The Queens Arms
201 Harrogate Road
Chapel Allerton
Leeds LS7 3PT (map)
Click here for more details
Science + Politics x Denmark = Chaos. What happened in Copenhagen ?
Monday, 01 March 2010, 08:00 PM - 10:00 PM
Dr. Simon Lewis
Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states that its goal is to ‘prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’. Understanding how human actions change the climate system, and the impacts of these changes on people and their life-support systems is a role for science, whereas deciding what is dangerous (to whom?), and how to avoid it (at what cost?), is within the realm of politics. This logical mix of science and politics had led to much confusion. The 15th UN meeting on climate change was no exception, despite unprecedented media scrutiny.
Dr Simon Lewis is a Royal Society research fellow at the Earth & Biosphere Institute, University of Leeds , and an expert in the role of tropical forests in the changing Earth system. He was in Copenhagen advising a central African government and took time out of doing science to get involved in the negotiations. He will give a brief summary of how we got to Copenhagen via the IPCC and CRU email hack and what the outcome of the UN talks might mean.
This talk was suggested by Dominic Rayner, so he will chair the meeting and there will be short presentation by Phil Exell, who manages our website, which has been upgraded.
I was interested to learn that in order to avoid dangerous levels of warming, much of the fossil fuels already discovered and identified will have to remain in the ground. The news that the UK is prospecting / drilling in the South Atlantic suggests that there is little political will for this outcome. There seems to have been no discussion yet on a policy of locking up carbon in the form of unburned and unextracted oil. It seems unlikely that anyone is going to pay the UK for leaving oil in the ground. How might the world stop Saudi Arabia or Nigeria from extracting all their reserves? Reducing oil extraction would increase the price of the oil that is extracted, of course.
Dom Rayner (on Tuesday, 02 March 2010, 12:06 PM)
It was suggested that politicians should be pushed harder towards greater and faster change. Are not politicians just the voice of the people they represents and if those people do not have at heart the changes that are being asked for then politicians can not be expected to either. If public opinion was whole heartedly behind the changes then the politicians would just follow and not need to be pushed. Can the public be expected to get whole heartedly behind these perceived dangers or set a course towards what many in the developed world would see as a retrograde move in their lifestyles?
Many big changes seen in the past such as Feminism or Socialism had at their heart a idea or dream of a better life, that in the case of tackling climate change is not there, on the contrary a future of austerity is perceived. Not a great advert for the public to start pushing politicians over. Were is the picture of the future that is Rosie?
David (on Tuesday, 02 March 2010, 12:08 PM)
The issue of Climate Change faces humanity with a huge dilemma which cannot be ignored. One horn of the dilemma is the obvious danger Climate Change poses to our present civilisation and to all future generations - Earth itself will survive since after all it has passed through many such changes before. The other is the realisation that the present phase of Climate Change may well be due to recent human activity, which was largely built on the exploitation of fossil fuel. The choice we are faced with is that either we modify our activities or we are doomed (as one 'Catastrophe Theory' listener put it).
But how do we modify our human activity? The answer to this question is by no means easy, as was demonstrated by the Copenhagen conference. Utter chaos, by the account of our speaker, and understandably so. On the one hand, how can we ask developed countries whose fossil fuel civilisation has brought so much benefit (as well as evil) not only to their own population but to humanity at large. Think of the advances in science, medicine, transport, communication and standard of living to name but a few. Do we want to sacrifice all this? On the other, how can developed countries ask developing ones to halt or even slow down their rate of progress towards achieving similar goals? No wonder Copenhagen failed, as well as all other fairy schemes of carbon trading and the like.
But Climate Change is HERE, and the argument between the environmentalists and vested commercial interests is not helpful. Whether we are wholly or partly responsible for this phenomenon, we simply cannot afford to stand idly by and do nothing - we owe it to future generations; our children and their children.
Educating the public has done wonders; there is now widespread acceptance of the concepts of recycling, energy conservation, renewable energy sources, cleaning industrial emissions and halting the disastrous activity of deforestation. At one time these were fringe far left views. With increasing public awareness will come increasing pressure on governments and industry to act in a collective manner. Nations will in turn proceed at different rates commensurate with their local conditions and economic circumstances.
