When I first became interested in Human Origins, back in the 1960s, the only known ancestors were: the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Australopithecus Africanus. Over the last 50 years an enormous amount if information has been found by scientific researchers. The story of human origins has become more complex and much more interesting.
The series of videos in this post give an excellent summary of the of the current understanding of the field.
The only issues left out are the Denisovans , Homo floresiensis and the Red Dear Cave People These are fairly recent findings and are still enigmatic so it is not surprising that they have been left out. These three groups, though, support the possibility that non-modern humans persisted until relatively recent times.
Thank you to Black Ryder Films for producing this great series.
Here is a link to a documentary series on Darwin.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Monday, July 30, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
The Genius of Charles Darwin
This is a three part series by Richard Dawkins, on one of the greatest scientists of all time - Charles Darwin.
It covers Darwin's life, theory and the amazing and absurd opposition to evolution.
In the series Dawkins has two main objectives: arguing the undeniable evidence for evolution and attacking religious belief. In the first episode he works with a science class in a school. He runs across religiously based opposition from some of the students. I would have taken a more accommodationist approach and said something like: "This is a science class and I am not going to oppose your religious beliefs. It is possible to believe in God and also evolution." Dawkins is naturally aware of this argument as he discusses it with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the third episode. Dawkins has very reasonable objections to the argument, but it is not relevant in science class. Once the religiously minded kids accepted basic science they might come around to Lawrence Krauss's position, which I agree with) : So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God.
I am sure that Dawkins would see my position as a cop out.
The desperate pig ignorance of the creationists in the third episode is amazing. These people have not the slightest interest in truth or honesty. They smilingly talk nonsense and tell outright lies. Talking to such people is like talking to climate deniers - a total waste of time - because evidence, reason and logic are irrelevant to them.
It covers Darwin's life, theory and the amazing and absurd opposition to evolution.
In the series Dawkins has two main objectives: arguing the undeniable evidence for evolution and attacking religious belief. In the first episode he works with a science class in a school. He runs across religiously based opposition from some of the students. I would have taken a more accommodationist approach and said something like: "This is a science class and I am not going to oppose your religious beliefs. It is possible to believe in God and also evolution." Dawkins is naturally aware of this argument as he discusses it with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the third episode. Dawkins has very reasonable objections to the argument, but it is not relevant in science class. Once the religiously minded kids accepted basic science they might come around to Lawrence Krauss's position, which I agree with) : So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God.
I am sure that Dawkins would see my position as a cop out.
The desperate pig ignorance of the creationists in the third episode is amazing. These people have not the slightest interest in truth or honesty. They smilingly talk nonsense and tell outright lies. Talking to such people is like talking to climate deniers - a total waste of time - because evidence, reason and logic are irrelevant to them.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Fifty renowned academics speaking about god
I find it difficult to argue against the claims of any these 50 brilliant people.
As always the wonderful Carl Sagan puts it beautifully:
"What is faith? It is belief in the absence of evidence. Now I don't propose to tell anybody what to believe, but for me, believing when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake. The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence. And if the universe does not comply with our predispositions, OK then we have the wrenching obligation to accommodate to the way the Universe really is."
To slightly change Darwin's quote: there is a grandeur in this view of the Universe, but I would only add one thought to those of those in the video. Although reason and evidence compels us to a non-religious world view there is still a sense of loss when we reject religious belief. Consequently my feelings are most closely aligned to the great 19th century poet, Matthew Arnold when he wrote in Dover Beach:
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Royal Institution Christmas Lectures 2010
The Royal Institution (see website at this link) is an organization devoted to scientific education and research. It was founded in 1799. Since 1825 it has been presenting lectures at christmas.
In 2010 the lecture was given by Mark Miodownik a materials scientist (see his website here). The topic was Size Matters.
In 2010 the lecture was given by Mark Miodownik a materials scientist (see his website here). The topic was Size Matters.
Why does size matters in animal behaviour?
How can a hamster survive falling from the top of a skyscraper, ants carry over 100 times their own body weight and geckos climb across the ceiling?
In the first of this year's Christmas lectures, Dr Mark Miodownik investigates . He reveals how the science of materials - the stuff from which everything is made - can explain some of the most extraordinary and surprising feats in the animal kingdom.
