The Climate Needs A Nicotine Patch

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) denial is frequently likened to the denial of the link between smoking and cancer. It's mostly the fact that in both cases very large industrial interests are behind the FUD that's being spread to discredit the science in the public's view. But it occurred to me that there is another similarity: the incapability of people affected by either issue to understand the subtle, yet inexorable changes that are being brought about.

Young smoker: "I've been smoking for years and I don't feel any different - I reckon I even feel better than I did last year. Smoking helps me feel good, I couldn't cope with the stress if I didn't have a ciggie. Nicotine patches? They don't help me pick up on a Saturday night. Those specialists are all non-smokers and just want to stop me from having a good time. Nanny state! "

Older smoker: "OK, so I'm a smoker and I've got emphesemia, but correlation doesn't equate to causation!"

Now substitute appropriately with the AGW denial catch phrases:

AGW denier: "We've been burning carbon for years and the weather's no different - I reckon it even feels cooler this year than last year. Burning fossil fuels is essential to advance society, we'd all still be in the Dark Ages without fossil fuels. Solar energy? That doesn't work at night. Those commie liberal scientists just want to shut down capitalism. One World Government!"

"OK, so often CO2 and climate change follow the same pattern, but correlation doesn't equate to causation!"

I could keep going, but I think you get the idea.

Science Week Comedy!

I've been roped into taking part in this year's Science Week comedy event. Again. For the third time.

I guess the stage lights just love me.

Should be good, even though I was skeptical at first about the new format. It will be held this Friday (14 August), 8:30pm, at the BMW Edge in Federation Square (Melbourne, that is) and it's a 'walk thu' kind of event, meaning that audience can just come and go. So we gotta be REALLY funny.

Three scientists from Museum Victoria will present a 'quirky' science fact or story, and the three comedians and the MC will take that ball and run with it like someone from Ministry of Silly Walks. Plus they will be in appropriate costumes. Can't wait to see what costume the girl who's covering my topic will wear - I'm expecting and 8-legged sumo outfit. Not telling what animal it is though.

Pet Peeve of the Day

People who get on the train and then pause just inside the door to find a good seat.

Just get in and let others in as well! They just stand there blocking the way while they decide where the best seat is. Who cares. Just grab any seat! Almost all of them look like they've been sitting at a desk all day as well, so why not stand for a while?!?

Pet Peeve of the Day

Those mobile-phone-bluetooth-in-ear-thingies.

No, I don't care what they're really called; they give me the shits! Yeah, I know, they're practical, you get your hands free, you're always connected, blah blah blah. To me they just classify you as either pretentious and wanting to look professional and important; or you are so afraid of not being constantly reachable that even just having your mobile in your pocket is to far away.

Can you say "Borg"?

And what about the extra battery consumption? Must be a whole power plant worth each day.

Less cancer risk? You'll probably get an ear infection from stopping fresh air getting to it all day.

Skeptic or Conspiracy Theorist?

Couldn't let this Peak Oil skeptic go without a comment. I'll repost it here, most of it should make sense even without the actual article:

This Engdahl instantly lost all credibility by stating that geology textbooks claim that petroleum comes from dinosaur remains. I have a phD in Geology and Palaeontology and I know for a fact that not a single scientific publication claims such an origin. For petroleum the source organic matter comes from marine algae and plankton trapped in carbonaceous sediments. Coal comes from terrestrial plant remains. Animals do not constitute a big enough biomass to make any contribution.

As for deep oil? Physics and chemistry both show that carbonaceous material of organic origin subjected to some heat and pressure at depth will reorganise to form the complex molecules found in petroleum. But if it goes too deep (i.e. the depth where deep oil should come from), the cemical bonds start getting increasingly cracked, and the resulting molecules get smaller and simpler until eventually all thats left are gases such as methane. finally all you get is graphite or maybe diamond, the only stable form of carbon at great depth. And no, you can't bring these materials up the other way and expect the process to reverse.

'Primorial' gives the impression that it's of similar composition as the material that gave rise to life. But after billions of years underground it would have been extensively altered to mineral form.

Another problem is presented by the view that reservoirs are continuously replenished from depth. If the rate is sufficient to keep up with our rate of extraction, then in the past we should have been drowning in tar pits, which occur where petroleum seeps through cracks in the cap rock above the reservoir. Over time this will happen due to tectonic activity, and bacteria can't decompose all of it if it bubbles out too fast. If the rate is slow enough that it doesn't cover the earth's surface, then it has no impact on replenishing reservoirs on human time-scales.

Many of the Russian wells with oil shows are still no convincingly proven to not simply recycled the drilling oil.

The Ghawar field certainly has a source rock, the Tuwaiq Mountain Formation, which under different circumstances may not have produced a super-field, but because of the unique tectonic history and structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the circumstances created an extremely efficient system.

And Engdahl is trying to have it both ways. He asserts there's a conspiracy by the oil industry to not explore according to deep oil hypothesis (it's not a theory - look up the scientific definition of 'theory') so they can have huge profit margins, but on the other hand the Middle East was invaded because there's no more oil to be found. The oil exploration industry is composed of hundreds of independent smaller companies that all want to hit pay dirt. If there is the slightest inkling that deep oil would give one of them a better chance than all the others, they would jump on it without hesitation. Finding the first super-field in almost half a century would have greater appeal than trying to raise profits on ever diminishing reserves.

Wegener? yeah there is generally some inertia before a paradigm shift, but that's what science is about, accepting the best explanation for ALL observations, even if it totally invalidates your past career."

Who are these people?

Just attended a talk by Tim Flannery last night and a group of kids from the LaRouche Youth Movement made themselves known. These people seriously seem to believe that the whole issue of Climate Change is nothing other than a conspiracy to facilitate eugenics. What?!? I mean creationists boggle the mind with their bizarre logic, buy these LYM members were a whole different kind of loony. They seriously reckon that we should be allowed to, nay, encouraged to increase the human population indefinitely. Even if we could create enough energy and food in a sustainable way - where would everyone fit? No, space isn't a solution, considering we can't even get anyone back to the moon for a brief visit.

Wow, the human mind never ceases to amaze. Such highs and lows within a single room.

Welcome to me

Just trying it out. But I guess everyone says that the first time. And I'm at work, so I shouldn't even be writing this. Or this. Or this for that matter.

Ah, it's just getting worse.

I plan to write about how such a f**ked up world can still be so much more beautiful than most people recognise. That's nice. I like that.

Years ago our local cinema was showing a double feature: 'The Green Mile' followed by 'American Beauty'. At the time the message of the former seemed to be that the world was inherently evil, and there's nothing we can do about it. The latter seemed to insist that if we just look past the trivial irritations of our lives, we will see a beautiful world. As Ricky puts it: "And that's the day I knew there was this entire life behind things, and this incredibly benevolent force, that wanted me to know there was no reason to be afraid, ever... Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it, like my heart's going to cave in."

In these time when everyone's afraid of terrorism, our countries' responses to terrorism, climate change, Peak Oil, more reality TV, Serenity not doing well at the boxoffice, and whatever else, I tend to take comfort in the latter view.