Economist piece ahead of Copenhagen

I'm not sure how many people read my blog entries, but if you do then thanks for stopping by.

This weeks Economist magazine has a cover and a leader about climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit. Largely mooted to be a waste of time, i hope that's not just the prevailing cynicism sweeping the nation on the coat tails of the "credit crunch". I guess it's difficult not to be cynical with the enquiry into the Iraq war continuing to prove that Iraq was largely about George W Bush trying to get George HW Bush's attention on the news every day. We should be thankful that every Ivy league brat doesn't have such a platform to play out their adolescent "Dad loves me the least" drama with toys of such magnitude.

At least Copenhagen gets people talking about it. The BBC are also reshowing Dr. Ian Stuart's "Climate Wars" series, as well as all sorts of other documentaries about GW.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15017322

I'll certainly be attempting to educate myself further on the topic. I've already set-up media centre to catch a lot of them.

Climate change scepticism invades my work-place

Debate about climate change flared up right in front of my desk about 9 this morning. There were several "critical" issues to solve first thing, so i'm sure the focus on this didn't exactly gain management approval, and I have to say that i more than played my part in making it such a (get ready for it...) "hot topic". Ok, perhaps it wasn't so heated until i stuck my "oar in"; but it was spooky how everything seemed to coincide. I had watched "an inconvenient truth" again last night, having read on guardian unlimited about the "leaked e-mail" scandal.
The scientific consensus, from a great many sources, appears to have moved on from picking through published analysis to establish if there is sufficient doubt to support further deliberation. I know Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source, but this looks reasonably responsibly sourced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Of course, a piece of dramatic and clearly non-partisan documentary like "an inconvenient truth" has attracted, by the sheer number of people it has affected, some convincing critisism (for instance http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/index.html had me feeling naive for a while).
Ultimately though, it's splitting hairs to me. I hope more people will come off the fence. If you really do strongly believe that global warming is a scam, then perhaps it's your duty to organise and help prepare the world for the continued observed temperature changes since you know what's really causing them and we're so powerless to stop them?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm

Doesn't it strike a sceptic as a coincidence that the world is warming up so severely just as we've been industrialising and burning all this once in an age resource? Really, what are the chances? Perhaps if you wait long enough, you'll win the lottery, then live on an island somewhere and enjoy the increasing temperatures.

The "not so missing" link...

Hail Darwin. Though, according to Bill Bryson's "A short history of nearly everything", the world wouldn't have been waiting very long for his theory had he not published it, the first to claim it for posterity he was. And so, deservedly in my humble opinion and doubtless also in that of countless more, for the adversity he faced if nothing else, should he be remembered forever. More than just his theory, he had the conviction and resolve to think freely and to express what he believed, and what he could prove, albeit not convincingly enough for most in his time. Like Einstein, his memory continues to be rewarded with a growing body of evidence supporting his bold perception of, and insight into, the world around us. Even in his own lifetime he was nearly pipped to the post. Others had even published on it before, but in works of Geology and hadn't roused sufficient interest of a serious enough kind to have it taken seriously by those who were trusted to arbitrate on such matters. Nowadays, he who challenges the status quo with compelling supporting evidence and meticulous argument is far more likely to be recognised and supported purely on those merits, thanks to people like Einstein and Darwin.
Today I show my appreciation to Darwin, and contemporary champions of evolution such as the noble Dawkins, for helping me understand clearly our beautiful world, and what a privilege every moment upon it is. We are though, as much as we may wish it otherwise, charged with it's destiny.

I will leave you with the Guardian. Aptly named today :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/01/fossil-ardi-human-race

The morality paradox of religion

I can be considered as someone who isn't particularly sympathetic toward religion. Considering some of the cutting tirades I might have espoused on occasion, a not wholly unfair assessment. For anyone who sees this as an assault on a moderate "live and let live" philosophy, I feel some qualification might be necessary.
I've been turning over in my slightly troubled mind of late what I believe to be the crux of my problem with some, I hasten to add not all, religions.
A popular defence of religion as numbers of followers decline is that it promotes morality. After all, is it not the bible which taught us the ten commandments? True enough that without morality, there would be little to attract one to religion. Religion to me is essentially a repackaging of morality, presented along with examples, however fantastic, to demonstrate principles of morality. There are of course numerous examples within Christianity and I feel I should give at least one; so let's go for the "good samaritan" and it's "love thy neighbour" message.
The reverse to me though, is not true. That is to say that without religion there is no morality. One can have a sense of right and wrong without necessarily believing that there is, for example, life after death, or a "god".
So the danger for me comes when morality and religion are presented to us as a package. If one rejects those elements of religion which appear unsubstantiated, then there is a danger that one might reject morality along with it. When this happens, those who "believe" might interpret this rejection as evidence that morality needs religion. This is not to say of course that religion has everything wrong. A great many moral teachings of Christianity could be substantiated with relevant, contemporary examples, and often are by modern churches. When this approach is used with young people they then have the option of choosing a practical moral framework without needing to swallow fairy tales along with it.
I would personally go further and say that religion can, on occasion, be charged with exploiting a natural, or learned, sense of right and wrong within a potential subject to gain acceptance of ideas which are not quite so easily demonstrated. We're that to be true, is that not deceptive? Isn't there a commandment about that?....


Anyway, it's 0440 AM and now that i've gotten that out of my system, i should try and get some sleep for work in the morning!

LVTs - that's where it's at

Here's a conclusion for those who would hope that once again we might abolish serfdom!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/14/uk-housing-market-property-prices

Think what you might about the housing market right now; who wouldn't want a nice home for themselves and their family to live in? What we don't need is a system which encourages the exploitation of the basic need for shelter, where we talk constantly of "shortages" whilst people mothball, or simply abandon, building sites because their profits might fall to a slightly less desirable level and people stockpile and celebrate their status whilst others wonder if they'll ever have a basic desire for a home to call their own satisfied.
How much of the system required to protect the investments of those who might consider they've been "shrewd" or "enterprising" have they really been responsible for or contributed positively towards?

Let's hear it for the boys!

Another subject which i like to keep on the reading list is the rising tide of critisism us "tails" are getting for some of the world's less laudible aspects right now. I love this article. There's a certain amount of salt which is intended to be imbided along with it, but it's thoroughly enjoyable; written by a man, against men. It has a point, it quite a playful way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/01/charlie-brooker-women-men-power

Mac users beware

Something i'm always keeping an eye on is the OSX virus community. Mac users have so far enjoyed a virtually malware free existence. Most Mac users, apart from the most technically minded, will usually opine that this is simply because the Mac is so inheriently secure that they are, to echo the medical anology of the word "virus", "ammune" to all virii.

So, this news item may turn a few heads; looks like a resistant strain has arrived!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8096822.stm