Richard Littlemore, one of the authors of Climate Cover-Up will be speaking tonight at Selam Restaurant (2115 Broad St). His talk runs from 7 to 9pm and the event is free.
This should be a nice palate cleanser after last year's assault of the climate crack-pots courtesy the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Littlemore is an environmental journalist who's worked at newspapers such as the Ottawa Citizen and the Winnipeg Tribune. He's also one of the minds behind DeSmog Blog, an invaluable resource for anyone interested in finding out about the climate change denial industry and its efforts to obstruct the work of legitimate scientists.
For our climate change feature, we interviewed Littlemore's Climate Cover-Up co-author, James Hoggan. You can read the complete transcript of that interview here.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
2.03.2010
12.12.2009
Saturday Morning 'Toon: Climate Change Edition
A little animation on how the climate tipping point works.
12.04.2009
James Hoggan on Climate Change Denial Industry
The CRU e-mail scandal broke while I was working on that climate change article in the latest issue. It kind of ended up hijacking everything I was writing. Not necessarily a bad thing. It's a complete gong show, sure, which the media has -- as usual -- completely bungled. But, the hacked e-mails are a perfect example of the ridiculous extremes to which the denier crowd is willing to go to discredit climate science. It became a nice little case study in how the denial industry works.
Unfortunately, though, I wound up not using nearly as much interview material as I would've liked. For instance, my interview with James Hoggan was awesome but I only ended up taking a couple quotes from it. So, here for all to read, is a transcript of my interview with him. It's very good (because of Jim's answers, not my questions). Here's a sample....
Read the full James Hoggan interview.
Unfortunately, though, I wound up not using nearly as much interview material as I would've liked. For instance, my interview with James Hoggan was awesome but I only ended up taking a couple quotes from it. So, here for all to read, is a transcript of my interview with him. It's very good (because of Jim's answers, not my questions). Here's a sample....
prairie dog: Your book gives a good overview of the state of climate denial in Canada. But I came away feeling like Canada is a real hotbed for denial. Are we really the centre of the denial industry?James Hoggan, by the way, is the author of Climate Cover-Up, which details how the fossil fuel industry supports a massive, decentralized climate-change denial industry. It's a scary but important book. By day, Hoggan is a public relations consultant and he is also one of the founders of DeSmog Blog, an essential source for those who want to track the misdeeds of the deniers.
James Hoggan: No. The Americans are by far. They’re the ones who set up the echo chambers. In the States, you see it working much better than it does in Canada where you have more of a loose connection. But in the United States, you have this powerful combination of the extreme right religious movement, the libertarians, basically just contrarians, vested interests, then you have this extreme right-wing media, and en masse you have massive numbers of Glen Becks and Fox News and the list just goes on and on. Those are the extreme right-wing guys, then you have these libertarians who are in the media as well. So the echo chamber down there is really very impressive. And for some reason, a lot of these libertarians and extreme right-wing groups have joined forces with the anti-science interests that are working for business. And I think it’s because they’re just anti-government. We have those kind of people in Canada but not in the organized way they do in the States.
Read the full James Hoggan interview.
12.01.2009
Climate Change Debate Starts at 6pm
If you're reading this post roughly around the time I'm posting it, the 2009 Munk Debate starts in about 15 minutes so you still have enough time to sign up and watch it live on-line.
As mentioned in this post, the subject of the debate is climate change and it pits George Monbiot of the Guardian and Elizabeth May of the Canadian Green Party against Bjorn Lomborg the "Skeptical" Environmentalist and Nigel Lawson.
UPDATE: Debate has started. It is also streaming live at Grist.com , The Mark News, The Globe and Mail, The Canada Int'l Council.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Why isn't Elizabeth May our PM? She is kicking Bjorn Lomborg's ass.
LAST UPDATE [8:10PM]: Wow. Lomborg's diabolical sophistry was a thing of monstrous, evil beauty. I no longer think of him as a "soft-in-the-middle" sceptic. He may be one of the most dangerous sceptics out there. Bravo to May for taking him to task repeatedly. She scored the best debating point of the night when she demanded to know why it is that he and his think tank, while claiming to want to come up with solutions for the poor of the world, were silent when $4trillion was spent bailing out the banks and only ever seem to decry spending money on climate change mitigation. She went on to accuse him of being a propagandist. Lomborg shouted her down and came on all slick and lizardy but never answered her questions.
Without a doubt though, Monbiot was brilliant and while I think May made some of the best points on the Pro side, Monbiot was the most persuasive speaker of the night.
As for Lawson... a blithering idiot. When the debate veered into discussion of peak oil, he demonstrated that despite being a policymaker at one point in the UK government, he doesn't understand even the simplest points of the energy scarcity issue.
I suspect this debate will be available for viewing via the Munk Debate website. I can't say watching it was enjoyable. But I did come away with a greater respect for May and Monbiot.
As mentioned in this post, the subject of the debate is climate change and it pits George Monbiot of the Guardian and Elizabeth May of the Canadian Green Party against Bjorn Lomborg the "Skeptical" Environmentalist and Nigel Lawson.
