I cheated a bit today. I went to Waterstones, and bought a number of books. Then I sat in the cafe and read a book I hadn't in fact bought. Nor do I intend to. It was the third book of Jeremy Clarkson's volume of columns, For Crying Out Loud.

Now Jeremy Clarkson is very much an Everyman. He's clearly not the most intelligent man in the country. He's opinionated, arrogant about his wealth in a way I'm not sure he's aware of (he thinks he's typically middle class; I think he's incredibly wealthy), and loud. He's also hugely entertaining and a fantastic nay-sayers to the bureaucracies of modern life. I've read at least one of his other books, and it was a good read -- but I wouldn't read it twice and so I'm not going to buy the book.

He did make a couple of points that I felt the need to respond to. Some of them were actually really good and rarely mentioned points. For instance, he did an entire column about how we don't really have "national" news, because it's all skewed towards London. Something which would be covered by local news if it happened in Liverpool or Aberdeen becomes national news if it happens in London. Good point, well made, I thought.

Then of course there's the climate change thing. JC is a fantastic barometer for the way people -- non-expert people -- tend to think about climate change. A bit like Have Your Say on the bbc news only more articulate, with better spelling. And he's wrong a fair percentage of the time. But -- and this is the thing -- I know exactly why he's wrong. It's because the media coverage -- not the science, you understand, but the interpretation through the medium of journalists -- has planted a doubt that doesn't exist in any scientific sense. I think he underestimates his own power and influence on this issue, too.

Some points that aren't made strongly enough or often enough in general, in my opinion, then:

• This generation is not responsible for climate change. We should not waste energy feeling guilty. We are the generation with the knowledge and the power to stop it, but we do not bear the blame for starting it.


• Weather and climate are not the same. If there's three days of 40° heat in Inverness in September, it's not because of climate change. If it snows in June, it's not because of climate change. No single weather event can ever be put down to climate change, because climate change talks only about average effects over a long period. You can see climate change only on graphs that cover single centuries. Hot summers like 2003 or lots of flooding like 2005(?) don't tell us much about climate change.


• There is a direct, clearly established causal link between more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and higher global average temperatures. Venus is 200° hotter than it should be if you consider its nearness to the sun, purely because of the carbon dioxide and other gases in its atmosphere. We don't have anywhere near as much greenhouse gas as Venus does yet.


• If you burn carbon which used to be stored somewhere else, like underground, you place extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If, meanwhile, massive deforestation schemes and ocean pollution remove the mechanisms which can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, you are making the problem worse. There are non-man made sources of carbon dioxide, and there always have been. But these aren't discussed much not because they're not relevant to the problem, they are, but because they're not relevant to the solution. We're hardly going to stop volcanoes erupting or cows farting, after all.


• The path to success in any human endeavour tends to be in small steps. Tell a morbidly obese person to lose thirty stones or die and they're unlikely to manage, because it's such an enormous task. Tell them to cut one item/meal/whatever from their diet every day, and it becomes more managable. A smoker with a 60-a-day habit is unlikely to quit cold turkey, but may succeed in cutting down to 20-a-day. Therefore if we want people to actually take action to reduce CO2 emissions, we should do it in small steps.


• Obvious things we can do:
  
  1. Invest in electric trains and trams. Yes, they get most of their power from coal, but we're far better at renewable electricity than we are at renewable petrol at this stage in our technological development, and trains and trams work. Electric cars, not so much.
  
  
  2. Improve and enforce building regulations. The market isn't going to do this by itself, and it's in everyone's interest that homes and businesses are well insulated and efficient to run.
  
  
  3. Something has to be done about the appalling standards of public transport around here. I want regular buses and trains that follow a specific, publicly available timetable. I want clear maps that give street names so that I can connect routes for complex journeys. And I want a clearly explained pricing policy such that I know how much money I need before I get on the bus. Change back would be a bonus. I can have these things in Germany, why can't I have them here? These things would make public transport a far more viable option for most people.(And why do all the buses go to places I've never heard of, anyway?)
  
  
  4. All the personal things the government recommends; buy fruit and veg in season from local suppliers, install energy saving lightbulbs where possible, insulate where possible, cycle and take public transport more, use alternatives to flying where possible, recycle as far as local amenities allow. And if you're doing these things, congratulations. You're doing the right thing. Don't let the propaganda that "we're not doing enough" get you down: the important thing for individuals is that we're doing something. Don't lose sight of that.
  
