Alone, Us?

The New scientist of 7th May 2011 had several interesting articles ranging from a guide to humanities search for alien life to how light can effect our health and a consideration of the limits of knowledge.

The search for alien life looked at the methods we use to find planets that have the potential to support life, but the thing I found most interesting followed the detail and was covered by the headline “Are we Unique?” The question was considered by Caleb Scharf (Director of Columbia Astrobiology centre in New York). The stand out thought here was that although it may seem inevitable, it could be that we are an extreme rarity “a Goldilocks event in time, space and the roulette wheel of evolutionary history”.

Personally I believe that although the odds of life existing elsewhere are fairly high (see details page of blog for more on this), we are in fact that extreme rarity. Now although that’s my belief, I also believe that the discovery of life elsewhere  could be the “kick up the backside” mankind needs to make us realise we are one species not many disparate groups. It could be what we need to really see the best of mankind. There should be a deal more about this to follow when I get onto Carl Sagan.

The limits of knowledge article is worth a read if you can get access to the New Scientist, putting forward several interesting points. 

The article that really caught my eye was how light can have a major impact on our lives, especially sleep patterns and health. As some-one who suffers from sleep problems it gave an interesting insight into how we require different intensities of light during the day and light of different wave lengths at night. It seems that all our light pollution can be having serious effects for us all. There were also some useful tips about light and achieving a good nights sleep (see details page).

Change of Use

Here’s something interesting from The New scientist 4th June 2011 written by MacGregor Campbell that shows how some ideas in one field of science can be adapted and used by others. 

It looks at how ideas related to the creation of invisibility cloaks has been applied to the more practical use of shielding coastlines from destructive waves. The idea for wave protection has come from semiconductor physics and meta-materials, the technology behind the invisibility cloaks. The application could lead to a zone in front of vulnerable coastlines where waves of certain frequencies will not be able to reach, with the added bonus of energy production.

The system works by using an array of offshore tubes. By adjusting the size of the cylinders, the size of slits within each cylinder and the spaces between them water can be made to flow in and out of the columns at a frequency to stop incoming waves. By using hollow cylinders and a float inside the peaks and troughs of each passing wave could be used to generate electricity.

True words

Sometimes I get worried thinking about what each new day will bring, all the world is hassled, hurt or hurried, there’s never time to ease the painful things, never time to think on where your going or where you’ve been.

You can tell them I,m going home or that I,m working late at night, no point writing letters or using the telephone, tell them anything that you might, be sure and tell them I’ll be alright.

You can tell them I’m living in the country or that I’ve given up the fight, no point in saying how well you knew me before, no point in giving reasons of last night, be sure and tell them I’ll be alright.

And when love comes whispering softly with all the sweetness she can bring that’s when I’m real and mostly that’s the time I feel no need to give out anything, that is when I just want to sing.

You can tell them I’m living in the islands, somewhere where  the day is always bright, no need to visit England, Germany or Spain, you won’t find me where things are tight.

Just be sure and tell them I’ll be alright, I’m going back, I’ll be alright, going home to the sea and I’ll be alright.

Please be aware these are not my words, they are from a song by Terry Hannigan. I've never heard the song but like the sentiment expressed in the words.

Energy

One of the Nat Geo articles that I found to be stimulating was looking at how we as humans gain, store and move our energy requirements, with a particular focus on electricity. There was an idea introduced that we should improve our Grid systems so that we waste less energy on the movement of electricity. This wastage can in some cases lead to blackouts and mask the need for repair or maintenance of the grid. The article suggested a smarter grid system with real-time feed-backs allowing self regulation of the grid.

The requirements for the new grid being: Improved transmission lines for movement of electricity over larger areas i.e. taking account of energy generation by green sources in remote locations. Improved large scale energy storage systems. On a local level using smart monitoring systems to deliver energy at levels and times when most required. Use of locally produced renewable energy to be stored and used locally. At home further use of smart metering and small scale energy production such as solar panels and small wind turbines.. I haven’t studied the ideas in enough detail to make a critical judgement, but on a gut instinct level it seems all very interesting and it sounds good, but will it happen. I do like the idea of local communities being responsible for their 

I

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?????????????

I deny that I exist

Following on from the thread of earlier postings about deniers and sceptics here's the next instalment of the piece written in the New Scientist.

A lie can be an important tool in the arsenal of a denial group, especially when considering that we believe that which we can perceive, something which I will talk about another day. A prime example of this can be shown by the story of a quote given by John Houghton, a former chair of the IPCC;

“Unless we announce disaster no one will listen”

This quote was published by an Australian journalist as evidence that climate change warnings were deliberately exaggerated. Before taking this any further consider that the journalist is a conservative who disbelieves climate science.

On face value the quote seems pretty damning, especially considering its source. 

This quote then went on to be used the following year by a Canadian journalist and again at a later date in an article by a scholar at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Slowly the quote has gone on to be used in several books, on blog postings (and here’s yet another one) and many web sites, eventually becoming cited as prime evidence by climate change deniers. Great you may say, what’s the problem. Well I suppose the real problem is that John Houghton never said or wrote those words.

This lie became prominent because it had a degree of believability about it to those who first used it i.e. people hostile to climate change are always likely to believe that Scientists are trying to bully them with extreme ideas. Once taken up as genuine by these few it is then easy enough in today’s technology/information age for the masses to come into contact with the statement, taking what was once a lie and for many making it true.

The moral of this being that you should always check your sources and question the motives of those providing the information. So, what’s my angle?

A long time coming

It's been over six months since I have found the time and enthusiasm to write and to be honest I've lost a lot of the threads from previous discussions. As a result I have decided to post any outstanding issues relating to previous threads and then to start afresh.

The fresh start also means that the bibliography will not be updated for previous thoughts, but will be maintained from this point forward. It will be a case of putting all the information up for consideration, or not bothering.

More to come very soon