UPDATE: Debate has started. It is also streaming live at Grist.com , The Mark News, The Globe and Mail, The Canada Int'l Council.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Why isn't Elizabeth May our PM? She is kicking Bjorn Lomborg's ass.
LAST UPDATE [8:10PM]: Wow. Lomborg's diabolical sophistry was a thing of monstrous, evil beauty. I no longer think of him as a "soft-in-the-middle" sceptic. He may be one of the most dangerous sceptics out there. Bravo to May for taking him to task repeatedly. She scored the best debating point of the night when she demanded to know why it is that he and his think tank, while claiming to want to come up with solutions for the poor of the world, were silent when $4trillion was spent bailing out the banks and only ever seem to decry spending money on climate change mitigation. She went on to accuse him of being a propagandist. Lomborg shouted her down and came on all slick and lizardy but never answered her questions.
Without a doubt though, Monbiot was brilliant and while I think May made some of the best points on the Pro side, Monbiot was the most persuasive speaker of the night.
As for Lawson... a blithering idiot. When the debate veered into discussion of peak oil, he demonstrated that despite being a policymaker at one point in the UK government, he doesn't understand even the simplest points of the energy scarcity issue.
I suspect this debate will be available for viewing via the Munk Debate website. I can't say watching it was enjoyable. But I did come away with a greater respect for May and Monbiot.
11.30.2009
Canada: A Corrupt Petrostate
The 2009 Munk Debate will be held tomorrow night. The Globe and Mail is having some kind of pre-debate show live streaming "chatty" type-a-thingy on it's website where you can send in questions. And you can sign up to watch the debate free on the web at the Munk Debate website.
This year's debate will see climate liars... er... "sceptics" Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson face Guardian science columnist, George Monbiot and Green Party leader, Elizabeth May.
Should be interesting.
I don't know much about Lawson, but Lomborg is one of these soft-in-the-middle climate deniers. He's not like, say, Christopher Monckton who scoffs at the idea that people are warming the planet. Lomborg accepts the scientific consensus on this (up to a point), he just figures that based on his cost/benefit analysis, we would do better to invest in things like ending poverty instead of making massive investments in reducing carbon emissions.
Oh, and he also thinks that we should stay away from international treaties because we've been trying that route for 20 years and look where it's gotten us.
Gee, Bjorn, the lack of action on climate change couldn't have anything to do with chaps like yourself sowing discord and discouraging action on the subject, could it? You're not really being on the up and up when you say a particular solution won't work if you're the guy fucking with it?
As for the "feeding the poor instead of fixing climate change" thing.... it's a false dichotomy. We're not making such massive investments in solving the climate change problem that it's taking aid away from developing nations. In fact, all this line of reasoning he's been trotting out for the past decade has accomplished is to give developed nations (like ours) a good, compassionate-sounding rationale to not invest in reducing carbon emissions. Of course, we don't ever seem to make any corresponding investments in helping the developing world, either.
Still, Lomborg's style of scepticism is a tough one to debate as he'll be doing an end run around the moral highground. (I can almost hear him trilling, "All you care about is carbon. I care about people.") Plus, I think Lomborg's one of these guys who got into the denial game out of a desire to be thought clever and be loved. In a debate I could see him moderating his position just to stay on the audience's good side and to diffuse Monbiot and May's position.
Which brings me to Monbiot... Love his column. Can't say much more except that he has some choice things to say about Canada -- that, as the title of this post suggests, we're turning into a corrupt petrostate. And, I hasten to add, I agree with him.
And May... well... she sure would make a fine PM.
This year's debate will see climate liars... er... "sceptics" Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson face Guardian science columnist, George Monbiot and Green Party leader, Elizabeth May.
Should be interesting.
I don't know much about Lawson, but Lomborg is one of these soft-in-the-middle climate deniers. He's not like, say, Christopher Monckton who scoffs at the idea that people are warming the planet. Lomborg accepts the scientific consensus on this (up to a point), he just figures that based on his cost/benefit analysis, we would do better to invest in things like ending poverty instead of making massive investments in reducing carbon emissions.
Oh, and he also thinks that we should stay away from international treaties because we've been trying that route for 20 years and look where it's gotten us.
Gee, Bjorn, the lack of action on climate change couldn't have anything to do with chaps like yourself sowing discord and discouraging action on the subject, could it? You're not really being on the up and up when you say a particular solution won't work if you're the guy fucking with it?
As for the "feeding the poor instead of fixing climate change" thing.... it's a false dichotomy. We're not making such massive investments in solving the climate change problem that it's taking aid away from developing nations. In fact, all this line of reasoning he's been trotting out for the past decade has accomplished is to give developed nations (like ours) a good, compassionate-sounding rationale to not invest in reducing carbon emissions. Of course, we don't ever seem to make any corresponding investments in helping the developing world, either.
Still, Lomborg's style of scepticism is a tough one to debate as he'll be doing an end run around the moral highground. (I can almost hear him trilling, "All you care about is carbon. I care about people.") Plus, I think Lomborg's one of these guys who got into the denial game out of a desire to be thought clever and be loved. In a debate I could see him moderating his position just to stay on the audience's good side and to diffuse Monbiot and May's position.