  

There. That's all you need to know about climate change. The stuff in the media is just getting in the way.

And for the record, wind farms are not "the answer". Nuclear fusion is not "the answer". Wave power is not "the answer". Banning cars is not "the answer". As yet there is not a single answer which will solve the energy problems that are facing us. But there are a number of things that can help along the way, and wind, wave and nuclear will all be part of the transition to a new relationship between human and energy!

It's the one you least want to be doing at a given moment. It's the one that keeps you from your friend's wedding, or from your kids. It's the one that takes your self-esteem and your self respect and your self control, that takes your time and your freedom and yet you still struggle with the basic necessities for life.

It's the one that traps you and steals your life and your energy and your talent, and leaves nothing in return.

For me, I think the worst job would involve hurting people, or taking their freedom. Sometimes it has to be done. I would just prefer that I didn't have to do it.

I just got back from four hours at the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao. ( Description, observations, something of a rant and some observations behind the cut. This got longer than I expected it to! )

I have been mostly fortunate this winter with regards to not getting colds. This had to end eventually, however, so I've now spent two days of the last three with a sore throat (mostly gone today although I'm still hoarse) and two of the last three days feeling that ill way, you know, over-tired, brain dead and lethargic. I have hence been off work the last two days, but I'm hopeful that I will be able to return on Thursday.

I firmly believe that the most sensible course of action when you're ill, even with something as mild as a cold, is to stay home until you're better. It prevents you giving it to everyone else, and what's the point of trying to work when you've got no energy and the concentration span of a goldfish? So these adverts that claim that miracle flu remedies can have you up for work in a jiffy really annoy me. Medicating a cold, in my experience, can get rid of the headache and sore throat, mostly. It's less good at the runny nose. But frankly the biggest two syptoms I tend to get when I'm ill are a stuffy feeling in my head making it next to impossible to think straight and a complete lack of energy. Neither of which have ever been improved by anything except time and rest. I resent their implication that I ought to be taking a pill and jumping into work with enthusiasm when it's blatantly a foolish thing to do. Cold remedies medicate the symptoms rather than the disease: it's still your body that fights the invasion, and the resources you need for that fight have to come from somewhere. The more you take away from your body when your ill by doing too much, the longer the fight will take. It's common sense.

Ah, well. I suspect that if you don't already espouse this view all the livejournal ranting in the world won't change this.

I saw a trailer for Watchman earlier. It suggested the possibility of watching the film on Imax. I think this is an incredibly good idea. It might not be good. But still, Watchmen on Imax, how cool??

I've been aware of Watchmen as being pretty much *the* seminal graphic novel in existence for some years now, and, let's be honest, when the guy who writes the comics you're most impressed by recommends something as being pretty epic you have to pay attention. Dave got it for a present about a year ago, and I started reading it then before graciously allowing him to read it first... as it's his, and all. :) There are two reasons why it's taken me so long to actually read it. The first is that I was a little bit nervous that it'd been over-hyped and I wouldn't like it. The second is that I'm not a complete convert to the world of graphic novels and comics: I've read some fantastic ones and I know there are good ones out there, I just don't really want any part of the clichés of comics. You know, the all-American invulnerable super-hero, the damsel in distress, the female "empowered" superhero with boobs out and eight-inch heeled boots, the "Ka-pow"s and the "sha-zam"s. So I'm gently easing myself into the medium trying to avoid all that. It may not really exist, it may be an impression I've formed from too much Batman the TV series.

I saw what was so good about Watchmen. It was damn good: subtle and probing and horrific and optimistic and enthralling. I'm *so* glad I read the comic before I'll see the film. On, and FWIW, I tend to think of a "comic" as being a panel-with-speech-bubbles set up, whereas I think of a graphic novel as one of these highly illustrated books with seperate pictures and blocks of text. This distinction doesn't seem to be reflected in the bigger world. But I like it, so I'm keeping it, even if it only ever works for me.

