Arquivo da tag: Incerteza

Climatic fluctuations drove key events in human evolution (University of Liverpool)

21-Sep-2011 – University of Liverpool

Research at the University of Liverpool has found that periods of rapid fluctuation in temperature coincided with the emergence of the first distant relatives of human beings and the appearance and spread of stone tools.

Dr Matt Grove from the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology reconstructed likely responses of human ancestors to the climate of the past five million years using genetic modelling techniques. When results were mapped against the timeline of human evolution, Dr Grove found that key events coincided with periods of high variability in recorded temperatures.

Dr Grove said: “The study confirmed that a major human adaptive radiation – a pattern whereby the number of coexisting species increases rapidly before crashing again to near previous levels – coincided with an extended period of climatic fluctuation. Following the onset of high climatic variability around 2.7 million years ago a number of new species appear in the fossil record, with most disappearing by 1.5 million years ago. The first stone tools appear at around 2.6 million years ago, and doubtless assisted some of these species in responding to the rapidly changing climatic conditions.

“By 1.5 million years ago we are left with a single human ancestor – Homo erectus. The key to the survival of Homo erectus appears to be its behavioural flexibility – it is the most geographically widespread species of the period, and endures for over one and a half million years. Whilst other species may have specialized in environments that subsequently disappeared – causing their extinction – Homo erectus appears to have been a generalist, able to deal with many climatic and environmental contingencies.”

Dr Grove’s research is the first to explicitly model ‘Variability Selection’, an evolutionary process proposed by Professor Rick Potts in the late 1990s, and supports the pervasive influence of this process during human evolution. Variability selection suggests that evolution, when faced with rapid climatic fluctuation, should respond to the range of habitats encountered rather than to each individual habitat in turn; the timeline of variability selection established by Dr Grove suggests that Homo erectus could be a product of exactly this process.

Linking climatic fluctuation to the evolutionary process has implications for the current global climate change debate. Dr Grove said: “Though often discussed under the banner term of ‘global warming’, what we see in many areas of the world today is in fact an increased annual range of temperatures and conditions; this means in particular that third world human populations, many living in what are already marginal environments, will face ever more difficult situations. The current pattern of human-induced climate change is unlike anything we have seen before, and is disproportionately affecting areas whose inhabitants do not have the technology required to deal with it.”

The research is published in The Journal of Human Evolution and The Journal of Archaeological Science.

Science and religion do mix (Rice University)

9/20/2011 – News & Media Relations

Rice University study reveals only 15 percent of scientists at major research universities see religion and science always in conflict

Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in perpetual conflict, but a new study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science as requiring distinct boundaries.

“When it comes to questions about the meaning of life, ways of understanding reality, origins of Earth and how life developed on it, many have seen religion and science as being at odds and even in irreconcilable conflict,” said Rice sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund. But a majority of scientists interviewed by Ecklund and colleagues viewed both religion and science as “valid avenues of knowledge” that can bring broader understanding to important questions, she said.

Ecklund summarized her findings in “Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science,” which appears in the September issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Her co-authors were sociologists Jerry Park of Baylor University and Katherine Sorrell, a former postbaccalaureate fellow at Rice and current Ph.D. student at the University of Notre Dame.

They interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities. Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict, and 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict. Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not.

“Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases,” Ecklund said. “Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.”

Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (teaching of creationism versus evolution, stem cell research) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict.

The study identified three strategies of action used by these scientists to manage the religion-science boundaries and the circumstances that the two could overlap.

  • Redefining categories – Scientists manage the science-religion relationship by changing the definition of religion, broadening it to include noninstitutionalized forms of spirituality.
  • Integration models – Scientists deliberately use the views of influential scientists who they believe have successfully integrated their religious and scientific beliefs.
  • Intentional talk – Scientists actively engage in discussions about the boundaries between science and religion.

“The kind of narrow research available on religion and science seems to ask if they are in conflict or not, when it should really ask the conditions under which they are in conflict,” Ecklund said. “Our research has found that even within the same person, there can be differing views. It’s very important to dispel the myth that people believe that religion and science either do or don’t conflict. Our study found that many people have much more nuanced views.”

These nuanced views often find their way into the classroom, according to those interviewed. One biologist, an atheist not part of any religious tradition, admitted that she makes a sincere effort to present science such that “religious students do not need to compromise their own selves.” Although she is not reconsidering her personal views on religion, she seeks out resources to keep her religious students engaged with science.

Other findings:

  • Scientists as a whole are substantially different from the American public in how they view teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. Nearly all of the scientists – religious and nonreligious alike – have a negative impression of the theory of intelligent design.
  • Sixty-eight percent of scientists surveyed consider themselves spiritual to some degree.
  • Scientists who view themselves as spiritual/religious are less likely to see religion and science in conflict.
  • Overall, under some circumstances even the most religious of scientists were described in very positive terms by their nonreligious peers; this suggests that the integration of religion and science is not so distasteful to all scientists.