By the end, you will understand why you will never see an elephant dance
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Science under attack
Gvien that the evidence that the planet is warming and that the primary cause involves human activities, a view that is supported by the vast majority of people who are expert in this issue, why do we hear so much denial of reality.
Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, who is also President of the Royal Society, investigates this issue in the horizon documentary below.
This is a fairly gentle response which comes to the conclusion that scientists have to be more active in explaining and defending their work from those who would attack it. This is fair enough, though I wonder if Nurse would be so calm and measured if the likes of Singer and Delingpole came after his work in the dishonest and deceitful way that they attack the climate scientists. My suspicion is that he would take the sort of strong defense shown by Ben Santer in this post.
Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, who is also President of the Royal Society, investigates this issue in the horizon documentary below.
This is a fairly gentle response which comes to the conclusion that scientists have to be more active in explaining and defending their work from those who would attack it. This is fair enough, though I wonder if Nurse would be so calm and measured if the likes of Singer and Delingpole came after his work in the dishonest and deceitful way that they attack the climate scientists. My suspicion is that he would take the sort of strong defense shown by Ben Santer in this post.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Science, Non-science and Nonsense
Ben Santer is one of the leading climatologists in the world today.
The first video is of his appearance at US congressional hearings, where he responds to claims made by climate skeptic, Pat Michaels. In the video he carefully explains why the claims made by Michaels are wrong. It is great to see a talented scientist in operation, but it is a very unfortunate that he has to take time out from his real work - studying climate - to rebut the nonsense spouted by Michaels, and other climate denier propagandists.
In the second video, Santer is introduced by the late Stephen Schneider. In his introduction, Schneider, provides an informative glimpse into the workings of the IPCC.
The talk could be summarised in terms of the title of this post: Science, Non-science and Nonsense
Science
It is always interesting when scientific findings are in conflict. In this instance, the surface temperature record and basic theory said that the planet was warming, but measurements from space of the atmosphere seemed to show that it was cooling. In the end the problem was resolved when it was discovered that the scientists using the satelite data had made a basic mathematical mistake. When that mistake was corrected the satelite atmospheric measurements also showed warming.
A report, called Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere, that included scientists from the UAH group, RSS and other experts seemed to finally resolve this issue. The report is summarised in the first paragraph as follows:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
Source: here
Non-science
Santer then discusses a paper, Douglass et al, which attempted to overturn the findings of the Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere report. Santer discussed the flawed nature of the paper and the response that he led to the Douglass paper. This section is somewhat statistical, where Santer shows that the mathematics of the Douglass is very suspect.
Nonsense
Santer finally discusses the harrassment by Stephen McIntyre, who claims to audit the work of climate scientists. Interestingly McIntyre's auditing only extends to the work of scientists who conclude that human activities are the major cause of global warming. He does not attempt to audit the faulty work of the climate skeptics. It is clear that the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion support the view that the climate is warming, humans are the major cause and that the warming is dangerous; see this post for evidence for this claim.
The final 50 minutes of so involve the questions and answer section.
In the video below, Stephen Schneider, who introduced Ben Santer in the video above, discusses a wide range of issues, including:
* in what ways can climate science be considered settled
* the philosophy of science - ie falsification and systems science
* how judgements are made regarding the probabilities of opinions in climate science - ie how did the IPCC decide that human influence on warming was at a 90% level, and,
* risk management
During the risk management section of the talk, Schneider discusses his health and his discussions with his doctors about treatment. It is very sad to realise that at the time that he gave this talk, Schneider only had 51/2 months to live.
The first video is of his appearance at US congressional hearings, where he responds to claims made by climate skeptic, Pat Michaels. In the video he carefully explains why the claims made by Michaels are wrong. It is great to see a talented scientist in operation, but it is a very unfortunate that he has to take time out from his real work - studying climate - to rebut the nonsense spouted by Michaels, and other climate denier propagandists.
In the second video, Santer is introduced by the late Stephen Schneider. In his introduction, Schneider, provides an informative glimpse into the workings of the IPCC.
The talk could be summarised in terms of the title of this post: Science, Non-science and Nonsense
Science
It is always interesting when scientific findings are in conflict. In this instance, the surface temperature record and basic theory said that the planet was warming, but measurements from space of the atmosphere seemed to show that it was cooling. In the end the problem was resolved when it was discovered that the scientists using the satelite data had made a basic mathematical mistake. When that mistake was corrected the satelite atmospheric measurements also showed warming.