It was, as a final thought, probably a bad thing that someone tried to break into the house just as I finished Watchmen. The urge to dress up in a cape and mask and fight crime was difficult to fight down. In the end I remembered that I don't have any martial arts training, so probably better not. But the Paisley underworld doesn't know what a near miss it had... :)

From tanngrisnir. The Big Read thinks the average adult has only read six of the top 100 books they've printed below.

1) Look at the list and bold those you have read.
2) Italicize those you intend to read.
3) Underline the books you LOVE.
4) Reprint this list in your own LJ so we can try and track down these people who've read 6 and force books upon them.

( My list )

That's 40. Who on earth has only read six of them?

In other news...

Dave and I went to see "The Day the Earth Stood Still" yesterday at the Imax. I did enjoy the film, although the small black child was irritating for most of the first half of the film. I've not read the book, so I can't comment on a comparison.

( Slightly ranty but few spoilers )

Click Here.

That's all, really.

Good things:

• Sundays. They're the day of ultimate freedom, in my life at least. No work, and, Paisley being what it is, even the shops are mostly shut, not to mention that banks and insurance and other such hassles are gone.


• I have some Issue three Dark Red pages to letter. It's started!


• Family dinners. I have one of these every Sunday, and I think they are a very important part of my life. It's good to stay in touch with everyone, and being generally pretty shit at phoning people actually visiting is an important part of that. There will, I hope, be one of them this evening, although it's likely to be rather quiet, as I think both my brothers are away this weekend.


• Parties with friends. Raj and Rhys had a party last night, attended by friends old and new, and it was really good fun. Meeting in someone's house rather than in a pub means that large group-chats can happen comfortably -- and that sort of chat allows conversations to take rather different tracks than one- or two-person varieties.


• Tea. I might have done this one already, but I do get great pleasure from a really good, hot cup of tea.

Thus ends the week of Goodness and Rainbows. Perhaps I should do the week of Nightmares and Stormclouds next week just for balance?? (I'm kidding...)

More things that make me happy:

• Long lies. I firmly believe that we are not all created equal in terms of getting up times. Personally, I'm something of a night owl by nature -- I hate going to bed early, and I equally hate getting up early. So Saturday morning lie-ins are my idea of heaven. I've met at least one person who's completely the opposite, so I know that people who love getting up early in the morning do exist, I just don't really understand it. Once I'm up I'm usually okay. It does annoy me that culture continues to see people who sleep till eleven as lazy, as though somehow sleeping from 12 till eleven is worse than sleeping 8 till 7.


• The feeling you get when you know there's something you have to do, that you really don't want to do, that you do anyway, and then find it wasn't as bad as you thought. Sort of a mixture between relief and satisfaction.


• Eating ripe nectarines. Mmmm.


• Reading a book that you've read before and loved, but not often enough that you know what's going to happen next. In some senses I actually prefer the second reading of something to the first.


• Watching x-factor auditions and thinking "I could do better". This may or may not be true, but while I'm fairly sure I can sing I'm equally sure I'd be a pretty shit pop star. I'd have to like, worry about my "image", and keep up to date with the charts and I can't be having with all that. Still, it's fun to dream.

I think Strictly Come Dancing starts up again this evening. This is another show I love to watch. Although I still find it amazing that the BBC, who can film the most stunning shots of wildlife I've ever seen, can't get anyone to film a dance routine in any sort of sensible way. They focus on bits of the dance that actively distract the viewers, do fancy fade-ins on disco balls while the dancers do their biggest lifts and lose all the effects of a large group by zooming in on one couple just at the bit where synchronisation is most important and effective. Ah well.

What happened to the Thursday of goodness and rainbows, you may ask? Well, two thngs: one, due to a certain D&D game overrunning somewhat I left the house at 8am and returned to it, slightly frazzled, at ten past midnight; two, it actually happened in spirit on Wednesday. Anyways.

I like:

• Leaving work early on a Friday. Oh how I love my 3pm finish time!


• Beautiful sunsets, where there is both blue sky, well, pink sky fading through green to blue, and clouds in varous shades of yellow and pink. Today's sunset was such a sight. Through my kitchen window, as I do the dishes, I can watch it fading behind the domed building next door, with the cobbled lane framed in horse chestnut trees and a fantastic Victorian-style lampost meandering off to the right. It is... nice.


• Weekends. What else to say, really?


