Here’s an amusing / frustrating video of Weather Channel founder John Coleman trying his best to blast Global Warming. He’s concerned about how “upset” people are, as though being worried about the environment is slowly killing people’s soul. He also believes that things are just fine, and that there is no need for concern. It seems his biggest proof is simply that the polar icecaps are not going to melt, despite clear evidence that melting in Greenland is increasing, and that the Antarctic ices sheets are retreating further every year.
I find these old guys that claim that they are scientists but who don’t bother actually providing compelling evidence to the contrary simply annoying. He points out that the only reason there is scientific consensus is because of hype and the duplicity of the scientific community that have a “vested interest” in promoting Global Warming. While it could be true for some, it’s just not how science works in general. It’s the same argument that Intelligent Design advocates use, and it’s just as effective. As for the consequences, it’s true that we don’t yet know what the effects of Global warming are, but it certainly seems foolish to believe, as this man does, that there will be none whatsoever.
An Australian Study found that men who study science in University are less likely to get laid. It found that science “nerds” were more likely to be doing homework and far less likely to go to parties and bars. as a general rule, i hate garbage studies that only reinforce the stereotype that science is somehow unhip, uncool, and something only “nerds” do. I’m sure there’s a similar correlation between level of education and frequency of fornication, but what exactly does this prove? Not to be a nitpicker, but did the reporter in this story really have to call science students “nerds”? Might as well start calling anyone with a college degree an “elitist”.
Here’s the way i see it: getting laid is great and a lot of fun, but science is a pretty serious field of study, and unlike most yahoos that phone in their work, dedicating your life to science means you can’t go to as many parties as the guys who are studying for their MBA’s. So while some guys are working on their “macking” skills, some science nerd is unlocking the secrets of the Universe. Who’s the bigger stud here?
The goal of science has alwys been to uncover the secrets of nature. This pursuit has, in the past, been the hobby of already rich men who did it out of sheer pleasure and curiosity. As the cost of conducting experiments have increased, however, a devil’s bargain was struck; science became increasingly about the ability to exploit discoveries for profit.
Many of us are unaware that in the late 90’s, a race was being fought between groups of scientists over the mapping of the human genome. One group was made up of scientists earnest about unlocking the secrets of DNA, wanting to share their data with the world. The other group was privately funded, and their interest was in the ability to use this information to establish patents on something most of us have taken for granted: our genetic information.
Because no one company was able to patent the human genome, companies have been busy patenting specific harmful anomalies in our genome that cause illnesses. Genetic Technologies in Australia managed to be issued a patent for a very specific form of epilepsy, which causes Dravet Syndrome. Because the company owns the patent, hospitals are not allowed to conduct any test for this specific type of epilepsy, for fear of being sued by the patent holders. To bypass this patent, hospitals are sending off samples to hospitals in other countries for testing if their symptoms resemble Dravet Syndrome, but they are not allowed to do any of these tests in house.
There’s apparently some debate raging as to what the ethical implications of patenting genetic sequences in any living organism, but it’s becoming obvious that the debate is just a smoke screen. There should be no debate over whether human being should be allowed to develop treatments and cures for diseases that cause misery, pain and death. Genetic Technologies refusal to allow testing is due to their fear that other companies will discover some new way of combating Dravet syndrome and that their investment might be threatened by it. There is no clearer example of placing profits over people. It doesn’t help that the victims in this circumstance are children that are not properly diagnosed.
We are just now beginning to see the effects of these ridiculous patent laws. Research will continue to suffer so long as these patent trolls seek to endlessly control the flow of innovation and ideas. That any company could be so callous does not surprise me; what does is when we are silent partners in these travesties. Governments issue patents, but we in turn ARE the government. We seem to have forgotten this recently, and this may cost us dearly in the end.
Imagine every Nobel winning scientists went on record to say that a giant asteroid was headed for planet Earth, and that in 30 years, it would impact, killing all life on the planet. How many people would go on television and say that more data needed to be collected before we took action? How many would claim that asteroid impacts are a natural part of the Earth’s history and not an issue for concern.None obviously. Humanity would more than likely unite to avoid this catastrophe, pouring money, time and effort into the endeavor. I doubt any governments would be concerned over the loss of jobs or the economy when faced with the prospect of instant annihilation.