Which brings me to Monbiot... Love his column. Can't say much more except that he has some choice things to say about Canada -- that, as the title of this post suggests, we're turning into a corrupt petrostate. And, I hasten to add, I agree with him.
And May... well... she sure would make a fine PM.
11.24.2009
Climate Change: Much Worse than Predicted
Earlier today, 26 of the world's leading climate scientists released a report entitled The Copenhagen Diagnosis. It's an update of what we have learned about global warming since the IPCC's fourth report in 2007.
What does it tell us? That climate change is accelerating beyond all expectations.
The report took over a year to complete, and here's some of the new evidence the authors have uncovered (I'm quoting the bullet points from the press release):
Yes, but how does that jive with what Lorne Gunter was squawking about in today's Leader Post? Well, it doesn't. Why? Because Gunter is hopelessly confused and misled on the science of climate change. (I say "confused and misled" because the alternative is that he's lying.)
Look, I just haven't got time right now to tear apart all of Gunter's latest nonsense. Suffice to say, that everytime I've gone off to fact check one of his anti-science screeds, I've found that his opinions are based on a misreading of scientific reality. Usually, all he is doing is parroting the talking points being issued from propaganda machines such as the Friends of Science.
I'll post more later. But in the meantime, you can read some actual science on climate change by reading the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Unlike this hacked-email circus Gunter was crowing about, this report is probably the most important thing you'll read about this year.
What does it tell us? That climate change is accelerating beyond all expectations.
The report took over a year to complete, and here's some of the new evidence the authors have uncovered (I'm quoting the bullet points from the press release):
- Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.
- Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
- Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.
- In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today’s levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
Yes, but how does that jive with what Lorne Gunter was squawking about in today's Leader Post? Well, it doesn't. Why? Because Gunter is hopelessly confused and misled on the science of climate change. (I say "confused and misled" because the alternative is that he's lying.)
Look, I just haven't got time right now to tear apart all of Gunter's latest nonsense. Suffice to say, that everytime I've gone off to fact check one of his anti-science screeds, I've found that his opinions are based on a misreading of scientific reality. Usually, all he is doing is parroting the talking points being issued from propaganda machines such as the Friends of Science.
I'll post more later. But in the meantime, you can read some actual science on climate change by reading the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Unlike this hacked-email circus Gunter was crowing about, this report is probably the most important thing you'll read about this year.
11.13.2009
SUPERMAN MAKES YOU SMART!
While anyone who peruses this blog on a regular basis is clearly aware that the stern, stoic and no-nonsense journalist-types you'll find around here have no use for meaningless diversions such as comic books (shut up, peanut gallery...), we may just have to re-evaluate our position--because apparently, they can make your kids s-m-r-t (Telegraph). So if you'll excuse me, I think I'll take the rest of the day off to get educated.
11.09.2009
Happy Birthday Carl Sagan
Astronomer, author and famed champion of science, Carl Sagan, would have been 75 today. (He died in 1996 of pneumonia brought on by myelodysplastic syndrome.) His PBS show Cosmos had a huge impact on me as did his book Demon Haunted World. They're a big part of why I can get a little ranty sometimes about the importance of approaching things rationally and not relying on more intuitive types of knowledge. As Sagan put it (in a line used in the video below), "I believe our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos."
Science is often condemned for being dry, dull, too hard, but Sagan was one of its most eloquent advocates, able to distill down to their essence the biggest ideas our species has come up with. He made science personal and inspiring.
Video from the Symphony of Science website.
Science is often condemned for being dry, dull, too hard, but Sagan was one of its most eloquent advocates, able to distill down to their essence the biggest ideas our species has come up with. He made science personal and inspiring.
Video from the Symphony of Science website.
11.07.2009
Saturday Morning Cartoons
October wasn't a great month for science. It ended with the media, the pundits and even the officials organizing it declaring the UN's upcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen a non-starter. The conference was supposed to lead to a treaty to follow up Kyoto but public and government support for any such agreement was effectively quelled by a very well funded anti-climate-science propaganda campaign. The prairie arm of that campaign came to Regina earlier in the month courtesy the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who gave us the bloviations of Christopher Monckton and a screening of the crockumentary, Not Evil Just Wrong. Meanwhile, the book SuperFreakonomics was released October 19 to great acclaim even though people who know a thing or two about climate science have pointed out that the authors, Levitt and Dubner, in their section on climate science reveal that they do not (know a thing or two about climate science).
So, while all the people working with evidence-based science are ringing alarm bells that the world could be in dire straits in the not-too-distant future thanks to global warming, those who are motivated by their own self-interest are sabotaging any effective action to deal with it.
Evidently, profit and ego are still guiding public policy. Science (especially under our current federal government) is relegated to the sidelines.
On a very different -- but very related -- topic, the H1N1 scare has lured the anti-vaccination kooks out into the limelight---- actually, you know what... let's not get started on that. We go there, next thing you know I'll be ranting about creationists and supply-side economics and I'll never get to the cartoon part of this Saturday morning post...