• D&D nights. We're level 20 now, and I joined the party at level 9. I'm quite attached to my Satyr cleric, who is good to the bone but doesn't always see good the way other people do. She's a satyr, after all. Besides, the session itself is always irrelevant and silly and, for that reason, a nice distraction from being grown up for a while.


• When someone asks for my help at work and I can help them. This doesn't happen nearly often enough for my liking, to be honest, as I'm so much a Jack-of-all-trades that there's always a specialist who knows more than I do about practically anything we do.

I like:

• Walking through the rain in my new coat with my umbrella up, munching on a chocolate bar. As long as I am on my way home rather than out!


• Looking through random photos and hearing the odd thoughts that went into their birth


• Evenings in. I like my home and I also relish the freedom to spend my time as I like.


• Hot baths. That's next on my list of things to do!


• Focussing on the positive. I can feel myself cheering up already!


Today has mostly felt like Thursday. It's one of the mysteries of life, given that I couldn't describe what exactly a Thursday "feels" like. Also, how do people become modern artists? I mean, say I took a photo of a bin, enlarged it, did some slight photoshopping, printed it on to canvas and called it "The riches of tomorrow". Would that make me a modern artist? See, it only took about half an hour to come up with that, and it could easily be done in a day, so if it's worth millions I'm damn well doing it!

Things that make me smile:

• The sudden smell of autumn. For some reason there's a cleanness to the air as Autumn approaches that doesn't exist in summer or spring, even when it's not cold. You take a breath and it's like breathing raw, untarnished life.


• Conversations with friends that make me laugh.


• Finding random things lying about that make me think of good times: like the Finish flag in the car from the Eurovision Dance contest we were watching at the SECC on Saturday.


• I experience the warm glow of a difficult task accomplished well and against all the odds. Like managing, on the third attempt, to more-or-less accurately sight-read through some rather nasty chorus pieces by Beethoven. To pick an entirely random example in no way attached to real life... ;)


• The sodden, emotionally-drained fatigue of a day at work gives way to the crisper and more satisfying fatigue of a real work out. Believe it or not, choral singing does that, even if you don't get out of breath: the combination of intense concentration, the almost hypnotic effects of the music and the physical effort of controlling your breath for several hours raises the adrenaline levels in a similar way to sports.

I'm looking for five bullet points a day. I think I'll manage it.

I am happy when:

• I make people laugh at work. Somehow especially at work. Although it's true that (because I'm a fairly sensible and serious person) I rarely make people laugh and hence it's always a pleasant surprise to me when people laugh at my jokes. I don't really seem to have the knack of humour.


• I suddenly notice colour. Usually this is a bright spot of green somewhere unexpected, but could also be the glow of a sunset or the pattern of city lights from a distance. I noticed a hedge I passed today had a huge and unruly set of hair (it had only been trimmed as far as the owner could reach) and that made me smile.


• I come home and find my home is impeccably clean and tidy after a frantic weekend's housecleaning. And there are fresh flowers out.


• I get changed from my work clothes into a pair of jeans and trainers. Jeans and trainers are the clothes that make me feel most like myself: comfortable, attired for any task, on the smart-ish end of casual depending what else I'm wearing. It's the symbol of me taking myself back from the smart work clothes I have to wear.


• I can sing along, loudly, to a song I'd forgotten I liked and to which I inexplicably still know all the words. This works best when the song has come on randomly and you're with a couple of other people who also love to sing along with something and know this song! Sadly this has not yet happened to me today; in fact I don't think I've actually heard any music today at all.

The article to which I'm referring is here. It's a good illustration of two things: one, why otherwise sane individuals might reject faith, and two, why Terry Pratchett is a professional writer and I'm not. :)

I also read clockworksaint's post about the meeting with the mormons. In it, he describes his own form of atheism as an absence of faith within himself rather than a denial of God (Did I translate that accurately, Weeble?). This is an opinion with which I concur.

( My onw religious speculation )

So, I did the 5k on Sunday. It rained, but only a little while we were actually walking -- just enough to ensure my hair did its usual frizzing up and refused to settle for the rest of the day! I walked it: slowly for about the first third, and then I wondered if I could manage any faster. In total I power walked/jogged the last 3k or so, and so finished towards the front of the walkers but well after the runners. Turns out 3 miles is a pretty long way to walk -- quodos to everyone who has managed a 10k running! (Not to mention my cousin, who not only took part in the East Kilbride half marathon, but won it! See the women's race results...)

