Sustainable Chemistry

Sustainability through Chemistry [Via Only in it for the gold]

An interesting compendium of problems and solutions is in a slick 30 page pamphlet put out by the British Royal Society of Chemistry entitled “A Sustainable Global Society: How can Materials Chemistry Help?“, h/t Phil Randall via Twitter. The Foreword concludes with an interesting exhortation, oddly straddling nationalism and globalism:

[More]

We do not often think that chemistry will be a part of a sustainable world but this pamphlet at least demonstrates that some scientists are thinking about this arena. It is nice to read something like this:

 

With the aid of materials chemistry, we can create a world in which our energy requirements are delivered sustainably, where usable energy can be produced, stored and then supplied wherever it is needed.We can minimise and remove pollutants from our environment as we create new consumer products which place less of a burden upon our natural resources. While the challenges in each geographical and political arena may vary, it is important that national thinking not be limited to the challenges of that country alone.

 

Perhaps they may even be correct. We shall have to watch this carefully

Arctic ice extent tied for lowest winter area ever measured

by NASA Goddard Photo and Video

Annual maximum ice extent reached [Via NSIDC Arctic News and Analysis RSS Feed]

Arctic sea ice extent appeared to reach its maximum extent for the year on March 7, marking the beginning of the melt season. This year’s maximum tied for the lowest in the satellite record. NSIDC will release a detailed analysis of the 2010 to 2011 winter sea ice conditions during the second week of April.[More]

It is tied with 2006. So the 2011 melt season will start from one of the lowest levels of ice ever seen. Should make for an interesting year.

Conspiracy abounds but is easily debunked for those who care

Thanks, Internet! Conspiracy theorists (and skeptics) thrive online
[Via Ars Technica]

It was July of 2009. The economy was on the edge of collapse, with 467,000 jobs lost the previous month. The unemployment rate was 9.5 percent. But for thousands of Americans, the real crisis was a dark secret that the government was supposedly hiding: President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

“Will you keep the Republic, or will you allow it to be stolen from us because of apathy?” asked one “birther” brochure. “Demand that Barak [sp] Obama prove he is a Natural Born American. The burden is on him to prove, but the burden is on you to demand the proof.”

[More]

For conspiracy theories to survive they must resort to fact-bending practices. They cherry pick data, they take quotes out of context, they only link to other conspiracy sites, they just lie. They do not respond with a rational argument in a fact-based discussion.

The same tools used by denialists. Because in both cases, they KNOW the answer and so must mold facts to fit their  ’truth’. Science is able to change based on new facts. Conspiracy theories not at all.

The water is just fine in the baby pool for tablet makers

by Spigoo

7-in. tablet makers find some success bypassing competition with Apple’s iPad
[Via AppleInsider]

Rather than mimic the iPad’s 9.7-inch screen, tablet makers have apparently found more success with the smaller 7-inch screen size — a form factor where Apple has indicated it has no plans to compete.

[More]

They would rather work in the very competitive arena of small tablets for cut-rate prices – few will make any profits here. That is more exciting to them than competing head to head with the Apple iPad. Commodity prices in a small market.

If they do somehow make the small tablet any sort of threat, Apple could come out with one – it is known that they have experimented with that size factor – and it would most likely lead that market as well. These competitors have no real strategy and are just flinging pasta at the wall to see what sticks.

Some of it will stick but it won’t be because of any coordinated strategy, such as Apple’s. So they will not be ready for Apple’s next thing.

The US Chamber of Commerce – not only a tool of foreign groups but a possible felon

Richard Clarke says U.S. Chamber committed a felony by cyber-targeting political opponents
[Via Climate Progress]

Earlier this month, Richard Clarke, who served for both Democratic and Republican Presidents, including a stint as the cyber security czar for the Bush administration, denounced the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for plotting with a group of military contractors to hack into progressive groups.

Clarke was in DC speaking at a cyber security conference hosted by Symantec. Although Clarke focused his remarks about the growing threat of global cyber terrorism, ThinkProgress spoke to the longtime public servant about the ChamberLeaks story we originally broke.

According to documents first reported by ThinkProgress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce began working with three military contractors — Berico, HB Gary, and Palantir — to come up with a proposal to discredit groups like ThinkProgress, the SEIU, StopTheChamber.com, MoveOn.org, and others. The tactics proposed included spying on families, using malware computer viruses to steal private information, using fake documents to embarrass liberals, and creating fake identities to infiltrate their targets.

Clarke denounced the scandal in no uncertain terms. Noting accurately that the Chamber “took foreign money in the last election,” a story also uncovered by ThinkProgress, Clarke said the Chamber had conspired to commit a “felony”:

[More]

But will anyone ever really investigate this?

As Clarke said:

if any American citizen anywhere in the world engages in unauthorized penetration, or identity theft, accessing a number through identity theft purposes, that’s a felony and if the Chamber of Commerce wants to try that, that’s fine with me because the FBI will be on their doorstep in a matter of hours.

It’ll be interesting to see if anything more ever comes out about this. What we know so far certainly indicates that the US Chamber of Commerce may have been engaged in a conspiracy.

