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!

Tree of life

Ficus from the family Moraceae, the Latin for fig tree, if ever there were a tree of life this would be it. A variety of fig species are native to the tropics but also span to the temperate zone, occupying an assortment of ecological niches. An ancient genus, fig trees have been a life force to a diversity of creatures and cultures.

Historically, fig trees have been recognised as sacred organisms, having appeared in many religions and cultures such as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism. It is documented that Buddha meditated beneath a fig tree before finding enlightenment, Adam and eve are famously depicted as covering themselves with the leaves of the fig having eaten the forbidden fruit and many cultures have worshipped the fig as a spiritual entity and a sign of fertility.

But why has the fig tree been remembered and valued so much throughout our culture? The answer it seems is simply, because it is remarkable. Traditionally people have wondered in awe at the capabilities of the fig and in days when science was unable to explain its extraordinary nature, many cultures explained it through religion and worship. Today we have a much greater understanding of the ecological and symbiotic relationships of the fig, although biologists are still being astonished by new discoveries in its interesting biology.

The co-evolution and symbiotic relationship between fig trees and fig wasps has long been a subject of scientific wonder. Some studies suggest a co-divergence of the mutualism over the last 60 million years. The mutualism between fig wasps and their host figs is intricate and complex and has fascinated many. In simplistic terms- female wasps burrow into the figs through a natural opening in which they oviposite their eggs. Through doing this they inadvertently brush past male flowers on the outside of the fig. Once developed wingless males mate with females in the fig, using their specialised burrowing physiology to dig a hole out of the fig. Females move through the opening whist brushing through the female flowers on the inside of the fruit and fly to a new fruit to deposit their eggs thus beginning the cycle again. The stability of this mutualism over such a long period of time is of great interest, considering the large number wasp species that in fact parasitize figs. It appears that the fig wasp mutualism only evolved once, yet the constant hybridisation of fig species has allowed for the continuous evolution of pollinator wasp species.

Ficus is one of the largest genera of land plants with 750 species of figs worldwide, and is often considered a keystone species, providing food and shelter to a variety of fauna. From monkeys to bats, birds to caterpillars, the Fig is a life source that many organisms rely on and constantly confounds us with intrigue and awe. So pay homage to the humble fig, whose intricate relationships with nature and its ability to provide for a diversity of life has woven itself into our history. As our ancestors were in awe of this complex organism so too has it captivated the imaginations of scientists today.

Zombie science

Zombie Science: Zombies are the new Vampires, except these ones won’t be glittering in the twilight...

Zombies are definitely in this year, with the new epic Zombie series ‘The walking dead’ restarts this February, it's guaranteed most of us will be in training for the apocalypse. As in all zombie tales the post apocalyptic scenario of humans struggle for existence against the trans-morphed, rotting versions of themselves has enthralled the minds of many.. In fact a fascinating subject I recently came across is zombie science and the likelihood of such a situation actually occurring.

When encountering said Zombie film, whether it be George Romero’s cult classic ‘Night of the living dead’ or the more modern Danny Boyles ’28 Days later’ science always plays a part. From an airborne virus to parasites and neuro-toxins to the bacterial infection from the saliva of a rare rat-monkey found in the remote mountains of South America.... The science of said outbreak is taken for granted, then disregarded as soon as the film finishes and threat to mankind is extinguished, or mankind itself meets a somewhat sticky end. I however, am left pondering the possibilities of an era in which the dead would roam the earth....

So let’s talk about infection. The idea of an emotionless, flesh eating organism aimlessly wandering with nothing but basic motor functions to keep it company may not be as far fetched as you once thought.

You only need a brain stem. Ever heard the one about the chicken that went on to live for a year having been decapitated? That's because technically a brain stem is all you need to preform basic motor functions (such as stumbling around shouting brains) thus deterioration in the cortex (what makes us human) would result in a zombie like appearance. But the brain stem is usually damaged too, I hear you cry, advances in medicine has allowed the replication of healthy living brain cells through stem cell research. Such innovative medicine could render the patient alive yet void of thought and personality - the beginnings of a whole load of bad zombie mojo don't you think?