So, given that we're heading into a new Dark Age, I've been trying to cheer myself with They Might Be Giant's latest disc: Here Comes Science and consoling myself that maybe we can raise a generation to be less credulous. Yes, it's technically a kids album but I know a grown-up or 143 who would benefit from a listen. The cd is paired with a dvd of animated music videos many of which are being released online as podcasts --- and the animation on these things is really stellar. Here's the first video, "Science is Real", directed by David Cowles and Andy Kenney.
Back in the early nineties, I was a huge TMBG fan based mainly on the strength of the album Flood. I kind of lost track of them in the intervening years but whenever I'd check in they were still making strange, catchy pop. But their later stuff never really held my attention the way tunes like "Birdhouse in Your Soul" and "Ana Ng" did. I chalked it up to the "not being able to go back" factor.
Well, they're back in constant rotation at my house. Here Comes Science is a pop masterpiece -- seriously. And I'm not just saying that because I'm a parent now and seeking out not-suck for my daughter to listen to. This isn't just great kid's music. It's just great. And like I say, the animators they have creating the visuals to go with the music are all fantastic. Check out this piece of awesome, directed by Tiny Inventions....
A hunt for They Might Be Giants on YouTube will call up pretty much everything released online from the Here Comes Science album and I recommend checking it all out. Other highlights: "The Elements", "I Am A Paleontologist" and the diptych, "Why Does the Sun Shine" and "Why Does the Sun Really Shine".
So, while all the people working with evidence-based science are ringing alarm bells that the world could be in dire straits in the not-too-distant future thanks to global warming, those who are motivated by their own self-interest are sabotaging any effective action to deal with it.
Evidently, profit and ego are still guiding public policy. Science (especially under our current federal government) is relegated to the sidelines.
On a very different -- but very related -- topic, the H1N1 scare has lured the anti-vaccination kooks out into the limelight---- actually, you know what... let's not get started on that. We go there, next thing you know I'll be ranting about creationists and supply-side economics and I'll never get to the cartoon part of this Saturday morning post...
So, given that we're heading into a new Dark Age, I've been trying to cheer myself with They Might Be Giant's latest disc: Here Comes Science and consoling myself that maybe we can raise a generation to be less credulous. Yes, it's technically a kids album but I know a grown-up or 143 who would benefit from a listen. The cd is paired with a dvd of animated music videos many of which are being released online as podcasts --- and the animation on these things is really stellar. Here's the first video, "Science is Real", directed by David Cowles and Andy Kenney.
Back in the early nineties, I was a huge TMBG fan based mainly on the strength of the album Flood. I kind of lost track of them in the intervening years but whenever I'd check in they were still making strange, catchy pop. But their later stuff never really held my attention the way tunes like "Birdhouse in Your Soul" and "Ana Ng" did. I chalked it up to the "not being able to go back" factor.
Well, they're back in constant rotation at my house. Here Comes Science is a pop masterpiece -- seriously. And I'm not just saying that because I'm a parent now and seeking out not-suck for my daughter to listen to. This isn't just great kid's music. It's just great. And like I say, the animators they have creating the visuals to go with the music are all fantastic. Check out this piece of awesome, directed by Tiny Inventions....
A hunt for They Might Be Giants on YouTube will call up pretty much everything released online from the Here Comes Science album and I recommend checking it all out. Other highlights: "The Elements", "I Am A Paleontologist" and the diptych, "Why Does the Sun Shine" and "Why Does the Sun Really Shine".
9.12.2009
Cell Phones + Cars = Death!!
From the "Like I Need Another Reason to Hide Away from Civilization" file...
I spent some of today catching up on some of my favourite podcasts and last week, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe reported on a Stanford University study which found that not only are people incapable of multitasking, people who think they're good at multitasking and try to do it often are particularly bad at it. (More details at the Neurologica Blog.)
It seemed an interesting coincidence that this information was coming out now considering the provincial government is considering a ban on cellphone use by drivers.
Now, apparently science has known for a long time that a person can only have one thing going on in their brain at one time -- you can switch between things pretty quick, but as long as you're doing thing one (like, say, talking on a cellphone) you're not paying any attention to thing two (like, say, driving a car) -- no matter how evolved you think your brain is.
In other words, according to science, our brains are wired such that we can't multitask. It's not that some people are born with the multitasking gene while others are not so blessed. And it's not a skill you can develop with practice. We can't do two things at the same time. End of story. And, the irony unearthed by the Stanford study is that if you think you can multitask then you're someone who's particularly inept at switching between trains of thought.
So, all the people you know who say, "Oh, I can drive and talk on a cellphone at the same time," or "I'm really good at texting and driving," or "Don't worry about it, I've done this plenty," those are the people you've really got to watch out for because they're the ones who're going to get someone killed.
I spent some of today catching up on some of my favourite podcasts and last week, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe reported on a Stanford University study which found that not only are people incapable of multitasking, people who think they're good at multitasking and try to do it often are particularly bad at it. (More details at the Neurologica Blog.)
It seemed an interesting coincidence that this information was coming out now considering the provincial government is considering a ban on cellphone use by drivers.
Now, apparently science has known for a long time that a person can only have one thing going on in their brain at one time -- you can switch between things pretty quick, but as long as you're doing thing one (like, say, talking on a cellphone) you're not paying any attention to thing two (like, say, driving a car) -- no matter how evolved you think your brain is.