Ecklund said the study’s findings will go far in improving the public’s perception of science. “I think it would be helpful for the public to see what scientists are actually saying about these topics, rather than just believe stereotypes,” she said. “It would definitely benefit public dialogue about the relationship between science and religion.”

Ecklund is the author of “Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think,” published by Oxford University Press last year.

The study was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation and additional funding from Rice University.

We Need To Do More When It Comes To Having Brief, Panicked Thoughts About Climate Change (The Onion)

COMMENTARY
BY RHETT STEVENSON
SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 | ISSUE 47•36

The 20 hottest years on record have all taken place in the past quarter century. The resulting floods, wildfires, and heat waves have all had deadly consequences, and if we don’t reduce carbon emissions immediately, humanity faces bleak prospects. We can no longer ignore this issue. Beginning today, we must all do more when it comes to our brief and panicked thoughts about climate change.

Indeed, if there was ever a time when a desperate call to take action against global warming should race through our heads as we lie in bed and stare at the ceiling, that time is now.

Many well-intentioned people will take 20 seconds out of their week to consider the consequences of the lifestyle they’ve chosen, perhaps contemplating how their reliance on fossil fuels has contributed to the rapid melting of the Arctic ice cap. But if progress is what we truly want, 20 seconds is simply not enough. Not by a long shot. An issue this critical demands at least 45 seconds to a solid minute of real, concentrated panic.

And I’m not talking about letting the image of a drowning polar bear play out in your mind now and then. If we’re at all serious, we need to let ourselves occasionally be struck with grim visions of coastal cities washing away and people starving as drought-stricken farmlands fail to yield crops—and we need to do this regularly, every couple days or so, before continuing to go about our routines as usual.

This may seem like a lot to ask, but no one ever said making an effort to think about change was easy.

So if you pick up a newspaper and see an article about 10 percent of all living species going extinct by the end of the century, don’t just turn the page. Stop, peruse it for a moment, look at the photos, freak out for a few seconds, and then turn the page.

And the next time you start up your car, stop to think how the exhaust from your vehicle and millions of others like it contributes to air pollution, increasing the likelihood that a child in your neighborhood will develop asthma or other respiratory ailments. Take your time with it. Feel the full, crushing weight of that guilt. Then go ahead and drive wherever it was you wanted to go.

To do anything less is irresponsible.

Suppose you’ve just sat down in a crisply air-conditioned movie theater. Why not take the length of a preview or two to consider the building’s massive carbon footprint? Imagine those greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere, disrupting ecosystems and causing infectious diseases to spread rampantly, particularly in regions of the world where the poorest people live. Visualize massive storm systems cutting widespread swaths of destruction. Think of your children’s children dying horrible, unnecessary deaths.

You might even go so far as to experience actual physical symptoms: shaking, hyperventilation, perhaps even a heart palpitation. These are entirely appropriate responses to have, and the kinds of reactions each of us ought to have briefly before casting such worries aside to enjoy Conan The Barbarian.

Ultimately, however, our personal moments of distress won’t matter much unless our government intervenes with occasional mentions of climate change in important speeches, or by passing nonbinding legislation on the subject. I implore you: Spend a couple minutes each year imagining yourself writing impassioned letters to your elected representatives demanding a federal cap on emissions.

Global warming must be met with immediate, short-lasting feelings of overwhelming dread, or else life as we know it will truly cease—oh, God, there’s nothing we can do, is there? Maybe we’re already too late. What am I supposed to do? Unplug my refrigerator? I recycle, I take shorter showers than I used to, doesn’t that count for something? Devastating famines and brutal wars fought over dwindling resources? Is that my fault? Jesus, holy shit, someone do something! Tell me what to do! For the love of God, what can possibly be done?

There you have it. I’ve done my part. Now it’s your turn.

Few insurers planning for climate change (Reuters)

By Ben Berkowitz

NEW YORK, Sept 1 (Reuters) – Only one in eight insurers has a formal policy in place to manage climate risk, despite rising evidence that environmental changes are exacerbating insurers’ disaster losses, according to a coalition of public interest groups.

The coalition, Ceres, looked at 88 filings from six states by insurance companies, using a form developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Ceres said it was the first-ever effort to quantify how U.S. insurers manage climate risk in their day-to-day operations.

Despite the broad lack of a formal policy, Ceres said insurers generally acknowledge the problem of climate change and the effect it can have on their business.

“Even those insurers with no formal climate policy, no climate risk management structure and a stated belief that the company is not vulnerable to the effects of climate change still name perils that may be affected by climate change 20 percent of the time,” Ceres said in its report.

