CRU e-mails

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, I’m sure you’ve heard that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia’s e-mails have been hacked into and distributed over the internet.

The sceptics have been all over this, especially a few unfortunate passages that make it seem as though data was manipulated. These passages have been taken out of context, and discussed at length elsewhere, (RealClimate, The Met Office and countless blogs).

What really concerns me about this, (aside from the dangers of denying the science) is that now scientists are being personally dragged into the political debate. Phil Jones, one of the scientists whose e-mails have been distributed, is receiving personal threats. This is clearly unacceptable. He said himself:

I’m a very apolitical person, I don’t want to get involved in the politics, I’m much happier doing the science and producing the papers. I’m a scientist, I let my science do the talking, along with all my scientific climate colleagues. It’s up to governments to decide and climate science is just one thing they have to take into account with the decisions they have to make.

I think he hit it on the head there. It has to be acknowledged that the debate surrounding climate change policy is a political one, not a scientific one. The scientific community has its own rigourous methods of sorting through their results and ensuring that only the best get published. Anyone in the business of science knows how unbelievably difficult it is to get your research published. Any tiny discrepancy is pounced on and the onus is on you to prove that you’re correct. It’s a brutal system, but it works, and it works well.

The science is not what is being debated here. It’s the politics. So, by all means, argue it out, but there is no excuse for dragging the scientists into the muddy battle with you.

Edit: I just wanted to add this link, which is a tongue-in-cheek look at the controversy.

Definitely not panicking…

Okay, I lied, I’m panicking a little bit.

It’s conference time in my little part of the academic sphere, which is awesome. I’m getting a free trip to an undisclosed warm, beachy place in a few weeks and am allowed to stay a few extra days to relax by a pool. Like I said, awesome.

However, in order to go, I have to find something to present, and get lots of results to my supervisor for his plenary lecture. I thought this lecture was in a month, so I was just going at my own pace… Nope, it’s next week. I have to have weeks worth of ‘results’ (that is, data plus analysis plus pretty graphs) by Wednesday. And I have to mark exams.

So, I’m not planning to get a lot of sleep in the next few days… but I’m absolutely not going to panic.

Much.

To cross, or not to cross?

This little atheist got invited to a fancy-schmancy dinner last night, at the Catholic residential college she teaches at.

I was looking forward to it, partly because the invitation promised drinks (mmm… wine), partly because I suspected there would be steak (there was), and partly because I hoped the cute engineering tutor would be there (he wasn’t). But instead of a night of interesting conversation with other postgrad students, I got stuck between a priest and a theology student who knew a lot about noxious weeds of South Australia. We discussed someone’s trip to Rome two years ago, and the virtues of boiling up Patterson’s Curse for homeopathic remedies.

So, the night wasn’t quite as exciting as I had hoped, at least I got a steak and a few glasses of NZ sav blanc. There was one other thing though…

As this was a Catholic institution, and there were no less than six priests in attendance, grace was said before and after the meal. No big deal, I’ve done grace before, hell, I’ve even said grace before. But never have I been on the receiving end of such dirty looks for not crossing myself during the prayer.

I’m not one for kicking up a fuss – I bow my head and mumble when prayers are being said, but I’ve always drawn the line at crossing myself. There are several good reasons for this:

1. I’m not Catholic
2. I feel it is a bit rude to go through the motions when it does actually mean something to the people around me and
3. I don’t know which way you’re supposed to do it.

I sat back down, feeling as though I’d blown my nose on the table cloth, or committed some other major social faux pas, and wondering whether I’d still have a job next year, now that I’d revealed myself to be a heathen.

Should I have just done it? Was it impolite not to?

A reminder…

I just got my H1N1 vaccine, and this is a reminder for you to, if you haven’t already.

Vaccination saves lives, and you being vaccinated doesn’t just protect you, but protects the people around you. So go and make an appointment now.

Scientology called out by Australian senator

Nick Xenophon has called out Scientology as a ‘criminal organisation’ and wants an investigation into its tax-free status.

