That has got to hurt

Some great wipeouts (well as long as it's not you).

And an equally amazing ride

Just in case you missed this

Hope these keep you amused for a few minutes. Remember, keep the stoke and pass it on.

Science and nature

In an earlier posting I mentioned the National Geographic and how good it is and just to illustrate that statement I have included a few photographs taken from their site. Here I urge you to remember that these images come from their publication and their photographers, they are not mine (for full credits visit the site).

Here's something else, While at work I came across a recent article in a national newspaper by Professor Brian Cox, which I found quite interesting. The nature of this newspaper tends to mean that the articles are a very distilled view of any subject, but interesting none the less.

Article titled - SCIENCE OUR REAL SAVIOUR

The article is intended to show that in our current century we need science to help provide solutions to some very real problems i.e. climate change, health needs of our ageing population and security of our energy supply. The problem that Brian Cox highlights is that in the US there is a very strong anti-science biblical literalist movement. As a result of this movement religious belief is being confused with science teaching in the classroom, giving an odd view of our planets history, science and the ability to solve our problems.

As an example of how this group impacts our views consider the following.

30 percent of Texans agreed with this statement “ humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time” and greater than half disagreed with this statement “ human beings, as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals”. This highlights the battleground between science and religion in the US with regard to evolution. In case you were wondering, and it should be something that crosses your mind, the survey was conducted by Texas University.

Now it seems that these ideas are beginning to find their way into teaching in UK schools.

The reason science should be embraced is that “it is not a belief system with an agenda”. It is a system of learning about our world, the problems we encounter and methods to overcome our problems. It is also the best system we have for exploration of our environment and as a result when it provides evidence or solutions it is the system we should listen too.

Gallery

For those of you who have looked at the gallery page sorry there are only a few pictures there at the moment. I shall put more on as soon as I have managed to scan them in, probably a week or two from now.

The other new pages added today are basically to provide more details for anybody wishing to take a more in depth look at things. The bibliography will cover items I have discussed as well as books/articles I have read or am currently reading.

Finally here are two more surfing moments 1) billabong pro. 2) longboard riding from Joel Tudor

Sceptical of New Scientists?

There was a good series of articles in a recent edition of The New scientist (15/05/10) looking at the idea of deniers (who often believe they are sceptics but generally are not). As someone who is trained in environmental science I believe in the rigures and processes of good analytical and theoretical science and that it can find answers - not all answers, certainly not with absolute truth and that element of doubt means we must be alert to the possibility of changing our ideas. I’m not saying science doesn’t get things wrong, or that sometimes it is mislead, but a good scientist (sceptic) will follow the evidence to find the truth, even if it means it contradicts their initial position. As there’s a great deal to consider on this topic I shall probably look at it over a period of time, otherwise this piece could be too long and boring for one reading.

To start with lets look at the broad definition given in the first article (by Michael Shermer).

Sceptic - carefully considers the evidence for each (idea/claim) and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.

Denier - has a tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.

Clearly the definition given here of a sceptic must include all scientific investigation and the good scientist. I’m sure that there are scientists who are so entrenched in their ideas that they fall into the category of denier, and it is those scientists that can be considered “bad” and who can find themselves inadvertently useful to other deniers.

Michael Shermer suggests that “denial is typically driven by ideology or religious belief where the belief takes precedence over evidence”. You could use the phrase “what I believe is true and everything else is a lie” In this case a sceptic would add “... is a lie, until proven otherwise”

I could carry on along these lines but I’m sure you see the point. If you don’t could it be that you are a denier, or is it that I haven’t made a very good argument to persuade you (such a sceptic)

Calling all water users

For those of you who regularly use the beaches, sea and other coastal locations, there is really no excuse for not supporting these guys

Mission SAS

Surfers Against Sewage (SAS) campaign for clean, safe recreational water free from sewage effluents, toxic chemicals, nuclear waste and marine litter. SAS also campaign to protect surf spots from environmental damage, negative impacts on wave quality and to safeguard recreational water users right of access

The chances are that if you make use of any of this countries superb coastal facilities, be they natural or man-made, then you have probably benefited from the work of these committed people

Check out their website and help out any way you can. Remember it's not just surfers and it's not just sewage

On a different note

I have recently subscribed to National Geographic magazine and I must say that I can only urge everyone else to do the same, if for no other reason than to view some of the stunning photography. Although I don’t necessarily like all the subjects of each photo, every one always seems to be vibrant, full of atmosphere and emotion - just stunning. The articles are pretty good also, there’s always a couple of gripping articles in every issue.

Finally here's something for fun. Mike Parsons on an extremely large wave, enjoy

Two boys, well how likely is that?

Here’s a little something I found intriquing in The New Scientist 29 May 2010.

“I have two children. One is a boy born on a Tuesday. What is the probability I have two boys?”

Initially you think “What has Tuesday got to do with it”

I will now tell you that Tuesday has everything to do with it.

I shall leave you to ponder this for a while and return to it at a later date.