Of the 11 companies with formal climate policies, two — Prudential Financial (PRU.N) and Genworth Financial (GNW.N) — are life insurers. The rest are mostly multi-line insurers or reinsurers. Among them are ACE Ltd (ACE.N), AIG’s (AIG.N) Chartis unit.

(For an Insider interview with the author of the Ceres report, click here: link.reuters.com/myk53s)

The Ceres report comes as insurers start paying claims for last week’s Hurricane Irene, which broke flood records across the U.S. Northeast, and as they look to the Atlantic for the approach of what may become Hurricane Katia.

Because of the potential for hurricanes to cause sudden and huge losses in the United States, Ceres said the insurance industry is especially focused on how climate change will affect hurricane exposure, potentially at the expense of studying the impact on other common perils.

Some insurance companies have taken a public stand on climate issues, particularly home and auto insurer Allstate (ALL.N), which has warned that recent severe weather is part of a permanent change in the environment, and German reinsurance heavyweight Munich Re (MUVGn.DE).

Ceres recommended that all states make the National Association of Insurance Commissioners disclosure form mandatory and public, and that they adopt the model of California insurance regulators, who put together detailed guidelines on how to fill out the form.

Ceres describes itself is a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and public interest groups. (Reporting by Ben Berkowitz; editing by John Wallace)

Shooting the messenger (The Miami Herald)

Environment
Posted on Monday, 08.29.11
BY ANDREW DESSLER

Texas Gov. Rick Perry stirred up controversy on the campaign trail recently when he dismissed the problem of climate change and accused scientists of basically making up the problem.

As a born-and-bred Texan, it’s especially disturbing to hear this now, when our state is getting absolutely hammered by heat and drought. I’ve got to wonder how any resident of Texas – and particularly the governor who not so long ago was asking us to pray for rain – can be so cavalier about climate change.

As a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, I can also tell you from the data that the current heat wave and drought in Texas is so bad that calling it “extreme weather” does not do it justice. July was the single hottest month in the observational record, and the 12 months that ended in July were drier than any corresponding period in the record. I know that climate change does not cause any specific weather event. But I also know that humans have warmed the climate over the last century, and that this warming has almost certainly made the heat wave and drought more extreme than it would have otherwise been.

I am not alone in these views. There are dozens of atmospheric scientists at Texas institutions like Rice, the University of Texas, and Texas A&M, and none of them dispute the mainstream scientific view of climate change. This is not surprising, since there are only a handful of atmospheric scientists in the entire world who dispute the essential facts – and their ranks are not increasing, as Gov. Perry claimed.

And I can assure Gov. Perry that scientists are not just another special interest looking to line their own pockets. I left a job as an investment banker on Wall Street in 1988 to go to graduate school in chemistry. I certainly didn’t make that choice to get rich, and I didn’t do it to exert influence in the international arena either.

I went into science because I wanted to devote my life to the search for scientific knowledge. and to make the world a better place. That’s the same noble goal that motivates most scientists. The ultimate dream is to make a discovery so profound and revolutionary that it catapults one into the pantheon of the greatest scientific minds of history: Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Planck, etc.

This is just one of the many reasons it is inconceivable for an entire scientific community to conspire en masse to mislead the public. In fact, if climate scientists truly wanted to maximize funding, we would be claiming that we had no idea why the climate is changing – a position that would certainly attract bipartisan support for increased research.

The economic costs of the Texas heat wave and drought are enormous. The cost to Texas alone will be many billion dollars (hundreds of dollars for every resident), and these costs will ripple through the economy so that everyone will eventually pay for it. Gov. Perry needs to squarely face the choice confronting us; either we pay to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, or we pay for the impacts of a changing climate. There is no free lunch.

Economists have looked at this problem repeatedly over the last two decades, and virtually every mainstream economist has concluded that the costs of reducing emissions are less than the costs of unchecked climate change. The only disagreement is on the optimal level of emissions reductions.

I suppose it should not be surprising when politicians like Gov. Perry choose to shoot the messenger rather than face this hard choice. He may view this as a legitimate policy on climate change, but it’s not one that the facts support.

Read more here.

A Reality Check on Clouds and Climate (N.Y. Times)

September 6, 2011, 5:44 PM

Dot Earth

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

I am often in awe of clouds, as was the case when I shot this video of a remarkable thunderhead somewhere over the Midwest. But I’m tired of the recent burst of over-interpretation of a couple of papers examining aspects of clouds in the context of a changing climate.

I’ve long pointed out that anyone trumpeting a conclusion about greenhouse-driven climate change on the basis of a single paper should be treated with skepticism or outright suspicion. I trust climate science as an enterprise because — despite its flaws — it is a self-correcting process in which trajectory matters far more than individual steps in the road.

There is always a temptation, particularly for those with an agenda and for media in search of the “front-page thought,” to overemphasize studies that fit some template, no matter how tentative, or flawed.