A report, called Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere, that included scientists from the UAH group, RSS and other experts seemed to finally resolve this issue. The report is summarised in the first paragraph as follows:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
Source: here
Non-science
Santer then discusses a paper, Douglass et al, which attempted to overturn the findings of the Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere report. Santer discussed the flawed nature of the paper and the response that he led to the Douglass paper. This section is somewhat statistical, where Santer shows that the mathematics of the Douglass is very suspect.
Nonsense
Santer finally discusses the harrassment by Stephen McIntyre, who claims to audit the work of climate scientists. Interestingly McIntyre's auditing only extends to the work of scientists who conclude that human activities are the major cause of global warming. He does not attempt to audit the faulty work of the climate skeptics. It is clear that the vast majority of people qualified to have an opinion support the view that the climate is warming, humans are the major cause and that the warming is dangerous; see this post for evidence for this claim.
The final 50 minutes of so involve the questions and answer section.
In the video below, Stephen Schneider, who introduced Ben Santer in the video above, discusses a wide range of issues, including:
* in what ways can climate science be considered settled
* the philosophy of science - ie falsification and systems science
* how judgements are made regarding the probabilities of opinions in climate science - ie how did the IPCC decide that human influence on warming was at a 90% level, and,
* risk management
During the risk management section of the talk, Schneider discusses his health and his discussions with his doctors about treatment. It is very sad to realise that at the time that he gave this talk, Schneider only had 51/2 months to live.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Arsenic Bacterium
On December 2nd NASA scientists announced the discovery of a very unusual type of bacterium. The scientists claim that the bacterium replaces phosphorus with arsenic in essential biochemical molecules - such as DNA. This is surprising as biochemists consider that phosphorus is one of the six building blocks of all known life forms. The other five are: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur.
Before serious consideration of this finding, XKCD has an interesting take on the finding:
Source: http://xkcd.com/829/
Here is a link to NASA's web page announcement of the discovery.
The videos below cover the NASA press conference (unfortunatley the audio is our of synch):
A couple of times Felisa Wolfe-Simon mentioned the Pale Blue Dot. Here is my post on that topic.
Not everyone is convinced as this link shows. There will be considerable discussion of this finding in the scientific community.
RealClimate has an interesting take on the issues raised in this post. There are links to critics of the study, but the most interesting points made by the post are the three general ones about the nature of science, quoted below.
Lesson one: Major funding agencies willingly back studies challenging scientific consensus.
Lesson two: Most everyone would be thrilled to overturn the consensus. Doing so successfully can be a career-making result. Journals such as Science and Nature are more than willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary – and funding agencies are willing to promote these results.
Lesson three: Scientists offer opinions based on their scientific knowledge and a critical interpretation of data. Scientists willingly critique what they think might be flawed or unsubstantiated science, because their credibility – not their funding – is on the line.
Before serious consideration of this finding, XKCD has an interesting take on the finding:
 |
Source: http://xkcd.com/829/
Here is a link to NASA's web page announcement of the discovery.
The videos below cover the NASA press conference (unfortunatley the audio is our of synch):
A couple of times Felisa Wolfe-Simon mentioned the Pale Blue Dot. Here is my post on that topic.
Not everyone is convinced as this link shows. There will be considerable discussion of this finding in the scientific community.
RealClimate has an interesting take on the issues raised in this post. There are links to critics of the study, but the most interesting points made by the post are the three general ones about the nature of science, quoted below.
Lesson one: Major funding agencies willingly back studies challenging scientific consensus.
Lesson two: Most everyone would be thrilled to overturn the consensus. Doing so successfully can be a career-making result. Journals such as Science and Nature are more than willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary – and funding agencies are willing to promote these results.
Lesson three: Scientists offer opinions based on their scientific knowledge and a critical interpretation of data. Scientists willingly critique what they think might be flawed or unsubstantiated science, because their credibility – not their funding – is on the line.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Our World in Crisis?
Over six nights recently I attended the Our World in Crisis? course run by Professor Jospeh Camilleri.
