Just dreaming

Nothing much to write about today. I've just been working at home at letting my mind wander to more important things. Take a look at this to know what I'm talking about.

Yes, I do have one more thing, my bibliography should be up and running from tomorrow, and so should the details page (where I talk about or explain some of the issues I've mentioned, but with more detail and research)

Scrubbing

Here's some environmental thoughts from an article in National Geographic.

Scrubbing the skies to remove CO₂ seems to be one of the next great ideas currently being promoted in relation to climate change. It seems to make sense. If CO₂ as a major green-house gas and being direclty linked with human activity is one of the reasons for global warming, then it seems reasonable that finding a way to remove the excess of CO₂ from the atmosphere must surely be a good thing. The Nat Geo article in the August 2010 issue explains some of the ideas behind the proposed technology and shows a method currently being considered. Now while I agree with the idea a few alarm bells began to ring while reading this article and one of my biggest fears became reality in the final paragraph. I shall explain further.

The whole proposal seemed to be an excellent idea but my one big fear was that we would view this technology as a solution rather than part of a cure, and that because we could remove the CO₂, then we would not need to change our bad habits. I believed that surely somebody intelligent enough to come up with this technology would not be so short-sighted as to believe their ideas were sufficient, but I was wrong. In the final paragraph of the article are the words “jet travel would become guilt free again. We could keep our cars and gas stations - no need for a whole new hydrogen- or electric powered infrastructure. Subversive thought: We could keep our lifestyles. That’s historically what we’ve done”. Surely we should be looking to the future and making all the changes necessary, not looking to the past, or simply fixing each problem as it arises. Have greater vision and consider many possibilities, even consider how our actions may cause new problems in the future and do something about it now. Just because historically we have always taken one course of action, it does not make it right.

If you read the article you will note that they talk about removing the CO₂ and then we can do this with it, or put it there, or store it. Never at any point to they suggest that consideration has been given to the consequences of storing it in one place or another. What would be the long term consequences, would we be passing on new problems. The options they offer may well be viable, they may well be the only ones we have at present, but at the very least show that you are aware that we may be passing on problems for the future by solving our own current ones

Talking of National Geographic, here's another photograph.

And just for any surfers who haven't been surfing recently, i.e. me

Finally:

Look around the day, I’m alive on being around where waves come sailing with curls all flying, yeah I spend a lot of time inside the world of delightful rain and the whirling wind blows its song around the bay, and the wind knows my name.

Peter Howe “I’m alive”

Surf forecast

I have added a surf forecast for Cayton bay at the bottom of the page. This comes from the excellent Magicseaweed site, a site I suggest you take a look at, especially if you want any surf gear as their products and service are second to none. Plug over, now enjoy

My path

The surfer’s path is the path that I try to follow, not so much by choice but more through need. Read this statement and you may understand.

Surfers are dreamers. We ride waves through the day, then we re-ride them in our sleep and mind-surf  them in our daydreams. These little flashbacks keep us going through the flat spells and dry times inevitably encountered in “real life”

Fuelling these dreams are visions of perfection. Perfect waves are what we all want, and so we travel - monthly, twice a year, annually or whenever we can afford it. One thing is for certain, regular surf missions are essential.

However we do it, we surfers are doing what so many others can’t seem to achieve in their lives - we’re making daydreams happen - we’re hunting for our own kinds of perfection, and sometimes we actually find it.

Our paths might just be local, or they might take us across the world, but either way there’s no doubt we are some of the luckiest people around in a world full of beauty, diversity and maybe endless perfect waves.

Who knows what it means to be a surfer? Perhaps it’s something in our exposure and connection to the passions of nature that makes our lives wildly different from those of the uninitiated. One thing we know for sure: we want those perfect waves ... and those perfect moments we find along the way. Like the pilgrim or the holy man,we follow our own roads to our perfection. Call it what you will, it is known as the surfer’s path.

For those of you in the know, it is also a very good magazine, one that is based on sound environmental/sustainable principles, with some fabulous images.