In other words, according to science, our brains are wired such that we can't multitask. It's not that some people are born with the multitasking gene while others are not so blessed. And it's not a skill you can develop with practice. We can't do two things at the same time. End of story. And, the irony unearthed by the Stanford study is that if you think you can multitask then you're someone who's particularly inept at switching between trains of thought.
So, all the people you know who say, "Oh, I can drive and talk on a cellphone at the same time," or "I'm really good at texting and driving," or "Don't worry about it, I've done this plenty," those are the people you've really got to watch out for because they're the ones who're going to get someone killed.
8.30.2009
Science > Religion: Quantum Physics Edition
If a tree un-fell in the forest, would we remember it?
Nope, says a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And he's supposedly got the math to prove it.
In what I assume is a deliberate attempt to make my head hurt, MIT physicist Lorenzo Maccone has attempted to solve the problem of the arrow of time.
The arrow of time, if I understand it right (fingers crossed here), describes a contradiction between events at the microscopic level, which (theoretically?) occur in the same way whether time is moving forwards or backwards, and events at the macroscopic level which occur in a different way depending on the flow of time.
For example, the tree falls when we're moving to the future. It doesn't fall if we're moving to the past--it lifts itself back up. Imagine a film of a tree falling, running in reverse. Like that.
Most importantly, the tree doesn't un-fall in the future.
Or does it? Maccone's math apparently suggests it often does. We just don't remember it because of our quantum entanglement with the system of time moving forward.
Maccone says events like a coffee cup heating up instead of cooling or a pane of glass un-shattering do happen, but our memory is erased by necessity. So says his math.
Hence my throbbing temples.
There's a Guardian story on this here. And the Wikipedia entry on Time's Arrow is here. Read 'em and you'll know as much as I do. Probably more--I don't need quantum disentanglement to not-remember insanely weird and complicated physics theories.
But actually, the only reason I'm posting this is for purposes of atheist propaganda.
My understanding, probably similar to yours, is that physicists conceive of the word in bizarro, science-fictionesque ways. I'm not the slightest bit able to understanding their ideas. But I do have respect for them. From what I understand of history, science, and technology, physics seems to have a good track record at bringing us dependable knowledge of the universe we live in. Physicists study time, gravity and the elegant dance of microscopic particles. And while physicists argue about their theories and conclusions, they have an established framework for hashing out their disagreements.
Most importantly, if they can't prove something they call it a theory and they welcome challenges to it. 'Coz that's how stuff gets figured out.
Compare this to religion. Multiple Millennia have passed and there's still no agreement on the nature of god, his motives, how his power works or what he wants. Just lots of argument and fear and hatred and killing in his name. And when something isn't understood? Apparently we're not even supposed to try to figure it out. "God works in mysterious ways."
Physics maps the universe and tries to understand/explain our place in it. It brings forward tentative answers and adjusts its ideas as new facts emerge. I find it meaningful and beautiful. Religion says personal belief is more important than knowledge and tunes out argument. It uses politics, wealth and bullying to get its way. It celebrates that which is crass and ignorant.
Physics is the smart, weird kid who enriches a classroom. I like that kid.
Religion is the out-of-control child throwing books at teachers and biting other students.
I wish I knew how to help.
Nope, says a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And he's supposedly got the math to prove it.
In what I assume is a deliberate attempt to make my head hurt, MIT physicist Lorenzo Maccone has attempted to solve the problem of the arrow of time.
The arrow of time, if I understand it right (fingers crossed here), describes a contradiction between events at the microscopic level, which (theoretically?) occur in the same way whether time is moving forwards or backwards, and events at the macroscopic level which occur in a different way depending on the flow of time.
For example, the tree falls when we're moving to the future. It doesn't fall if we're moving to the past--it lifts itself back up. Imagine a film of a tree falling, running in reverse. Like that.
Most importantly, the tree doesn't un-fall in the future.
Or does it? Maccone's math apparently suggests it often does. We just don't remember it because of our quantum entanglement with the system of time moving forward.
Maccone says events like a coffee cup heating up instead of cooling or a pane of glass un-shattering do happen, but our memory is erased by necessity. So says his math.
Hence my throbbing temples.
There's a Guardian story on this here. And the Wikipedia entry on Time's Arrow is here. Read 'em and you'll know as much as I do. Probably more--I don't need quantum disentanglement to not-remember insanely weird and complicated physics theories.
But actually, the only reason I'm posting this is for purposes of atheist propaganda.
My understanding, probably similar to yours, is that physicists conceive of the word in bizarro, science-fictionesque ways. I'm not the slightest bit able to understanding their ideas. But I do have respect for them. From what I understand of history, science, and technology, physics seems to have a good track record at bringing us dependable knowledge of the universe we live in. Physicists study time, gravity and the elegant dance of microscopic particles. And while physicists argue about their theories and conclusions, they have an established framework for hashing out their disagreements.
Most importantly, if they can't prove something they call it a theory and they welcome challenges to it. 'Coz that's how stuff gets figured out.