“He’s got ‘em on a list; And they’ll none of ‘em be missed”

Why Federally-Funded Academics Should Seriously Consider Blogging Pseudonymously
[Via Mike the Mad Biologist]

A few weeks ago, Glenn Greenwald gave a speech where he discussed the climate of government intimidation in the U.S.:

I received a lot of comments from people via email, from people in person telling me at my attended events, from people in my comment section, American citizens who said the following: “I understand and agree with the idea that Wikileaks has a lot of potential to do good, but I’m actually afraid of donating money, because I’m afraid that I’m going to end up on some kind of a list somewhere; or that eventually I will be charged with aiding and abetting, or giving material support to a terrorist group.”

This was not one or two people who tended toward the pole of paranoia saying these things. These were very rational people, and there were a lot of them. Some long-term readers whom I knew to be quite sober in their thinking. The fear that they were expressing was somewhat pervasive. That, to me, was extraordinarily striking: that these were American citizens who were afraid to donate money to a group whose political aims they supported; who had never been charged with, let alone convicted of any crime who felt like they were going to end up on some kind of government list, or possibly be charged with aiding and abetting or giving material support to terrorism.

In light of that, comes this chilling tale of targeting University of Wisconsin professor William Cronon who publicly opposed Republican governor Scott Walker:

[More]

Many people are afraid and intimidated because they are afraid of being put on a list. It has happened before in America – where your life could be turned upside down because of what you signed 20 years earlier.

Do we want to live in a country where your political opinion can determine your livelihood? We have in the past. Seems some people want to return to those times.

People like real art, even if it is stupid looking abstract art

A child couldn’t paint that – can people tell abstract art from a child’s or chimp’s work?
[Via Not Exactly Rocket Science]

If you wander through New York’s Museum of Modern Art, you’ll eventually come across Painting Number 2 by Franz Kline, a set of thick, unruly black lines on a white canvas. Elsewhere, you will find one of Mark Rothko’s many untitled works, consisting of various coloured rectangles. And in front of both paintings, you will inevitably find visitors saying, “A child could paint that.”

To which Angelina Hawley-Dolan and Ellen Winner replied: “Could they?”

The duo wanted to test the assertion that abstract expressionist art is devoid of talent – that it could be done by a mere child, or even an animal. With keyboards and enough time, monkeys could surely duplicate Shakespeare, but with a paintbrush and a few hours, could a monkey produce a Rothko?

To find out, Hawley-Dolan and Winner asked 32 art students and 40 psychology students to compare pairs of paintings. One piece of each pair was the work of a recognised artist, such as Kline, Rothko, Cy Twombly, Gillian Ayre, and more. The other came from the oeuvre of lesser-known painters, including preschool children, elephants, chimps, gorillas and monkeys. The paintings were …

[More]

Interesting work. Even non-art people liked the professional art than the amateur. There may be a reason that particular childish looking art made it into an art gallery – because people like it. Professionals that made unpleasing art, like many amateurs might, would not end up in a gallery.

What this shows is that the abstract art that gets selected for museums, etc. actually does have qualities that lots of people like. Those artists knew something.

More anti-science in the south

Creationism in the Alabama standards?
[Via NCSE - National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.]

A spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Education claims that creationism is presented in the state education standards. Michael Sibley, the department’s director of communications, told Fox News (March 24, 2011) by e-mail that the Alabama Course of Study, while not addressing creationism individually, “deals with Theories of Evolution,” adding, “Creationism is one of those theories. The Alabama Course of Study presents each of these so that students can draw their own conclusion for themselves.”

[More]

Alabama actually has a disclaimer on its textbooks regarding evolution. It is fascinating to look at just this one site to see the Anti-Science found in the South:

Antievolution bill in Tennessee progresses

Antievolution bill dies in Kentucky

“Intelligent design” legislation in Texas

Antievolution legislation in Florida

And this is just the month of March. At least rational voices won in some instances but it seems to be a neverending battle at the state level.

But mainly in the South, apparently.

A wonderful biological argument of interest to a few

by mrbill

Can Biologists Admit We Are Wrong? Dunno. But We Will Say Other Biologists Are Wrong
[Via Mike the Mad Biologist]

Because we are human after all. Jason Collins at Evolving Economics, in response to my post about one economist’s misunderstanding of biology, asks a very good question:

On the flip side, did Dawkins or Gould (or their respective supporters) ever concede to the other side that they were wrong and substantially change their world view?

I agree with Razib about what happened:

My own attitude is that both Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould retreated from maximalist positions when it came to the gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium arguments of the 1970s substantively. But rhetorically they often seemed to downplay their modifications, and assert more that their own positions were a change of degree, while their antagonist in the argument would have to make a change of kind to align with the evidence. This sort of semantic gamesmanship is disappointing, though alas rather conventional. But since I’m not a thorough master of the oeuvre of both men I’d be curious what readers think.

Let’s consider two areas where Gould and Dawkins both backed off: punctuated equilibrium and levels of selection (it’s interesting that they disagreed on both issues, and I don’t think the two issues are necessarily related). So onto punk eek.

[More]

I loved reading this because it is to deep and hard.  You require a strong biology background with a lot of history of the field to understand what is being discussed.

It’s like reading some Third  Degree Mason discussing lore that only other higher ups are party to. I had fun.

I am so thankful for the Internet.