Changes

Because I'm not very consistent writing here I have decided to simplify things. With that in mind I have removed the details and bibliography pages, including anything from them in this post. The gallery page remains, who knows I may put some new stuff on it?

Are we Unique?

It is believed there are a few hundred sextillion stars (about 1023) in the observable Universe. Now if you assume only 1 percent of these have small rocky planets and 1 percent of those are habitable, and of those 1 percent evolve multi-cellular life, it would mean 100 quadrillion (1017) instances of complex, potentially intelligent life in the universe.

While this seems a high number of potential instances of life, it would mean that on average if these were spread across the cosmos they would be separated by almost one million light years. 

Allowing that most stars are found in galaxies this equates approximately to a million instances of complex life in the Milky Way, separated by an average of only 300 light years. 

Obviously all this is speculation waiting for an answer.

Use Light right

To be alert in the day and sleep well at night

 Get lots of bright light during the day, especially in the morning - it will make you more alert, happier and help you sleep at night

As you get older you need more light during the day (especially blue light which resets the body clock

Dim the lights before bed-time i.e. no bright screens etc.

Maintain a consistent bed time and wake time from day to day.

Anytime spent in the dark makes your body clock more sensitive to light so don’t turn lights on during the night.

Avoid late in the day caffeine and develop a relaxing bedtime

If you still struggle to sleep try wearing amber coloured glasses in the hours before bedtime (filters out blue wavelengths).

Reading material

Butt T. (2010) The War Report: Waves are Resources. Surfers Against Sewage: Cornwall



Royal Society (2001) The role of land carbon sinks in mitigating global climate change. Document 10/01. Royal Society: London



Royal Society (2005) A guide to facts and fictions about climate change. Royal Society: London



Royal Society (2005) Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Document  12/05. Royal Society: London



Royal Society (2008) Sustainable Biofuels: Prospects and challenges. Document 01/08. Royal Society: London

Climate change; what do you think?

Just read a recent article titled

Climate consensus 

cracking open - 

or not

It made interesting reading, especially if you believe, as I do, that science will be our saviour through logical reasonable investigation and argument. It was also a little worrying and seriously so if you read some of the comments from people clearly ignorant of any facts and who see everything as a big conspiracy.

To read the article click here

Royal Institution

Nothing much to say of late. I have written about quite a few things but not published them, don't know why. Perhaps it's because I have many other things going on at the moment (too many other worries).

I am in the process of becoming a member of the Royal Institution, which should be good - promotes science and the use of thinking.

Demon haunted world

I have just started reading this book (sub-title : science as a candle in the dark). All I can say is if you have ever wondered why science works, read this. It does not pretend that science has all the answers, but it does explain why it is our best option for reasoned enlightenment.

Why Carl Sagan never became more highly regarded outside the world of science is beyond my comprehension.


As an aside to this point I am doing my bit for charity by joining the mobro initiative, whereby you grow a mo (moustache) during November and use it to raise funds.

Maybe I do exist

Just in case you have read all this and now think you would like to become a denier, here's the final part, giving details about how you go about denying.

How do you become a denier? Martin McKee In The New Scientist suggests that all denialist movements employ six tactics.

Allege a conspiracy i.e scientific consensus has arisen by collusion rather than accumulation of evidence.

Fake experts to support the story - this creates a facade of credibility. The experts may be genuine but consider who’s paying them.

Cherry-pick evidence - highlight anything that supports your idea and ignore or rubbish the rest. Even if your evidence is discredited continue to use it.

Make the standards of evidence required by your opponents impossibly high by claiming existing evidence is not good enough. If more evidence is produced, then move the goal-post again.

Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus.

Use doubt by portraying scientists as so divided that their advice cannot be relied upon.

So there you have it (although in a some what shortened version). You can now go on to be a denier or, a sceptic you can become, and at least be willing to change should evidence dictate.

It's up to you now. I found these thoughts very interesting and having read them you'll be amazed how many people that you meet in your daily life will be deniers. The more you question them, the more you realise that most people are fixed in their beliefs and ideas, or maybe just scared to admit the truth.

How about you?????????????

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.

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)