It is widely known that some parasites have the ability to modify the behaviour of their hosts to insure their life cycle is completed. Take Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite found in rats, cats and humans. The toxoplasma will make cysts happily throughout the unsuspecting victims body and brain with no apparent physical detriment. However, as the toxoplasma must complete it's life cycle within the gut of a cat, this nifty parasite has evolved to slightly change the behaviour of it's current host. The rats instinctual and inherited fear of cat's vanishes and thus it becomes an easy meal and a ticket out for the parasite. Perhaps it's important at this point to establish the connection between zombie and said parasite. Well, did I mention that through domestication of the cat over half of the worlds population is infected with Toxoplasma? I know what you're thinking- answer to the unprecedented increase in 'cat ladies'.... One study found a significance in behaviours of infected humans, stating that infected individuals tended to be more insecure and self reproaching. Now, if a parasite has the ability to change our personalities, are out thoughts really our own? Or are we just mindless flesh destine to roam this earth to do the bidding of microscopic organisms? You decide...

Neurotoxins and germ warfare is not a new concept, governments have already come up with vicious alternatives to weapons such as anthrax, botulism and have you ever seen a rabbit with myxomatosis? Bulging eyes, slow moving, bodily juices...oozing. Does this sound familiar?! Consider a neurotoxin developed from naturally occurring chemicals (alkaloids) that cause schizophrenic behaviour, perhaps hallucinations and what do you have? The rage virus- 28 days later...

All I can say is I'm glad someones already working on our survival. R.J Smith a mathematician at the University of Ottawa has been developing a zombie apocalypse model. A infectious disease model in which various scenarios are tested to see whether human kind would survive or zombies would cause the complete collapse of society.... Using math they established quick aggressive attack was the only way. So I guess 'nuking them' wasn't that far off... alas, I always hated that ending.

So always remember, no loud noises it attracts attention, go for the head else your dead and a watch your friends, feverish and shifty? I'd start to worry.....................
                                                                                           Brains.

For the sake of balance...

Having been inspired by Mondays Infinite Monkey Cage programme on Radio 4... it got me to thinking if there is a place for balance in science, the telling of opposing views on the same subject. My initial thought was- of course science has balance, it is open to all views and all ideas, it is the way science moves forward. After a while I began to think, actually balance is not really the nature of science, and instead depends on at what point the current research has reached.

So let me explain myself... In new research, the theories and experiments formed are variable and often answering different questions. In this way, science is balanced, different research on the same subject is fairly viewed and reviewed and criticised. The difference is I suppose, that science is always moving toward an end point, a consensus. After a while, experimental design and results are confirmed by multiple sources, multiple times. I guess it's like a mist clearing, when through science we gain clarity. Although nothing is 'proved' in science, research overtime can lead us to the best possible explanation. So let's take 'global warming', the consensus among scientists is that a) the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, b) Increased CO2 in the atmosphere correlates to the earth warming and c)  Various human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This is commonly accepted by any reputable scientist, and by consensus, I mean a large majority, a majority so large that you would be hard pressed to find any scientist apposed to this theory.

When I think back to my GCSE English teacher explaining that we must be 'unbiased and present both sides of the story' I wonder whether we can ever really apply this to science. Of course this works in a medium such as newspaper and press but as I stated above, finding scientists apposed to the majority view is difficult, and is it really valuable anyway? This kind of conflict of views in science is often put to the test through the media. It seems to be a favourite of various News programs to create this so called balance. However, providing Dr xx of the department (unknown) of University of Timbuktu to debate with a reputable climatologist is hardly balance. Even worse, when they bring on an politically motivated, emotive speaker who clearly has no grasp of simple facts, which is often the way when it comes to climate change issues. I despair at the number of times I've watched modest, intelligent scientists calmly communicate the facts which are soon bulldozed by ignorant, self righteous and often very loud dimwits..... I'm left feeling... that's not fair. It's not fair because the public are being exposed to incorrect, unjustified views, this is not balance but instead quite harmful. This issue of a warming world as a result of human activity should be taken as red, not the 'what do you believe then?' attidude taken by many people in the public domain.