Global warming isn’t as dramatic as this example. It’s also highly unlikely that it would wipe out all life on this planet. But there is reason for great concern. The fact that the changes are gradual and slow undermines the fact that the long term impacts may be devastating.
I’ve heard the accusation from climate change deniers for years now that environmentalism is akin to religious dogmatism. It’s true that for some, there is a sort of primitive Shinto like mysticism that creeps into the discussion on global warming. But to characterize the entire movement as little more than religious indoctrination is doing a giant disservice to all of the science done on the subject for over 30 years.
Nature worship is nothing new. Even without the modern environmental movement, there have always been individuals that place great emphasis on the importance of the natural world in the continued prosperity of mankind. There’s an almost surreal power an elegance to it, and it’s not unheard of for scientists to wax poetic on its beauty. But it would be unfair to accuse this of resembling religion, simply because the information we have concerning global warming is the result of solid scientific data and not romanticism.
Climate change deniers like to point out that the earth’s average temperature is always in a state of flux. We’ve had countless periods of warming and cooling in the long history of the planet, and their argument is that we are simply experiencing a natural warming of the environment because of these cycles. It sounds logical, but this is assuming that the natural world resembles what it has in the past. You need only look out your window to know that human beings have had a considerable impact on changing the face of the Earth, and that it hasn’t been without consequence.
How much of an impact is still a matter of debate, but there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is a direct result of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere as a result of human activity. It’s only difficult for some to believe because of the seemingly massive size of the planet. How, they ask, could we have any impact if the Earth is just so big?
How important are greenhouse gases?
Carl Sagan said that if the earth was the size of a basketball, the atmosphere would be no thicker than a coat of varnish. This thin layer is all that stands between us and the cold regions of space. To know how significant such a thin atmosphere is, one need only look at our two neighboring planets to understand just how important that “coat of varnish” really is.
Consider Mars. Although it’s less than a third of the mass of the Earth, at one point in time Mars looked somewhat similar to our own planet. We know for a fact that it had water canals and an atmosphere similar to ours. The gravity of the planet, and the lack of a magnetosphere, however, was not enough to keep the atmosphere of Mars from gradually fading off into space, and the result is the cold dead planet we see today. Although an atmosphere does still exists, there is too little to keep any much warmth, and the result are wild fluctuations in temperature. It can go from lows of minus -150 to 20 degrees Celsius.
Venus, on the other hand, is more closely resembles the earth in both density and size, but is a far more alien world that Mars, due mostly to it’s unique atmosphere which is 92 times more dense than ours. The pressure on the surface is massive; the same were we 1 kilometer deep in water. It’s made mostly of carbon dioxide, which is a major greenhouse gas. It’s this gas that allows the planet to reach temperatures of over 460 degree Celsius, more than double the heat that a modern stove can produce. The surface of Venus is hot enough that there is no water, and it’s rocky surface is always semi-molten.
These two planet’s temperatures are extreme compared to ours, but their relative distance from the sun is less important that the combination of the density of their atmospheres, and the amount of greenhouse gases they possess.
Although it’s true that carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere is in constant flux, we do know that it has never been higher than in any other time in Earth’s history (we know this because of ice samples in the arctic dating back millions of years). The conclusion that this is the result of human activity can be made simply due to the level of carbon being burned and released in the atmosphere every day.
It’s not enough to convince Ian Plimer, however. Apparently, all scientific data concerning climate change is simply the result of dogmatism, and not serious analysis and observation. This professor is convinced that the warming of the earth actually represents a boon to us, citing that warmer climate typically means a greater abundance of life. What he fails to realize is that previous climate changes have occurred more gradually, and it is the sudden change that is so concerning. Many animal species are dying because the changes are happening faster than they can adapt.
It would be naive to assume, even if these changes did not lead to a global catastrophe, that humans would remain unaffected. Although I don’t deny that there has been a great deal of fear mongering on the part of some environmentalists, it’s important to note that the major scientists that have been discussing it are relying on the strength of their data, and not on a quasi religious paradigm. There are fanatics that would use concern over the environment to promote their own agenda, but it does not mean that the data itself is fabricated. It simply means that the consequences are massive enough to warrant action.
