A rant about Climate Deniers

Usually I wouldn't venture on to a subject such as climate change denialists, not because it's a hotly debated subject, because the fact is, it isn't. Everybody who needs to be in the know, is. Such as politicians and scientists, they understand fully that the climate is changing, we have caused it and the repercussions on the natural environment that can be expected. The only ones left now are arrogant, clueless trouble makers, who frankly, I'm bored of arguing with.

No this post is a bit different, as I explore the reactions to the label of  'climate denier' they have brought upon themselves. It seems as if every time you mention 'climate denial' the accused draw up their pettycoats and shout 'lies, slander, don't liken me to a holocaust denier!'. I consider it unfortunate, that certain journalists who advocate the realisation of current climate change felt it necessary to compare, let alone liken climate change denialists to holocaust denialists. Perhaps it was reactionary, a statement drawing power from such a recognisable and provocative phrase as Holocaust denial. The fact is, they are completely unrelated, sharing but one word, denial. It's like saying a social-scientist is the same as a natural-scientist, of course they share similarities in the processes and actions just as both forms of denialists do. This is why the word denial is so appropriate, because of the significance of its meaning.

Denial, first postulated by Sigmund Freud as a defence mechanism- 'when a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept so rejects it instead, despite the overwhelming body of evidence.' Now, when I read that statement I feel like the word was just made for climate denialists. The evidence is freely available to view and understand, yet still denialist continue to reject such insights. Of course I'm not only referring to the 'hockey stick' graph that illustrates a significant increase in global surface temperatures after the industrial revolution. But also a unprecedented rate of warming not seen historically, the reactions of species such as early bud burst and emergence as well as northward shifting range boundaries. The evidence really is overwhelming if you care to look for it. Of course some denialist choose not to argue the evidence and instead spout conspiracy nonsense. 97% of all researchers in the scientific community accept the warming of the earth through anthropogenic means. That is a huge consensus, most likely because the evidence is irrefutable, I'm left advising said climate deniers to crawl back into their caves because, really, you just look a bit silly now...

What I really despise is the hijacking of the work skeptic. They are not sceptical, because clearly they have not understood the evidence. Scepticism is essential to science ipso facto science is skeptic, evidence and theory is questioned and questioned again to come to the best possible answer based on our observations. Just as hundreds of climate scientists have hypothesised, preformed experiments and critiqued each others work have come to the same answer. The distinction comes from the evidence based thinking of a skeptic to the rejection of evidence by a denialist.

The trouble is, climate change is global and thus political. The mis-communication between scientist and politician and politician and lay man may have lead to the confusion of what we can accept as the truth and what we can reject. However, isn't it funny that those so apposed to the idea of an anthroprogenic change in climate are the ones often stood to loose out from such a revelation? Weird, huh. Finally, if you're wondering what a climate denialist looks like, have a gander at these crayzies in this handy article from the guardian.

Happy Halloween!

Things that go bump in the night

As the nights grows longer and days grow colder, people across the world usher in the winter solstice with gatherings twisted in myth, superstition and celebration. Halloween, heralded as the night when the boundaries between the world of the dead and the world of living become blurred has evolved over time, but grim and ghoulish creatures remain a central theme.

The Spider, a quintessential Halloween creature, with its alien form and in some species, deadly capabilities, human misunderstanding of these interesting species has had a long history. Meet Nephilia komaci, the largest orb weaving spider known to science and a bit of a biological enigma. This rare species of orb-weaving spiders are native to South Africa and Madagascar. The extreme differences in size between the sexes, makes them evolutionarily interesting. Males can reach a modest 2.5cm where as females can reach a frightful 12cm leg span. Researchers suggest the female developed such a large body size to increase fertility (ablity to lay more eggs) whilst being a huge deterrent to any smaller predators that might happen to pass by. The Nephilia komaci web weaving skills are some of the best with some webs reaching one meter wide!

‘They mostly come at night, mostly...’ But not always, Bats aren’t quite the blood sucking children of the night as you might think. These complex creatures are some of the most interesting mammals on the planet. The notorious Vampire bat has long had links to Halloween with their nocturnal lifestyle and blood sucking behaviour but let’s separate the fact from fiction. There are only 3 species out of over 1000 Bat species that feed solely on blood. It is true that they are nocturnal, but not only do they use caves for shelter, various species throughout South America have been known to make use of a wide variety of locations from hollowed trees to abandoned mine shafts. Although they indeed feed on the blood of mammals it is not sucked, but in fact the skin is pierced and the blood lapped from the wound. With an average of 2-4 tsp being consumed each night this is hardly a feed of vampiric proportions.  One of the less well known and incredibly endearing qualities of the Vampire bat is its altruistic behaviour.  These bats are vulnerable to starvation if they do not find a blood meal more than two nights in a row. It has been shown that fellow cave dwellers will regurgitate a blood meal to insure the survival of the receiver at a small cost to their own fitness. The expectation is that the favour will be returned in the future, when the other bat may need a meal. Once you know this, they seem rather friendly and considerate little creatures quite apart from the tales of Dracula!