The course website can be found here
The course was very informative, challenging, and very well run. Thanks to Professor Camilleri for his organisation of the course and many interesting lectures and guest speakers.
The course covered the following:
Making sense of ‘our times’:
It is often said that we live in a globalising world? What does this mean? How different is today’s world from that of our parents or grandparents? Is the Modern world ushered in by the Renaissance and the revolutions of the 16th to the 18th centuries coming to an end? If so, what is taking its place?
The global financial crisis: why, where and how?
How do we explain the unprecedented growth of international finance? What factors have led to the current global financial crisis? What are the long-term implications of the crisis? What do we make of the responses of governments? Of the major international organisations? Where does the crisis leave the rich-poor divide? What are the prospects for greater international regulation?
Climate change: after Copenhagen
What are the key issues at stake in international climate change negotiations? Why are governments finding it so difficult to come to terms with the challenges posed by climate change? What are the prospects for stabilising global warming? Has Australia’s position on climate change shifted significantly since the election of the Rudd Government?
Arc of conflict: from Algeria to Afghanistan:
How do we account for the conflicts that have dotted the recent history of this part of the world? What lies behind the conflicts in the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan? How do we make sense of the relationship between Islam and the West? Are international terrorism and the ‘war on terror’ here to stay?
Conflict resolution and the dialogue of cultures:
Are the world’s major civilisations on a collision course? With the decline of the world’s colonial empires, is Western dominance coming to an end? Are we seeing the rise of new centres of power and influence? Can collision be avoided? What are the prospects for dialogue and conflict resolution? How can dialogue be approached internationally? In Australia?
The puzzle that is Australia:
How well are Australians coping with the pressures of a rapidly changing world? How well is Australia managing cultural and religious diversity at home and in its relations with Asia and the Pacific? Does multiculturalism have a future? What of our relations with the United states on the one hand and China on the other? What are the options facing Australia over the next decade and beyond?
The assignments that I produced for the course and some of the research that I conducted on the topics can be found at the links below:
Globalisation, here and here.
Assignment letter to the editor here.
My notes on the Copenhagen conference here.
Assignment on the Global Financial Crisis here.
The Political Philosophy of Malcolm Fraser here.
The course website can be found here
The course was very informative, challenging, and very well run. Thanks to Professor Camilleri for his organisation of the course and many interesting lectures and guest speakers.
The course covered the following:
Making sense of ‘our times’:
It is often said that we live in a globalising world? What does this mean? How different is today’s world from that of our parents or grandparents? Is the Modern world ushered in by the Renaissance and the revolutions of the 16th to the 18th centuries coming to an end? If so, what is taking its place?
The global financial crisis: why, where and how?
How do we explain the unprecedented growth of international finance? What factors have led to the current global financial crisis? What are the long-term implications of the crisis? What do we make of the responses of governments? Of the major international organisations? Where does the crisis leave the rich-poor divide? What are the prospects for greater international regulation?
Climate change: after Copenhagen
What are the key issues at stake in international climate change negotiations? Why are governments finding it so difficult to come to terms with the challenges posed by climate change? What are the prospects for stabilising global warming? Has Australia’s position on climate change shifted significantly since the election of the Rudd Government?
Arc of conflict: from Algeria to Afghanistan:
How do we account for the conflicts that have dotted the recent history of this part of the world? What lies behind the conflicts in the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan? How do we make sense of the relationship between Islam and the West? Are international terrorism and the ‘war on terror’ here to stay?
Conflict resolution and the dialogue of cultures:
Are the world’s major civilisations on a collision course? With the decline of the world’s colonial empires, is Western dominance coming to an end? Are we seeing the rise of new centres of power and influence? Can collision be avoided? What are the prospects for dialogue and conflict resolution? How can dialogue be approached internationally? In Australia?
The puzzle that is Australia:
How well are Australians coping with the pressures of a rapidly changing world? How well is Australia managing cultural and religious diversity at home and in its relations with Asia and the Pacific? Does multiculturalism have a future? What of our relations with the United states on the one hand and China on the other? What are the options facing Australia over the next decade and beyond?
The assignments that I produced for the course and some of the research that I conducted on the topics can be found at the links below:
Globalisation, here and here.
Assignment letter to the editor here.
My notes on the Copenhagen conference here.
Assignment on the Global Financial Crisis here.