Compare this to religion. Multiple Millennia have passed and there's still no agreement on the nature of god, his motives, how his power works or what he wants. Just lots of argument and fear and hatred and killing in his name. And when something isn't understood? Apparently we're not even supposed to try to figure it out. "God works in mysterious ways."
Physics maps the universe and tries to understand/explain our place in it. It brings forward tentative answers and adjusts its ideas as new facts emerge. I find it meaningful and beautiful. Religion says personal belief is more important than knowledge and tunes out argument. It uses politics, wealth and bullying to get its way. It celebrates that which is crass and ignorant.
Physics is the smart, weird kid who enriches a classroom. I like that kid.
Religion is the out-of-control child throwing books at teachers and biting other students.
I wish I knew how to help.
8.13.2009
It's a Big Universe Out There
I don't want to be an alarmist, but this is a threat that we need to think seriously about addressing in the near future. It will happen at some point, guaranteed. If we're not prepared, we're fucked, plain and simple. (MSN)
8.04.2009
I'm Not Joking
If anyone's conducting a science experiment out there, we have a pound of margarine that's been sitting around the office in a less than air-tight container for almost three years now that you can have.
7.31.2009
Daily Moon: One Last One
Streaming into my iTunes today came the Quiet Village's Moon Episode, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Apollo XI mission. I'm listening to it right now. The Quiet Village, by the way, is my favourite tiki/lounge/exotica podcast. And, yes, I listen to enough of those to have a favourite.
Anyway, listening to all this space age music reminded me that I still have a pile of moon-themed advertisements scanned from that July 1969 Globe and Mail that I haven't posted yet. So here they are.
And while I was scanning all these, I happened to look over the movie listings and discovered that sandwiched in between decent fare like True Grit and Midnight Cowboy there were a few really dirty movies. Have a look...
The Miracle of Love. Inga. The Gay Deceivers. Yowza. And mom always said movies were so much more wholesome back in the day.
Anyway, listening to all this space age music reminded me that I still have a pile of moon-themed advertisements scanned from that July 1969 Globe and Mail that I haven't posted yet. So here they are.
And while I was scanning all these, I happened to look over the movie listings and discovered that sandwiched in between decent fare like True Grit and Midnight Cowboy there were a few really dirty movies. Have a look...
The Miracle of Love. Inga. The Gay Deceivers. Yowza. And mom always said movies were so much more wholesome back in the day.
7.28.2009
Midnight Mind-Blown
Okay, so now bacteria can be programmed to solve mathematical problems. Right. And they're faster than computers. Okay.
That's it, science has officially melted my puny little mind.
Full story here, at the Guardian--the newspaper Rex Murphy Dares Not Read.
That's it, science has officially melted my puny little mind.
Full story here, at the Guardian--the newspaper Rex Murphy Dares Not Read.
7.27.2009
Rex Murphy: A Second Opinion
He's a contrarian asshole. No, seriously.
How's that for a second opinion?
By disputing climate change in Canada's paper of record based on his (irrelevent) personal observations of local weather conditions and on Ian Plimer's discredited anti climate change book book Heaven + Earth, Rex Murphy casts doubt on what scientific consensus says is a clear and present danger to civilization that requires immediate action.
Murphy's article is appalling. It's like defending smoking as harmless. In fact it's worse, because unlike smoking, climate change is a threat to our standard of living, our civilization and possibly our species.
There's just too much at stake to let Murphy's column pass without comment. First, about Plimer's book, which Rex Murphy is enamoured with. Is it any good? Not according to this July 10 column by the Guardian's science editor, George Monbiot:
You can read the full thing here. Monbiot's column is a rebuke to a British newspaper, The Spectator, that published a glowing feature about Plimer's crappy book.
Second, if we're going to throw around anecdotes about weather, here's one that's worth a little more than Murphy's. It's from Canadian astronaut Bob Thirsk, who's currently enjoying the view from the International Space Station. Thirsk, who was last in space over a decade ago, has some observations:
"This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time."
You can read the full story with that quote here (Montreal Gazette). Thirsk's "perception", incidentally, agrees with U.S. satellite photos which Dechene posted about earlier today.
The science editors and astronauts agree: we've got a global warming problem, Houston. Too bad a few days of mellow weather and a crappy book convinced a Globe And Mail columnist there's nothing to worry about.
How's that for a second opinion?
By disputing climate change in Canada's paper of record based on his (irrelevent) personal observations of local weather conditions and on Ian Plimer's discredited anti climate change book book Heaven + Earth, Rex Murphy casts doubt on what scientific consensus says is a clear and present danger to civilization that requires immediate action.
Murphy's article is appalling. It's like defending smoking as harmless. In fact it's worse, because unlike smoking, climate change is a threat to our standard of living, our civilization and possibly our species.
There's just too much at stake to let Murphy's column pass without comment. First, about Plimer's book, which Rex Murphy is enamoured with. Is it any good? Not according to this July 10 column by the Guardian's science editor, George Monbiot:
"Seldom has a book been as cleanly murdered by scientists as Ian Plimer's Heaven + Earth, which purports to show that man-made climate change is nonsense. Since its publication in Australia it has been ridiculed for a hilarious series of schoolboy errors, and its fudging and manipulation of the data."