Good job! It’s about time that an investigation was conducted. It took some balls to stand up in parliament and say that.

There is video of the ABC news broadcast here, and audio here

—————————————————

Kevin Rudd has said that he also has concerns about Scientology, and will look at the evidence provided by Xenophon. Of course, the Church of Scientology has called it “outrageous”.

Data collection

You know what they forget to tell you at the end of your undergraduate degree, as you are contemplating a life of academic research?

Science is really, mind-numbingly boring sometimes.

Don’t get me wrong, I love what I do, but data collection weeks are almost as boring as data analysis weeks. I’m stuck in the dark, on my own, all day, for days on end. I love it for the first day, because I feel like I’m doing some real science, but by the fourth day (today), I just want to spend the day napping.

Me, "collecting data"

Skeptical guilt

On Friday night, I was out celebrating a friend’s triumphant victory over her undergraduate degree by drinking cocktails and admiring the bartenders. We’d covered all the latest gossip, discussed a friend’s upcoming wedding and had moved into far more serious topics of conversation. At one point, after I had confessed to feeling guilty about not wanting to go to my high school reunion (ugh… next weekend!), my friend accused me of Catholic guilt.

I thought this was a very strange thing to say, given that she knows that I’m an atheist and was brought up in a Protestant household. Besides, surely feeling guilt for offending someone is a humanist thing, rather than uniquely Catholic?

It got me thinking though – do I perhaps suffer from skeptical guilt?

Embarrassing as this is to admit, I spent this weekend reading Audrey Niffenegger’s new book “My Fearful Symmetry”, which is a ghost story and a far cry from my usual weekend fodder of science books or classic novels. However, I did enjoy it, even though it was about ghosts. I read it hidden in my bedroom, with a copy of New Scientist sitting beside me, in case anyone walked in. Why? I don’t know, but I did feel guilty that I, a fairly hard-core skeptic, was enjoying a ghost story.

Then later on, I went to a barbeque for a friend’s birthday. I have known this girl for years, and am always happy to see her as she’s fun and chirpy. However, she’s also an anti-vaccine activist and is hesitant about most “Western Medicine”. I’ve never confronted her about it, because I don’t want to ruin the friendship. Am I betraying my skepticism by allowing her to spread such dangerous lies about vaccinations?

What do you think? Is my largely unfounded guilt a Catholic thing, or a skeptical thing?

Chocolate is good for you!

I have always stood by my belief that chocolate really does help you when you’re stressed. I owe my honours thesis, my undergraduate exam marks and a healthy breakup to Lindt chocolate.

Everyone knows that dark chocolate helps reduce the chance of heart disease, (along with red wine – which is my excuse for indulging in two of my favourite things) but now there is solid evidence that eating dark chocolate for two weeks helps to significantly reduce stress hormones and correct other stress-related biochemical imbalances.

So, to celebrate this new evidence, I’m eating some dark chocolate to help me get through the stress of next week. It’s a tough life…

Ref: American Chemical Society (2009, November 12). New Evidence That Dark Chocolate Helps Ease Emotional Stress. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com

Global thinking fail

Prof Richard Tol, an economist from Dublin has said that global warming will be good for the economy. Why?

Because most of the major economic powers are in cooler areas. And we’ll save on heating bills.

Perhaps a touch narrow-minded?

This man is advising governments on environmental policy. I fear for the world – specifically for all those people who live in minor economic powers who, apparently, don’t matter much.

Book recommendations?

Thankfully, the academic year is winding down. My evening job is finishing up and with the third and fourth year students finished in the lab, research is going to be easier and much more efficient. So now, I have all this time on my hands. My summers are usually a combination of work, bbqs and books – which is why it is my favourite time of year. The warm weather this weekend reminded me that it’s about time to get into the non-research-specific reading.

I’ve just ordered Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan, and am looking forward to getting into that.

I am looking for some suggestions though – anyone know of some good summer reading?