So I guess I'm answering my question to ' is there balance in science?' as- sometimes.... But more importantly, balance in the media when science is involved isn't really balance at all. Science is logical, theories are posed, experiments constructed, observations recorded and conclusions made. If research is still in its infancy then differing theories maybe argued but if there is numerous studies to suggest a key fact or aspect then with the use of logic a consensus will be formed. The problem comes with a new wave of media coverage that depicts 'science verses the world'. It is sciences responsibility to answer questions that everyone is wondering, even non-scientists. What I don't understand is when people are quite comfortable to sit in the knowledge that the earth is in fact round (information discovered by scientists) yet flip out when it comes to an issue such as 'global warming' purely because the implications of such an issue may mean they will have to change their own behaviours to prevent exacerbation of the situation.

An excellent tweet by Professor Brian Cox in response to dimwit A that questioned Prof. Cox's 'fanatical' view on man made global warming and how various 'eminents' disagreed. He simply replied 'Evidence dear boy. Scientists don't hold views, they just keep plugging away trying to understand the data. The rest is politics.' Views are for politicians, science is a celebration of reason. So instead of arguing with someone who clearly doesn't know the facts for the sake of balance I instead urge you to take a look at the evidence it really does speak for itself...

Public ignorance of science, is it dangerous?

I suffer from mild annoyance at the general public for misinterpretation of scientific issues and evidence. Ignorance is a disease that is steadily growing in the UK if not the world. Don't get me wrong, I don't use the word ignorance lightly or arrogantly, I will be the first to admit I am ignorant of many things, even though I strive to correct this. There are just too many things to know in the world for such a small life time. However, we can always endeavour to learn the facts of issues we are interested in, in order to make sound judgment. The point at which my mild annoyance turns to anger is when people ignorant of the truth make judgments that put not only their lives but also the lives of others at risk.

Recently, the occurrence of measles outbreaks in the UK has rocketed with nine children in Brighten diagnosed with this potentially fatal, extremely infectious disease in the last couple of weeks. The MMR vaccine controversy was widely reported, and with it the huge body of evidence that suggested there is no link between MMR and autism. Yet through misinterpretation and ignorance, some of the public are refusing to inoculate their children based on this claim. I understand the confusion over the subject, the initial health scare was the outcome of a great scientific misconduct that should never have been published. However, the scientific consensus has been for a long time, that there is no evidence to link MMR to autism, based on the numerous epidemiological studies now reported.

Perhaps it is the media? Giving an unfair bias to the more interesting story, although I doubt this, as it was a Sunday times journalist that revealed the author of the paper to have certain misgivings... In any case information is so free and easy to obtain these days, it's easy to view multiple pieces of evidence on the Internet.. that's if you choose to of course. What I believe is more damaging and actually quite startling, is that many mothers are making decisions on their child's health care through hear say and whispers from other mothers. This cascading effect of 'someone said something 10yrs ago' has resulted in steady outbreaks not just in the UK but throughout the world in the past decade. Even more disturbing is the effect on children too young to receive the vaccination yet still vulnerable to the disease. This situation was reported in Brighton and Hove in which very young children have contracted the disease from older children who have not received the vaccination. One of the mothers of such a child said ' these mothers are playing Russian Roulette with their children's lives' but it seems not just their children, the whole community could be at risk.

I find myself thinking, do these people not understand how damaging these diseases are? Realising the cruel irony that in fact it is probably our amazing health care that has shielded them from the possible seriousness of these diseases. If we look at Africa the seriousness is clear to see, measles is one of the leading causes of child death, where for example Malawi's measles incidence rate per 100,000 total population is 490.8 compared to that of the UK 0.64 (WHO, 2010). I am reminded of a comment made by an Immunology lecture of mine, in which he described the reaction of one of his fellow Doctors born and working in Zimbabwe. He was shocked that parents in the UK were denying this potentially lifesaving vaccination to their children when it was so accessible. In Zimbabwe vaccination is rare and cases often prove fatal, the facts are plain to see with a 78% drop in measeals incidence 2000-2008 as a result of increased vaccinations worldwide.