Most surfers are very environmentally aware, maybe because of our close link to the movements and cycles of nature, and as such we all try to do all that we can. It is a great source of angst to many of us that the passion we have also happens to be a bad example of sound environmental principles i.e. travel (especially by air), surf board & wet-suit manufacture. But it goes beyond individual needs and many surfers passionately support environmental organisations such as Surfrider Foundation, Surfer’s Against Sewage and Save Our Surf

And just because

Finally an inspirational thought:

There is great happiness in not wanting, in not being something, in not going somewhere.

What sceptic?

Following on from my previous observations about deniers here is a quick look at some well known denial subjects and consideration of how much influence they may have. Again taken from the same Michael Shermer article.

Climate denial - when considering global warming the deniers tend to claim i) It isn’t real ii) It isn’t caused by human activity iii) It doesn’t matter. These people tend to call themselves climate sceptics, even when the majority of evidence suggest they are wrong. Unfortunately they can have a great deal of influence, especially when dealing with the non-scientific community (this will be discussed at a later date)

Evolution denial - the basis of this denial is that the theory of evolution is an atheist conspiracy to undermine religion. Again these deniers (creationists or intelligent design advocates) can be a  strong and active lobbyists group and exert a great deal of influence.

As an environmental scientist and atheist these are the two groups of denial that are of most interest to me. While I find their stance on such issues puzzling I must state that I have no problem with them having different views to my own. However I do have a problem with the fact that no amount of evidence or argument will ever change their view. Generally when dealing with such groups it is important to consider their starting point and what they are trying to achieve or protect.   Often denial is driven by an overtly political agenda. As an atheist I believe each person should be free to believe whatever they chose, and if a religious person came to me with proof of God then I would be forced to reconsider my position - until that time an atheist I shall stay.

One of the points made in this special report in an article by Debora Mackenzie suggests that many instances of denialism comes from people fighting a sense of loss of control and as a means to stand up to “experts”. She goes on to note that denials most futile ground is in areas where scientific knowledge must be taken on trust. This knowledge is often delivered by scientists, doctors or technical experts who can often appear to be arrogant to the lay-man. In the end however, the denialists will use the language of science to give their arguments more credence, but closer examination shows that the denialist has no solid foundation for such arguments, just anecdotal evidence and emotional appeal.

And now for something completely different:

Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful we must carry it with us, or we find it not

And talking of beautiful, how about this image (Nat. Geo.)

Invisible cats

Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis which helps to explain why I have so much problem with people who argue for religion.

C.S.Lewis noted that some arguments are impossible to refute. “A belief in invisible cats cannot be logically disproved.” he said, although it does “tell us a good deal about those who hold it”.

Now for something which requires no belief in religion or science to appreciate.

A superb image from Nat. Geo. (Go to the website for full credits)

Substitute

Not surfing today, too busy repairing my board, so I have found something to take away the pain.

video 1

Video 2

More thoughts later

Just in case you may be interested I am currently reading the Greatest show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

Yet more to read

I think the new offering from Stephen Hawking may well be worth a look and will offer enlightenment and provoke a lively debate. Talking of books I would also like to read: - Why belief matters: Reflections on the nature of science. E.Brian Davies. I suppose it will have to go on the list for the future

Well that's probable

Following on from the previous interesting question about the probability of the second child being a boy and the importance of specifying a day, here is the solution.

 First if you start from the assumption that you know I have two children and what is the probability that I have two boys.

I can therefore have - B/B, B/G, G/B, G/G

Since the question is about the probability of two boys the G/G option can be eliminated. That leaves three scenarios of which one is B/B, so the probability of two boys is 1/3

Now looking at the original scenario using the same technique. Lets call a boy born on Tuesday BTu. and list all the scenarios.

1)BTu + Girl on any day of the week = seven possibilities

2)Girl born on any day of the week + BTu = seven possibilities

3)BTu + boy born on any day of the week = seven possibilities

4)Boy born on any day of the week + BTu = six possibilities (the situation where both boys were born on a Tuesday was counted in scenario 3 and must be discounted as we are looking for equally likely possibilities).

Adding all probabilities gives 27 in total ((7 x 3) + 6), which represents all equally likely combinations of children with specified gender and birth day. Of these combinations 13 are two boys . Therefore the probability is 13/27.

Consider that 13/27 is very different from 1/3 where the key point about day of the week is not considered. This seems quite remarkable and apparently the rarer the trait specified the closer the probability approaches to 1/2

Quite interesting, especially if your a mathematician.