clawsfour

Climate change deniers, creationists, and Conservatives

This is the opening video from the UN climate conference in Copenhagen.

Interesting to see the number of right wing deniers of climate change theory (are there any left wing deniers?) already on YouTube complaining about state control and tax rises arising from the climate change hoax. I wonder to what extent there is a correlation between climate change deniers and creationists? 

Of course, there is no reason that a creationists shouldn't accept that the impact of people on climate change is a reality. Apart from the fact that they are A: bonkers and B: ....oh, no need for the B:

Hopefully there will be sufficient progress in Copenhagen to ensure that climate change remains top of the agenda for our politicians (of course in the UK, that also means returning a Labour Government next year). A big worry will remain, acording to the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study is that the carbon parts per million target will be agreed at too high a level to prevent the acidification of our oceans.

Coral bleaching, on top of damage through fishing and pollution, could lead to the loss of 60 per cent of coral reefs within the next 20 years according to the study leader Pavan Sukhdev.

The Conservative Party under Cameron have set out time and again that they are opposed to targets and opposed to legislative intervention to reduce the impact of our industrial society on the future climate. as a recent example, Cameron wants TVs to switch off (rather than have a standby mode) but only if it is in the interests of the profits of his friends rather than the interests of the planet.

It is already difficult to identify clear blue water between Cameron, creationists and climate change deniers at the moment. And if Cameron gets elected it will become increasingly difficult to identify clear blue water.

Why gentlemen prefer blondes and women prefer millionaires

Arriving at tonight's Darwin lecture, a little disconcerted to have to fill in a 'truth' questionnaire about what qualities you look for in a long term partner. 

With my long term partner sat next to me. 

More later... 

OK. Now it's later. 

Very interesting lecture by Helena Cronin and interesting conversations afterwards. The essential theme was what do the male and female of the species look for in a partner and how does that reflect in society today. 

The questionnaires (see above) were quickly analysed and reinforced the much more detailed research Cronin used as a basis for the lecture. The findings were broadly these. Both men and women - in all societies, In all countries - rank intelligence and humour as the two most important attributes in seeking a partner. 

After that display of unanimity the sexes diverge. Men look for attributes - facial attraction, body, caring personality - which can be analysed as relating to youthful child-bearing. Women are much more interested in financial resources, power and experience. Attributes which confirm the man as provider. 

Where women themselves are providers and have crashed through the glass ceilings, they still look up the ladder for a partner rather than down. I can hear the howls from those individuals for whom this isn't true, but this research can only look at averages. The fact that the oldest individuals in the world are invariably men doesn't detract from the fact that, on average, women live longer. 

The two areas of discussion which provoked some debate were the relative competitiveness of the sexes and evolutionary pressure and homosexuality. The question of homosexuality has not been well determined in the theory of evolution. The two current hypotheses are that the evolutionary pressures that result in homosexuality are either left over from dealing with pressures which no longer exist, or are residual effects of other pressures. 

Given that these hypotheses (or others) have yet to be resolved this area of debate was very thought provoking. As was the reaction of Cronin, a self confessed left wing feminist, to the suggestion that the only reason women aren't as competitive as men is because they aren't allowed to be. She swatted this argument aside and then followed it up with plenty of supporting evidence. The basics are that women don't have to keep competing to get one bloke to father a child but men have to be competitive to be that father. 

However, having said that the most compelling evidence is how competitive the sexes are when there is no need to be. Cronin gave hilarious examples of the pointless competitiveness of the male and the bemused females simply getting the important stuff done. From the trawl through the Guinness Book of Records to the macho financiers who brought on the credit-crunch the lecture was littered with examples of real and compelling differences in the competitiveness of the sexes which are used when picking a partner. 

The one area where Helena Cronin wasn't in tune with her audience was over the number of partners. She proposed with all the weight of scientific study behind her that men would want lots of partners to increase his impact on the future gene pool. Women on the other hand are limited to the number of children they can bear and so why would any women want want more than one man? 

A lot of the predominantly female audience seemed to take a slightly different view.

Evolution is a one way street

Bugger, bugger, bugger. Bugger.

We don't have kids. Never seen the point of them - although it's tempting to borrow one from time to time to see certain films at the cinema.

And, of course, more recently it is becoming more and more clear that reducing the population of the planet is the only effective way of dealing with climate change and other environmental pressures. It's the one thing where I didn't agree with Tony Blair. Prime Ministers with four kids just don't show the right example.

Anyhow, we feel we are doing our bit for the planet by not creating another tribal demand on resources. And then it dawned. Our preference for no children will die out with us. No chance for the 'population reduction' genes to be passed on. The planet is buggered.

Bugger.

Survival fight for eagle and hen harrier

Depressing report from today's Guardian.
The survival of two of Britain's most distinctive birds of prey, the golden eagle and the hen harrier, is being threatened by widespread and illegal persecution by gamekeepers, the country's largest conservation charity says.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds warned yesterday that both birds are close to extinction in England because of systematic attacks by owners and staff on shooting estates, particularly in the counties of Northumberland, Cumbria, Yorkshire and Derbyshire.

I sometimes think that a straightfoward class war would be the easier option.