The Political Philosophy of Malcolm Fraser here.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Scientists hit back
There are many absurd attacks on Climate Science and some shocking personal abuse of Climate Scientists. See this post for some examples.
It is important that Climate Scientists make clear to the general public the urgency of reducing CO2 emissions and in reducing our impact on the globe.
Today 250 scientists have released a statement explaining the facts and decrying the irrational and immoral tactics of the deniers.
I have reproduced the statement below:
"CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE
Lead Letter Published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010
From 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences:
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.
But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
The names of the 255 scientists can be found at this link.
In normal times signing this type of document would be unexceptional in a western democracy, but with the personal abuse and legal threats aimed at climate scientists, the scientists are showing considerable personal bravery.
It is important that Climate Scientists make clear to the general public the urgency of reducing CO2 emissions and in reducing our impact on the globe.
Today 250 scientists have released a statement explaining the facts and decrying the irrational and immoral tactics of the deniers.
I have reproduced the statement below:
"CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE INTEGRITY OF SCIENCE
Lead Letter Published in Science magazine, May 7, 2010
From 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences:
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.
But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
The names of the 255 scientists can be found at this link.
In normal times signing this type of document would be unexceptional in a western democracy, but with the personal abuse and legal threats aimed at climate scientists, the scientists are showing considerable personal bravery.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Danger of Science Denial
We are more prosperous and more educated than ever before. Most of the good life we live comes from technology that is based on scientific discoveries. A rational response would be a continuing respect for the discoveries of science, but the reverse seems to be happening. There are many movements aimed at undermining our undestanding of the world that has been developed by science. Some examples are:
* Climate denial
* Vaccine denial
* Opposition to Genetic modification of food
* HIV denial
* Alternative medicines
* Young Earth creationism
* Opposition to evoltionary theory
* Moonlanding hoax
* Belief in psychics and other paranormal phenomena
* UFOs
The first five examples in the list are causing deaths or will cause deaths in the future. The others, might not be as directly dangerous, but they undermine acceptance of science and rationality which is a more subtle but still serious danger.
The video presentation by Michael Specter discusses some of these issues. A brief bio of Specter can be found below the video. Two of my favourite quotes from the video are:
I also laughed with the audience when Specter described the alternative medicine industry as "big placebo".
Here is Specter's bio from the TED site:
I particularly like this Specter quote, which isn't in the video:
"Denialism is a virus and viruses are contagious."
* Climate denial
* Vaccine denial
* Opposition to Genetic modification of food
* HIV denial
* Alternative medicines
* Young Earth creationism
* Opposition to evoltionary theory
* Moonlanding hoax
* Belief in psychics and other paranormal phenomena
* UFOs
The first five examples in the list are causing deaths or will cause deaths in the future. The others, might not be as directly dangerous, but they undermine acceptance of science and rationality which is a more subtle but still serious danger.
The video presentation by Michael Specter discusses some of these issues. A brief bio of Specter can be found below the video. Two of my favourite quotes from the video are:
Be sceptical, ask questions, demand proof. Demand evidence. Don't take anything for granted. But here is the thing: When you get proof, you need to accept the proof. And we're not that good at doing that.
You know, science isn't a company. It's not a country. It's not even an idea. It's a process. It's a process. And sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. But the idea that we should not allow science to do its job because we're afraid, is really very deadening and it prevents millions of people from prospering.
I also laughed with the audience when Specter described the alternative medicine industry as "big placebo".
Here is Specter's bio from the TED site:
Michael Specter's new book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives, dives into a worrisome strain of modern life -- a vocal anti-science bias that may prevent us from making the right choices for our future. Specter studies how the active movements against vaccines, genetically engineered food, science-based medicine and biotechnological solutions to climate change may actually put the world at risk. (For instance, anti-vaccination activists could soon trigger the US return of polio, not to mention the continuing rise of measles.) More insidiously, the chilling effect caused by the new denialism may prevent useful science from being accomplished.
Specter has been a writer for the New Yorker for more than a decade; before that, he was a science writer and then the Moscow bureau chief for the New York Times. He writes about science and politics for the New Yorker, with a fascinating sideline in biographical profiles.
I particularly like this Specter quote, which isn't in the video:
"Denialism is a virus and viruses are contagious."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Awe
We can feel awe in many different contexts including: religion, art, genius, science ...
