2nd Green Revolution

As a follow up to our most recent Five Friday Facts about the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Summary for Policy Makers (PDF), National Public Radio’s Science Friday program had a wonderful discussion of science and how it is portrayed in the media. The panel, which included a Pulitzer Prize winner, a professor of journalism, and a climatologist among others, focused on the reporting of science in the media, especially given the decline in readership and funding for reporters covering science. Read the rest of this entry »

For a slightly different take on the Five Friday Facts comes the “virtually certain” impacts of climate change. This data comes from the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) Summary for Policy Makers (PDF).

The definition of virtually certain used by the IPCC is a greater than 99% probability of occurrence. According to statistical analysis, the likelihood of these occurrences are statistically significant. However, they are all based on projections that reflect science’s current knowledge and as a result cannot account for all factors related to climate variability.

- Eric Wilson

On one level I don’t care about global warming, because it doesn’t matter. On the other, I know it is an incredibly important concern, one that may have drastic effects on society. However, because it has become politicized and polarized, I have steered clear of it. I am a science teacher, but not entirely a scientist in the traditional white lab coat sense of the word. I like to stick to the verifiable and the quantifiable. I do not pretend to know all of the data surrounding global warming – from both sides of the argument – and do not have the background of a debater to refute seemingly specious arguments that “deniers” or skeptics make. Skepticism is one of the fundamental “Habits of Mind” for scientists (along with the incredibly important habits of “tolerating uncertainty”, maintaining “openness to new ideas”, and exhibiting “intellectual honesty”). The latter of which may have been violated in last year’s debate over hacked emails from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit in England. However, there is a point at which healthy skepticism may be overtaken by radicalism.

What I do care about – which should be readily apparent for those that read my posts – is ushering in an era of sustainable development. We MUST use resources wisely. Read the rest of this entry »

As a science teacher I can tell you that people find science scary. Perhaps you already knew that. They think it is something they “can’t do” or “don’t get.” They may say they do not have a scientific brain. I can also tell you that these are entirely untrue. Real world, personally accessible examples, instead of theoretical situations, help make the connection to the here and now. For instance, the title of this post “Inefficient Devices and the Laws of Thermodynamics” would probably be enough to scare off most readers. However, by thinking about your own home, this scientific concept comes to life. Read the rest of this entry »

by Kim Novick, Guest Author

“We will restore science to its rightful place.” – Barack Obama, January 20th 2009

Modern inaugural addresses haven’t been kind to science.  In the 80 years preceding Obama’s inauguration, only Richard Nixon has spoken kindly of the discipline.  FDR called science a “ruthless master of mankind.”  Eisenhower spoke of its “final gift…the power to erase human life from this planet,” and Kennedy its “dark powers of destruction.”  These are pretty harsh words for the branch of knowledge that brought us the combustion engine, penicillin, and a fair chunk of American economic development since WWII.  Obama’s praise for science and technology in his inaugural address drew much applause on the Mall, making it clear that a renewed focus on and appreciation for American scientific enterprise isn’t just music to scientists’ ears. Read the rest of this entry »