It's the longest day

It's the time when the sun stays up for longest amount of time (in the Northern hemisphere).

Here's more about the longest day of the year.

Science so what

Science so what

Pursue your passions

Pursue your passions
- seems a good idea.

Copenhagen Climate Chaos

Let's face it, very little was achieved in the climate change conference. A huge number of people got to burn off more carbon into the atmosphere getting there, but other than that and a load of nice meals (no doubt), little was achieved.

Still to be honest the huge changes in lifestyle and the economy, and a $100 billion annual fund is a HUGE commitment! Ignoring the on-going debates about man-made contributions to global warming there's a BIG question that needs to be asked:

Just what EXACTLY will $100 billion per year be spent on?

Let's see the breakdown of where this money is going. Strange how it's a nice round figure. Such a huge fund must be totally transparent and spent very efficiently and effectively. It must not be splashed about on political events, politicians' expenses, dictators' bank accounts, politicians, criminals, global corporations, etc, etc...

If there is no plan that details how the money will be spent wisely then let's not support it. In the UK "we" [aka our dictating Prime Minister] have "volunteered" to contribute about 1 to 2 billion per year. However, what our PM fails to realise is that the UK is in a recession, and the country is on its knees [perhaps waiting for the final collapse].

Data Change or Climate Change

When the hacked information - from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - showed that some scientists had been practicing dubious behaviour this started a feeding frenzy for those skeptical about climate change. In a climate of doubt the last thing the pro-climate change gang needed was this.

On such a unique issue of global importance the science needs to be as transparent as possible. That means all of the data should be publicly available.

The "scientists" at CRU have clouded the clarity of the science. Their behaviour is unacceptable, if the allegations are true: failing to comply with freedom of information requests; using "tricks" to modify data; deleting / losing raw data; obstructing the work of other scientists; and, perhaps, letting their emotions and egos get in the way of transparent scientific debate.

Science is the most robust methodology we have, and its findings and methodology should be treated with respect. It seems some at CRU may be guilty of not showing adequate respect.

Given how high the stakes are in the global warming debate, heads should role (if found guilty of malpractice).

Government with scientific advice

Sacked drugs adviser

A government without scientific advice could be a dangerous thing. What do politicians base decisions on if they have no scientific evidence?

Sacking a scientific adviser for not singing off the Government's hymn sheet sets a dangerous precedent.

Admittedly drugs are a hot and complex topic. Part of the problem here may be the system of categorising drugs A B C. What is the point in having illegal drugs category A and illegal drugs category B? They are either legal or illegal - aren't they? We only need two categories: legal and illegal.

Using the above legal/illegal diffuses all the hot air out of the current argument between scientist and government. They'd be no argument about whether a drug should be A, B or C. As the meerkat says Simples.

Critics everywhere

There's critics everywhere; and a lot of what they say are subjective shots in the dark - little substance; with a strong attitude. They know who they are.

So consider using an objective approach.

Consider an objective scale to compare the relative merits of different approaches.