You can read the full thing here. Monbiot's column is a rebuke to a British newspaper, The Spectator, that published a glowing feature about Plimer's crappy book.
Second, if we're going to throw around anecdotes about weather, here's one that's worth a little more than Murphy's. It's from Canadian astronaut Bob Thirsk, who's currently enjoying the view from the International Space Station. Thirsk, who was last in space over a decade ago, has some observations:
"This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time."
You can read the full story with that quote here (Montreal Gazette). Thirsk's "perception", incidentally, agrees with U.S. satellite photos which Dechene posted about earlier today.
The science editors and astronauts agree: we've got a global warming problem, Houston. Too bad a few days of mellow weather and a crappy book convinced a Globe And Mail columnist there's nothing to worry about.
U.S. Spies Prove Climate Deniers Wrong
Following up on this post, one of Ian Plimer's many ridiculous claims in Heaven and Earth is this one:
Well, as is being reported in the Guardian, the Obama administration has recently declassified a whole whack of satellite photos of the arctic, and the photo evidence is undeniable: arctic and glacial ice is retreating at an alarming pace. (More on that story here. And a really scary gallery of photos here.)
How could Plimer (and by extension Rex Murphy) get things so wrong? Well, as Enting points out, the first sentence in that quote above doesn't follow from the second. Plimer, it seems, is confusing speed with acceleration. The source he's using there did indeed show that glacial melting is not speeding up from year to year. But that glacial melt isn't accelerating doesn't mean that it isn't happening. In fact, that's exactly what Plimer's source shows (and the spy satellite pictures prove once again): Glacial ice is reteating at a steady (a more literate columnist might say "inexorable") pace.
The good news is that alpine valley glaciers are not retreating. Measurements of retreats and advances from glaciers in the period 1946–1995 for 246 glaciers show that there is no sign of any recent global trend towards increased glacier melting.It leaves one with the impression that we've little to worry as the world's glaciers aren't disappearing.
Well, as is being reported in the Guardian, the Obama administration has recently declassified a whole whack of satellite photos of the arctic, and the photo evidence is undeniable: arctic and glacial ice is retreating at an alarming pace. (More on that story here. And a really scary gallery of photos here.)
How could Plimer (and by extension Rex Murphy) get things so wrong? Well, as Enting points out, the first sentence in that quote above doesn't follow from the second. Plimer, it seems, is confusing speed with acceleration. The source he's using there did indeed show that glacial melting is not speeding up from year to year. But that glacial melt isn't accelerating doesn't mean that it isn't happening. In fact, that's exactly what Plimer's source shows (and the spy satellite pictures prove once again): Glacial ice is reteating at a steady (a more literate columnist might say "inexorable") pace.
Message to Rex Murphy: Cut That Out Right This Minute
Yet more evidence that having a really marvelous grasp of the English language doesn't mean you actually know anything -- or, rather, that critique is not the same as analysis: in his Globe And Mail column last week, Rex Murphy attempted to make the case that global warming isn't happening. His evidence? He stepped outside, apparently. I guess if things are chilly in Toronto then so goes the globe.
It's a loathsome position Mr Murphy is staking out for himself but fortunately it's one he should find he's rather isolated in. I have to wonder if he knows what he's getting himself into. Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, George Noory. Not exactly the class of people I expect Rex is used to palling around with. What will they talk about? He'll have to buy all his new chums pocket dictionaries.
But that's the hell he's condemned himself to.
Thing is, while having such an eloquent voice out shilling for the forces of ignorance is a VERY dangerous thing, I can't help but feel a little sorry for the cranky ol'coot from Newfoundland (my current favourite province, I should note). It seems he has fallen under the spell of one of those lengthy tomes of shoddy, conservative-pleasing, quasi-science that pop up in airport bookstores now and then: Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - the Missing Science. It's over 500 pages long, has a raft of citations throughout and has both a colon and an N-dash in the title, I can see how Rex might be tricked into thinking it's legit.
As it turns out, it's anything but.
You can find a list of rebuttals of Plimer's book here. A particularly good one is a point-by-point analysis by mathematical physicist Ian Enting. The thrust of his critique is that Plimer's work has numerous internal inconsistencies and that despite extensive referencing, his more controversial claims lack citation or the contents of his reference are mis-quoted.
In short, Plimer never actually manages to prove that humans aren't causing climate change but that fact is obfuscated by all his misleading assertions, phony references and deceptively rendered graphs.
Meanwhile, Rex Murphy calls the book "fearless" and practically dares us to read it. Which, admittedly, I won't be doing. But then, I haven't read any of the more recent works on UFO research, homeopathy or cryptozoology but still I'm confident they're crap.
It's a loathsome position Mr Murphy is staking out for himself but fortunately it's one he should find he's rather isolated in. I have to wonder if he knows what he's getting himself into. Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, George Noory. Not exactly the class of people I expect Rex is used to palling around with. What will they talk about? He'll have to buy all his new chums pocket dictionaries.
But that's the hell he's condemned himself to.