I personally find it insulting that someone would compare belief in climate change to religion. Climate researchers are not clergymen trying to promote a specific agenda. This belies the work of serious scientists that search for answers in nature, and it undermines the serious skepticism and probing that is still occurring. It’s true that we are having a difficult time predicting what the effects of Global Warming will be. It could be catastrophic or benign. But it’s now reached a point where we are aware that not only is it happening, but that we are the cause. It would seem foolish to think that the impact will be only benign, and the call to action of these scientists is specifically to avoid complacency in the face of the potential for disaster.
It seems to me reasonable to assume that any major changes to the temperature of the Earth may have dire consequences. If this means that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, we have to consider the ramifications of our inaction.
I do want to say one last thing concerning environmentalism that Ian Pilmer touched on. There are some that have created a kind of nature cult. You can see these people living in mud huts and using their own feces to grow crops. These are members of society that want a complete and immediate change in the way we live our lives. They revere nature and find anything man-made deplorable. I don’t suggest we live as they do. I firmly believe that we have the ability to find technological solutions to this problem, and I believer in the power of innovation. But these cultists are right about one thing: we do need to change the way we live, otherwise, there is the chance that the change will be made for us.
If you want to know how to waste your time, then how about trying to prove to a rich creationist that transitional fossils exist. Adnan Oktar is a wealthy writer who is the Turkish equivalent of Richard Dawkins. He’s supposedly put up a trillion lira up (that roughly 7 million dollars), daring anyone to provide evidence of a transitional fossil.
Oktar released a book entitled “The Atlas of Creation”, which is the kind of junk writing you’d expect from someone who’s convinced that their bronze age book of magic must somehow be taken literally. In it, he argues that life has not evolved, and that the Koran is the only truly scientific text on the origin of species. Yeah, sounds like a real page turner, no?
Although I’m not usually inclined to judge a book by it’s cover, this guy looks more like a Colombian Drug Lord than a respected scientist. This is the same douche who pushed to have Dawkin’s site banned in Turkey, since he inevitably felt that your average adult would be unable to handle it.
You’re all welcome to try and point this jack hole in the direction of any serious scientific literature that’s come out on the subject in the past 60 years, but he’s convinced all the good stuff was done on the subject roughly 1400 years ago.
I received this letter from a fan of the podcast, who corrected me regarding a slight error we made on the last radio show:
“Hey guys,
I’ve been listening to the podcast for a while, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it!
I hope you guys don’t mind a respectful correction: I’ve just listened to your latest podcast, and Bonobos are apes, not monkeys. They are in the same genus as chimpanzees, and are as closely related to us as chimps are.
Please excuse what probably comes off as nit-picking, I’m a biology student specializing in primate taxonomy and behavior, and the differences between apes and monkeys are kind of my thing.
And yeah, they scissor. (If you’re looking for more info on them, Frans de Waal has a few good books.)
Keep up the great work on the podcast!
-Jason
Thanks for the kind word, Jason. I was totally speaking out of my ass when I said they scissor (for those of you with virgin ears, go look it up). Isn’t science great?
Keats’ conception of that idea took shape as a two-story building complete with stained-glass windows patterned after cosmic microwave background radiation and a liturgy based on the sounds of the Big Bang. The Atheon opened Sept. 27 at the Judah L. Magnes Museum in Berkeley, California.But, could science replace religion?
The question has intrigued both rationalists frustrated at the persistence of what they see as superstitious dogma, and religious believers — as well as all-purpose skeptics — unwilling to promote science, with its mixed and messy history, to a position of absolute authority.
Keats doesn’t claim to take sides, but says he just wants to give people a chance to think. In December, he’ll host a public discussion at the Atheon, with people invited to bring their own models. “It’s important that this Atheon not be seen as the only model. It’s one possibility. The best thing would be for people to engage these questions, and consider what form religion could take as science.”
If you want to know how to waste your time, then how about trying to 