Watching the video I felt wonder and amazement at the talents of the people who produced this science and the beauty (art) of the images. Contemplating the enormity of the universe is the closest that I can get to religious wonder.
Watching the video I felt wonder and amazement at the talents of the people who produced this science and the beauty (art) of the images. Contemplating the enormity of the universe is the closest that I can get to religious wonder.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Seven Basic Principles of Magic
Penn and Teller are two American magicians.
One of the first tricks from their Las Vagas stage show is shown in the video below:
The video is part of a fascinating article in Wired Magazine .
The basic magic principles are:
1. Palm - the lit cigarette
2. Ditch - cigarette in ear
3. Steal - pencil stub
4. Simulate - pull out "cigarette", really the pencil stub
5. Load - real cigarette from ear
6. Misdirect - with flashlight
7. Switch - pencil for cigarette
Here is another interesting video from the same article.
The article also contains a fairly long video of Penn and Teller performing and explaining the Cups and Balls trick.
The main point of the article is that magicians and other sleight of hand "artists" such as pickpockets, are working with scientists in the study of human perception.
Well worth a read.
One of the first tricks from their Las Vagas stage show is shown in the video below:
The video is part of a fascinating article in Wired Magazine .
The trick is called Looks Simple, and the point is that even a puff on a cigarette, closely examined, can disintegrate into smoke and mirrors. "People take reality for granted," Teller says shortly before stepping onstage. "Reality seems so simple. We just open our eyes and there it is. But that doesn't mean it is simple."
The basic magic principles are:
1. Palm - the lit cigarette
2. Ditch - cigarette in ear
3. Steal - pencil stub
4. Simulate - pull out "cigarette", really the pencil stub
5. Load - real cigarette from ear
6. Misdirect - with flashlight
7. Switch - pencil for cigarette
Here is another interesting video from the same article.
Attention, it turns out, is like a spotlight. When it's focused on something, we become oblivious to even obvious changes outside its narrow beam. What magicians do, essentially, is misdirect—pivot that spotlight toward the wrong place at the right time.
The article also contains a fairly long video of Penn and Teller performing and explaining the Cups and Balls trick.
The main point of the article is that magicians and other sleight of hand "artists" such as pickpockets, are working with scientists in the study of human perception.
Well worth a read.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Palin and Fruit Flies
Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for Vice President in a recent speech attacked scientific research into fruit flies. She was discussing earmarks which are congressional mandates to spend money on specific projects. McCain tried to make a big deal of earmarks during the first Debate with Obama.
Palin gave the following example of an earmark that she objected to:
The video below shows the relevant part of the speech.
My first reaction to this was that she was talking about research into Drosophila melanogaster. I remember studying Drosphlia in high school biology classes. My recollection was that Drosphlia were important important models in studying the basics of genetics. In particular I remembered that they had just four chromosomes that were very large which made the study of Drosophlia genetics easier that other animals. I expected that Palin was attacking basic "blue sky" research and (possibly) advocating targeted applied research, and so I was preparing to write on the importance of basic (non-targeted) research.
One of the areas of Drosophlia research that I found particularly interesting was the discovery of selector genes that control complex processes, for example in the development of legs and wings in Drosophlia. As a group these selector genes are called Hoc genes. Many other animals, including mammals, have Hox genes, but what was particularly surprising was the similarity between the Hox genes in very different animals. Hox genes in mice are so similar to those in Drosophlia that they still can produce legs when inserted into the insects! For more details on these issues see this site. This type of research is interesting and valuable in itself irrespective of any practical developments flowing from it. An interest in ideas for their own sake is an important part of being human. Basic research though can lead to applied research projects as I found when reading sites here and here .
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Palin's flip comment probably had nothing to do with Drosophlia, but to applied agricultural research on another type of fly.
The only earmark that involves fruit flies and France is research into the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae). (Note is is in a different genus to Drosophlia melanogaster). This fruit fly arrived in California in 1998. It has become a serious pest and threat to the Californian olive industry. This then is very applied, agricultural research, of significant economic value to the US.