I'm not sure how the situation can change in the UK, perhaps the exposure of parents to the consequences of no vaccination should be made more apparent in the media and by the NHS. Yet I fear these situations will only change once parents come face to face with the consequences of these diseases- pneumonia and encephalitis to name a few, but by then it is too late. When accurate information is so accessible, yet parents continue to make judgements that effect their children's health on hear say, I'm left thinking what an earth has happened to our sense of rationality? Will people really believe everything they hear?....

Can scientists turn bad? If so, can science save them?

I often get harassed by climate sceptics... It's not like I look for them, it's just they seem to be drawn to me like moths to a flame.... Not one who gains enjoyment from initiating an argument but also not one likely to let my opinions and views go left unsaid, I often unwillingly enter a debate. Agreed, much of the time I'm left relaying evidence and scientific theory that suggests climate change is occurring and yes we cause it, met with unaccepting ignorance. But sometimes a different argument is thrown in, one such argument that got me thinking was 'those scientists will say anything for money'. I know, the statement is rash and unthoughtful, and of course I argued about the stringent control and criticism in science and the openness that allows such peer review and questioning. But I was left thinking.... we are just human.

What drives science? Thought? Observation? or money? All three I would guess, it is however true that lack of funding means lack of research. You could write the most beautiful, succinct grant proposal ever seen yet if there is no future or at least way to gain merit in the future it won't succeed in receiving funding from one of the various bodies. So, with this in mind, is it possible that scientists would be fraudulent with data to secure future funding?


The above statement that originally accosted my thoughts was in relation to the University of East Anglia's 'Climategate'. A perfect example of how a slight turn of phrase can cascade through ignorance into a rolling ball of climate denier shit, showering the general public with fallacies and just plain untruths. In case a sceptic reads this I must confirm that following investigations into this incident 'The rigor and honesty of the scientists was found not to be in doubt' and it was also found that there was 'no evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments that human activities are causing global warming.' An interesting time for science and also a illustration of just how far we have to go to bridge the gap between publishing of science and research to the interpretation of it by the general public. Climate change is undoubtedly a big player in scientific research at the moment and with that, often the receiver of substantial funding, but could this really be a motive for fraudulence in science?


I recently read an interesting article on fraud in science by Dr J Crocker, using Diederik Staple a social psychologist who recently admitted fabricating much of his data. Social psychology is not a subject I know much about but the reputable American psychological Association having published much of his work has now been slowly withdrawing many of his papers, with early signs suggesting the scale of his fraud as vast. A fascinating point she brought up was likely ramifications of committing such a crime. Damaging the careers of students and colleagues, damaging the reputation of the research body or University as well as doubts to co-author papers... would you still be left believing it was worth it? I don't think I would. Apparently according to Dr Crocker, it only takes a few steps to become comfortable with you actions before they escalate "dropping a inconvenient data point- and avoiding discomfort by justifying or rationalising their way out'. It is however, how the truth outted that I feel is of greatest importance, the colleagues and researchers that took steps to stop such misconduct at the risk to their own careers.


I hate to say it.. but these people acted for 'the greater good'. It may be about morality, or logic or just plain rationality, but something tells me it is unacceptable. Scientific theory is empirical and always open to falsification, and although fraud in science has been shown to occur, the openness of science should combat falsification of results. One of the biggest threats that such misconduct could have is to the publics mistrust of science and scientists. One could argue that 'climategate' illustrated the lack of trust already distilled in the general public, which could only be made worse with such revelations. Communication and understanding of the scientific medium is our greatest challenge, but with it comes responsibility for upholding the definition of science 'organising knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe' even if the outcomes are not quite what we expected. Science is fluid and changeable, its nature is what makes it so facinating. We are constantly moving forward with new thoughts and theories, so in this respect there are no right answers... just interesting ones.