However, all this may not be enough to save us in time. We are in desperate need for innovative solutions. Innovative and bold government schemes to encourage energy conservation and localised power production. Above all, we need an innovative technology to harness the abundant energy radiated daily to Earth from the Sun. Only 0.25% of that energy is trapped by the biological world through photosynthesis, and upon this tiny fraction the whole of life has evolved. (Ultimately, over many millions of years some of this was stored in the form of fossil fuel upon which the present civilisation depends.) There will be some false hopes in this quest for clean power, such as the nuclear option (fission reactions replace one evil with another, and the harnessing of fusion energy is a dream many scientists now doubt if it will ever be realisable on Earth - only stars are the seat of fusion).
We come back to photosynthesis and the quantum way it harnesses light energy. In the end, it is science and technology driven by massive popular pressure that will provide the solution to our civilisation's hunger for energy. This is where we should channel our resources; into the science and technology of clean energy, not into wasteful political activities such as Copenhagen.
Ayman SHELTAWY (on Monday, 08 March 2010, 03:49 PM)
(You must be logged in to join the discussion)
The Roots of Language
Monday, 19 July 2010, 08:00 PM
Dr. Katie Slocombe from York University
Dr. Katie Slocombe spoke at a recent conference in Holland about the evolution of language. Her previous and current work focusses on chimpanzee vocal communication and, in particular, the extent to which our closest living relatives can use calls to refer to objects and events in the external environment and the psychological mechanisms underlying call production. This behavioural work is conducted with both wild and captive populations of chimpanzees.
The debate about language seems to be moving fast. Whereas some years ago Chomsky’s theory of language seemed universal, there is now debate about the relation between gestures and the spoken word, and also about the relative importance of animals or birds in the development of human language.
raynerd >> Respond
GM crops: real benefits, real concerns?
Monday, 07 June 2010, 08:00 PM
Professor Howard Atkinson and Dr. Peter Unwin, Centre of Plant Sciences, University of Leeds
Over 1 billion people are chronically hungry including 30% of all Africans and we need 50% more food to be produced within 20 years to feed the growing world population. We have little more land available globally for productive cropping and the yield from some agricultural land may fall. There are several key questions we must address:
- Can GM crops help feed the world and what are the real limitations to ensuring food security?
- What are the risks for us and the environment?
- Are the concerns real and can they be managed?
- Is this science irrelevant to European needs?
- How would being a hungry African rather than a well fed European alter your viewpoint?
Scientists have a duty to listen to the concerns of society while meeting the challenge of providing new, beneficial crops that are safe to eat and ensure a healthy environment. Surely UK science must contribute to assuring future food security for all.
ashelt >> Respond
raynerd >> Respond
Who needs science communication?
Monday, 05 October 2009, 08:00 PM
Graeme Gooday , Professor of History of Science & Technology at the University of Leeds
There is a lot of science communication about nowadays, and it is increasingly taught by universities too. But who is it really for, and what is it meant to achieve? Does the public really "need" to know more about science? Or is it more that scientists need it to ensure that their research can still flourish in an increasingly challenging socio-economic climate? Insofar as the public does need to know more about science, does it actually get the kind of science communication it deserves? Is it ever legitimate, for example, to present new scientific projects as essential to preserve humankind from apocalypse, or as destined to free us from bodily infirmity? This talk will explore these questions, and suggest that maybe we've been here before...
mjburgess >> Respond
Synthetic Biology – A Brave New World?
Monday, 15 March 2010, 08:00 PM
Dr Bruce Turnbull
Imagine a world in which we could make fuels or pharmaceuticals in the same way we ferment malt to make beer. A world in which materials as strong as steel are made without industrial waste, or artificial viruses can be used to administer anti-cancer drugs without the usual side-effects of chemotherapy. Synthetic biology promises new technologies that could change our lives through the construction of new biological parts and devices, and the redesign of existing biological organisms for new purposes.
So, how can we redesign living organisms to perform useful functions? Are we on the point of creating artificial life in a laboratory? Dr Bruce Turnbull, a synthetic chemical biologist from the University of Leeds will provide an overview of synthetic biology – the possibilities, practicalities, perils and potential profits.
wbturnbull >> Respond