Palin's comment that the earmark money went to research in "Paris, France" is significant. She was probably trying to make the point that US money was being sent to France to solve a French problem. The reality is quite different. The money went to a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) research facility (actually at Montpellier) in France. It is important to study invasive animals and plants in their natural environment in order to determine appropriate methods of control. To this end USDA has research facilities in many countries including Australia, where I live. One method of control is to find natural enemies of B oleae and about 6 have been discovered. The next step is to make sure that predators of B oleae don't attack any other insects. For details see this site .
I originally set out to make the point that anyone whose science education was so poor that they did not recognise fruit flies as very important models for basic study, is unfit for public office. In reality Palin has attacked research that is very practical, and carried out in an appropriate location.
What is it with the right and their hatred of science. The only national newspaper in Australia (the Australian) has a similar fixation. Tim Lambert in his blog Deltoid is up to 22 in his series of posts called The Australian's War on Science. The Australian's fixation is with Climate Change Denialism, which is another potential post on the absurdities of Palinism. As an Alaskan, Palin realises that the Arctic is warming, but she denies that the cause is Anthropogenic.
Palin gave the following example of an earmark that she objected to:
You’ve heard about some of these pet projects, they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good," Palin said. "Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.
The video below shows the relevant part of the speech.
My first reaction to this was that she was talking about research into Drosophila melanogaster. I remember studying Drosphlia in high school biology classes. My recollection was that Drosphlia were important important models in studying the basics of genetics. In particular I remembered that they had just four chromosomes that were very large which made the study of Drosophlia genetics easier that other animals. I expected that Palin was attacking basic "blue sky" research and (possibly) advocating targeted applied research, and so I was preparing to write on the importance of basic (non-targeted) research.
One of the areas of Drosophlia research that I found particularly interesting was the discovery of selector genes that control complex processes, for example in the development of legs and wings in Drosophlia. As a group these selector genes are called Hoc genes. Many other animals, including mammals, have Hox genes, but what was particularly surprising was the similarity between the Hox genes in very different animals. Hox genes in mice are so similar to those in Drosophlia that they still can produce legs when inserted into the insects! For more details on these issues see this site. This type of research is interesting and valuable in itself irrespective of any practical developments flowing from it. An interest in ideas for their own sake is an important part of being human. Basic research though can lead to applied research projects as I found when reading sites here and here .
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Palin's flip comment probably had nothing to do with Drosophlia, but to applied agricultural research on another type of fly.
The only earmark that involves fruit flies and France is research into the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae). (Note is is in a different genus to Drosophlia melanogaster). This fruit fly arrived in California in 1998. It has become a serious pest and threat to the Californian olive industry. This then is very applied, agricultural research, of significant economic value to the US.
Palin's comment that the earmark money went to research in "Paris, France" is significant. She was probably trying to make the point that US money was being sent to France to solve a French problem. The reality is quite different. The money went to a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) research facility (actually at Montpellier) in France. It is important to study invasive animals and plants in their natural environment in order to determine appropriate methods of control. To this end USDA has research facilities in many countries including Australia, where I live. One method of control is to find natural enemies of B oleae and about 6 have been discovered. The next step is to make sure that predators of B oleae don't attack any other insects. For details see this site .
I originally set out to make the point that anyone whose science education was so poor that they did not recognise fruit flies as very important models for basic study, is unfit for public office. In reality Palin has attacked research that is very practical, and carried out in an appropriate location.
What is it with the right and their hatred of science. The only national newspaper in Australia (the Australian) has a similar fixation. Tim Lambert in his blog Deltoid is up to 22 in his series of posts called The Australian's War on Science. The Australian's fixation is with Climate Change Denialism, which is another potential post on the absurdities of Palinism. As an Alaskan, Palin realises that the Arctic is warming, but she denies that the cause is Anthropogenic.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Climate Change: a risk management argument
Although I think that Climate Change due to Global Warming is a real threat to our future, I haven't written any posts about it as Climate Science is a very complex area of study. My Blog Roll contains a number of Climate Change sites, particularly Real Climate and Open Mind. I cannot match the detail and erudition of those sites and feel that there is little that I can post on the topic that would add to the arguments of professional climate scientists.
That was, until I came across the video below, which gives an interesting and entertaining perspective on the topic. It takes a risk management point of view.
One word of warning, the video is almost 10 minutes long.
The username of the producer of the video is wonderingmind42
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)