If you sponsored me, thank you, it's appreciated. If you didn't but still intend to it's still live for a few more days online. If you didn't and don't intend to... well, that's okay too. After all, if you sposor based on merit there are many who do more for their chosen charity than me. Click here, instead -- it's much cheaper and easier.

Life got rather abruptly quiet. I'm not in China, my chorus has stopped for the summer, I've no holidays booked and Dark Red hasn't quite started shooting again yet. Besides, Dave's spending about half his working week in Engerland, at present, which makes for a lot of quiet evenings in reading. So I've read Eats, shoots and leaves, Faerie tale and about half of the Elric stories in the last week. I'm also half way through The girl with the pearl earring.

Wii fit continues to tell me I've lost no weight, which is fine as I wasn't aiming to. On the other hand I was intending to get fitter, and as I managed fifty jackknifes without pausing today I figure that's probably working. I did stop the jogging mostly; I've never been able to get interested in running. Perhaps I should take it to the next level by actually joining a gym or going swimming again...* Perhaps I'd even enjoy it.

Sacha -- when did we say we'd do the juggling/poi thing? I forget, and I didn't write it down.

Good day at work today. Started out really boring then someone came to me with an interesting problem that I was the best one to solve. And essentially said "it's a project with lots of money -- knock yourself out". So I did :)

(*Apologies for my continuing over-use of the ellipsis. I do intend to cut down, but like all addicts am waiting for another day...)

Apparently I am no longer going to China. The conference was sufficiently badly organised that they withdrew my involvement and the booked exhibition space, and strong complaints will be made to important people. Yes, it was that bad. Which, on the positive side, means I don't have to deal with their incompetence face-to-face in a foreign city in a language I know nothing of. Every cloud, and all that...

Anyone need any Chinese currency? Not even opened? No? Didn't think so... Oh well, the bank'll buy it back. It's fine.

http://www.raceforlifesponsorme.org/joannamckenzie

I'm going to China in a week. That's pretty cool and pretty scary, in just about equal amounts. Otherwise, no news. Am fine, Dave is fine, family are mostly fine (bearing in mind recent bad news) and the weather is also fine. Which is nice.

The Dr Who double episode in the library was quite spectacularly good and was written by Stephen Moffat. Saturday's Dr Who was overdone and a bit meh (and had a gay reference) and was written by Russell T Davies. This bodes well, I think.

Seems fairly obvious to me.

• Invest in alternatives. Particularly for freight. That means a high-efficiency electric train line -- not all of our electricity comes from oil and gas, but our diesel does. Suddenly supermarkets only have to burn diesel from their nearest goods depot rather than across the country from airports. Funded retraining of lorry drivers to train drivers may be required.


• Now increase non-carbon based electricity generation. That means micro-renewables like solar panels on traffic lights feeding into the grid (sure the area's small but think of all the traffic lights!). That means speeding up planning applications for renewables projects. It means large-scale hydroelectric plants and investing in tidal and marine energy. Or it means re-investing in nuclear.</i>
  
• Building regulations. Insulate homes and offices. Well. And make sure they do it -- it'll save us a fortune in energy better used elsewhere. I don't care if the builders don't like it: it benefits everybody else.


• Use waste heat from industrial plants whereever possible. Pipe it to homes for heating water and inside air.

Seriously. No-one's in any doubt that each of these things is a good thing for the whole damn world[1]. So the question is, why aren't we *doing* anything??

[1] There is no scientific doubt that human activities are contributing to climate change. Even if there was, it is a scientific fact that greenhouse gases cause a planet to warm up and we can reduce our own greenhouse gases, even if we can't stop volcanoes erupting or cows farting. Further, renewable resources of any sort reduce waste, prevent conflict arising from limited resources and enable us to hope that future generations can continue to enjoy the technological comforts we've built up.
The only reasons not to take action are selfish ones: fear of losing popularity, greed for consuming at any price, and an unwillingness to suffer slight inconvenience now instead of huge inconvenience (droughts, floods, famine, wars, death) in the future.

