, then who can we sue to stop all objects from hitting the earth?