Thing is, while having such an eloquent voice out shilling for the forces of ignorance is a VERY dangerous thing, I can't help but feel a little sorry for the cranky ol'coot from Newfoundland (my current favourite province, I should note). It seems he has fallen under the spell of one of those lengthy tomes of shoddy, conservative-pleasing, quasi-science that pop up in airport bookstores now and then: Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - the Missing Science. It's over 500 pages long, has a raft of citations throughout and has both a colon and an N-dash in the title, I can see how Rex might be tricked into thinking it's legit.
As it turns out, it's anything but.
You can find a list of rebuttals of Plimer's book here. A particularly good one is a point-by-point analysis by mathematical physicist Ian Enting. The thrust of his critique is that Plimer's work has numerous internal inconsistencies and that despite extensive referencing, his more controversial claims lack citation or the contents of his reference are mis-quoted.
In short, Plimer never actually manages to prove that humans aren't causing climate change but that fact is obfuscated by all his misleading assertions, phony references and deceptively rendered graphs.
Meanwhile, Rex Murphy calls the book "fearless" and practically dares us to read it. Which, admittedly, I won't be doing. But then, I haven't read any of the more recent works on UFO research, homeopathy or cryptozoology but still I'm confident they're crap.
7.19.2009
Daily Moon: Walter Cronkite Memorial Edition
Back from Saskatoon! Good to be home.
Well, it's a little rah-rah-U.S.A.! for my tastes but I always liked newsman Walter Cronkite, who passed away yesterday so what the hell. Here's 90 seconds of Cronkite reflecting on his coverage of the moon landing, ripped from the youtoob.
Dechene mentioned something special he's got so I'm hoping he'll put that up as tomorrow's Daily Moon. We'll see!
Well, it's a little rah-rah-U.S.A.! for my tastes but I always liked newsman Walter Cronkite, who passed away yesterday so what the hell. Here's 90 seconds of Cronkite reflecting on his coverage of the moon landing, ripped from the youtoob.
Dechene mentioned something special he's got so I'm hoping he'll put that up as tomorrow's Daily Moon. We'll see!
5.20.2009
Isotope Embarrassment
As LaRose pointed out in the post below this, the Chalk River nuclear facility has been shut down once again. This time because its aging reactor was leaking heavy water. (Again.)
This would be the same nuclear facility the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission wanted to keep closed for more maintenance back in 2007 out of concerns that the reactor might not be safe.
Former CNSC president, Linda Keen, told parliament that the odds that the reactor could fail were one in a thousand. That's one one-thousandth the international standard of one chance in a million. And that means you're 15 times more likely to see a reactor failure in Chalk River than you are to win the Regina Public Library home lottery.
Probabilities can be scary that way.
That Linda Keen, by the way, is the same CNSC president Stephen Harper had fired for being "a Liberal appointee" who wanted to keep the facility shut down for some inscrutable political purpose. Apparently, it didn't occur to him that Keen could simply be a cautious public servant trained in science who was employing science to scientifically assess the risk of a public facility going boom.
Or maybe it did. We all know what our PM thinks about science. Either way, he passed an emergency bill through parliament and had the reactor fired back up.
And here we are, two years later and it looks like maybe that Keen lady was on to something after all.
Of course, what's the big deal about a little spilt heavy water, right? The leak's been caught and is being fixed so clearly they're on top of things down there in Chalk River. Well, maybe, except it turns out the leak was only spotted after the reactor automatically shut down due to a power failure.
So when they speak of finding the heavy water leak, they might want to consider employing the adverb "inadvertently".
And, just to ladle a little local coincidence onto this, the Chalk River shutdown happened on the very same day the Leader Post launched their puffy, feel-good nuclear lovefest series. "Are nuclear reactors really safe?" wonders the headline of their first installment. It's a good question.
This would be the same nuclear facility the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission wanted to keep closed for more maintenance back in 2007 out of concerns that the reactor might not be safe.
Former CNSC president, Linda Keen, told parliament that the odds that the reactor could fail were one in a thousand. That's one one-thousandth the international standard of one chance in a million. And that means you're 15 times more likely to see a reactor failure in Chalk River than you are to win the Regina Public Library home lottery.
Probabilities can be scary that way.
That Linda Keen, by the way, is the same CNSC president Stephen Harper had fired for being "a Liberal appointee" who wanted to keep the facility shut down for some inscrutable political purpose. Apparently, it didn't occur to him that Keen could simply be a cautious public servant trained in science who was employing science to scientifically assess the risk of a public facility going boom.
Or maybe it did. We all know what our PM thinks about science. Either way, he passed an emergency bill through parliament and had the reactor fired back up.
And here we are, two years later and it looks like maybe that Keen lady was on to something after all.
Of course, what's the big deal about a little spilt heavy water, right? The leak's been caught and is being fixed so clearly they're on top of things down there in Chalk River. Well, maybe, except it turns out the leak was only spotted after the reactor automatically shut down due to a power failure.
So when they speak of finding the heavy water leak, they might want to consider employing the adverb "inadvertently".
And, just to ladle a little local coincidence onto this, the Chalk River shutdown happened on the very same day the Leader Post launched their puffy, feel-good nuclear lovefest series. "Are nuclear reactors really safe?" wonders the headline of their first installment. It's a good question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)