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”

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.)

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.