Personally I've fitted my energy-saving light bulbs and started re-using poly bags. I take the train to work, and recycle as much as possible even though the council doesn't collect my recycling. But as a private individual there's only so much I can do. For real change we need governments. And they're sitting on their hands.

It's almost enough to make me vote Green.

From this article:
Scientists say it [human-animal hybrid embryo research] could lead to disease treatments, but critics argue that mixing human and animal tissue tampers with nature and is immoral.

In this post, I argued essentially that by pitting scientists against non-scientists in debates in the interests of balance, journalists often give an impression of doubt on an issue where no doubt exists. The above quote is an example of a case where pitting a scientist against a non-scientist is exactly what should be done.

The difference is in the scope of the debate. In the case of the climate change or the MMR vaccine "debate", the focus of the article was on the content of the science. In the current debate over embryo research, the focus is on the morality of the research. Should it be done at all? And having a hundred letters after your name doesn't qualify you to make that call. It's not in science's best interests to plough ahead without checking that the rest of society is behind us.

Morality in science is an interesting question. Science works on the cutting edge, almost by definition, and at the very edge there will always be unknown factors and moral grey areas. The ends don't justify the means because the means are ends themselves. So it's important that society is involved in directing science where the greys start to merge with blacks and the dark edge of right becomes the light edge of wrong. Sometimes that will hamper progress; but on the other hand progress for progress' sake is not necessarily the best idea.

Personally, I have no real problem with research on embryos, as long as the embryo does not develop to the stage where it can register a pain response. It seems to me that there is no sensible way to morally distinguish between research on an embryonic cell or, say, a hair or skin cell. But then, I'm no biologist, and my knowledge of cells and embryonic development are limited.

But I do think that this is an interesting exception to the problem I illustrated last time: a time when the journalistic idea of balance actually does improve the quality of a story, even though science is involved.

I've become more and more concerned of late about the false view of "fairness" perpetuated by both the media and, to a lesser extent, politicians. This is the view that giving equal weight to two opposing sides of an issue is the same as fairness. A quick google reveals that others have noticed it too. Two examples I've uncovered where bias creeps in precisely through attempts to be balanced are:

• When balanced reporting isn't


• Journalistic Balance as Global Warming Bias

As a scientist, I've mainly noted the latter example.

The first example is the effect of 24-7 media coverage on major events such as election campaigns. If one candidate does more campaigning they get more coverage in the media. Is this fair? Well, yes. After all, the whole point of campaigning is to get coverage; if more campaigning also benefits your rival, what's the point? This isn't media bias, it's inherent and an accurate reflection of true events.

The second is more insidious, and is particularly relevant to science-based coverage. You see it when a proposed wind farm is covered as a debate between the developer and the nearby landowner who, alone of his neighbours, objects to the project (this is not always the case, naturally, it's an example). You see it in popular chat shows when scientific research is discussed by "experts" in unrelated fields. And you see it on the news in cases like the MMR vaccine.

Like climate change, the MMR vaccine controversy is a case in point. One study showed that a potential link between autism and the MMR vaccine may exist. (I can't find any record of the study itself, I'm afraid). Further studies showed no link. Therefore the scientific consensus is that there is no link. Journalists do not accept that, however, and insist on "showing both sides" even though the scientific method has already analysed both sides objectively (that is, after all, what science is). So the MMR scare remains, people believe that doubt still exists and the newspapers sell more papers.

To me, as a scientist, this is like doing a debate on, say, Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, in which someone who has read the book a number of times, written essays discussing the period and published a dissertation on the character dynamics is given equal weight to someone who'd read War and Peace and heard Anna Karenina wasn't as good.

When scientists publish a study they've spent many years analysing data, removing bias and carefully ensuring that their conclusions are valid; the peer review process will also confirm that all necessary bias has been filtered out. When a number of independent studies agree on a topic, a consensus is reached and the body of knowledge that people seem to believe science is changes a little as a result. It has balance written in at its very heart, and arguing with its conclusions based on anecdotal evidence is foolish, and in cases such as climate change and MMR, both dangerous and immoral.

Can we put all journalists-in-training through science 101 and statistics 101 to help them understand this, please? Or better yet, can we stop telling schoolkids that we're teaching them science when we're simply asking them to remember facts?