The flood of celebratory coverage that followed publication of a recent paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell — proposing a big reduction in the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases — was far more about pushing an agenda than providing guidance on the state of climate science. There’s a lot more on this below.

The same goes for the stampede on clouds and climate following publication of an important, but preliminary, laboratory finding from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (better known by its acronym, CERN) about how cosmic rays can stimulate the formation of atmospheric particles(an ingredient in cloud formation). It’s a long road from that conclusion to an argument that variations in cosmic rays can explain a meaningful portion of recent climate change.

There’s a long history of assertions that clouds can be a substantial driver of climate change, distinct from their clear potential to amplify or blunt(depending on the type of cloud) a change set in motion by some other force. But there’s still scant evidence to back up such assertions.

In weighing the new results on cosmic rays and the atmosphere, I find a lot of merit in Hank Campbell’s conclusion at Science 2.0:

[I]t isn’t evidence that the Sun’s magnetic field is controlling cosmic rays and therefore our temperature far more than mankind and pollution are doing.

It is simply science at work – finally, after a decade and a half of circling the wagons, hypotheses that were dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense by zealots get a chance to live or die by the scientific method and not by aggressive posturing.

new paper by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University bolsters the established view of clouds’ role as a feedback mechanism — but not driver — in climate dynamics through a decade of observation and analysis of El Nino and La Nina events (periodic warm and cool phases of the Pacific Ocean).

The paper directly challenges conclusions of Spencer and Braswell and anearlier paper positing a role of clouds in driving climate change.

Dessler, setting his findings and other work on clouds and climate in broader context, offered this observation this morning about the polarized, and distorted, public discourse:

To me, the real story here is that, every month, dozens if not hundreds of papers are published that are in agreement with the mainstream theory of climate science.

[ACR: I did a quick Google Scholar search for “CO2 climate change greenhouse” to put a rough upper bound on this and got ~9,000 papers so far in 2011.]

But, every year, one or two skeptical papers get published, and these are then trumpeted by sympathetic media outlets as if they’d discovered the wheel. It therefore appears to the general public that there’s a debate.

Here’s more from Dessler on his new paper:

A separate question has emerged around the Spencer-Braswell paper. Should it have been published in the first place?

As Retraction Watch (a fascinating and worthwhile blog) chronicled last week, the editor of Remote Sensing, the journal in which the paper appeared, emphatically — if after the fact — said no, emphasizing his view by very publicly resigning.

This move was hailed by defenders of the climate status quo in a piece run inThe Daily Climate and Climate Progress. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, remarkably given space in Forbes, called the resignation “staggering news.”

But others, including the folks at Retraction Watch, wondered why the editor at Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, didn’t simply seek to have the paper retracted?

Roger A. Pielke, Jr., whose focus at the University of Colorado is climate in the context of political science, echoed that question, urging the new team at the journal to initiate retraction proceedings, adding:

If the charges of “error” and “false claims” are upheld the paper should certainly be retracted.  If the charges are not upheld then the authors have every right to have such a judgment announced publicly.

Absent such an adjudication we are left with climate science played out as political theater in the media and on blogs — with each side claiming the righteousness of their views, while everyone else just sees the peer review process in climate science getting another black eye.

Over the weekend, I asked Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his thoughts both on the Spencer-Braswell paper and the histrionic resignation by the editor. Here’s Emanuel:

About the paper: I read it when it first came out, and thought that some of their findings were significant and important. Basically, it presented evidence that feedbacks inferred from short-period and/or local climate change observations might not be relevant to long-period global change. I suppose I thought that rather obvious, but not everyone agrees. The one statement in the paper, to the effect that climate models might be overestimating positive feedback, struck me as unsubstantiated, but the authors themselves phrased it as speculative.

But the interesting and unusual thing about this is that that what pundits said about the paper, and indeed what Spencer said about it in press releases, etc., in my view had very little to do with the paper itself. I have seldom seen such a degree of disconnect between the substance of a paper and what has been said about it.

Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate and NASA has posted a thorough and useful dissection of the situation, “Resignations, retractions and the process of science,” that comes to what I see as the right conclusion:

I think (rightly) that people feel that the best way to deal with these papers is within the literature itself, and in this case it is happening this week in GRL (Dessler, 2011) [the Dessler paper discussed above], and in Remote Sensing in a few months. That’s the way it should be, and neither resignations nor retractions are likely to become more dominant – despite the amount of popcorn being passed around.

There’s more useful context and analysis from Keith Kloor, who notes the role played by the Drudge Report in amping up the story (blogging at the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media), Mike LemonickJudith Curry and many others.

As always happens after such episodes, the one clear finding is that clouds remain a complicating component in efforts to project warming from the building greenhouse effect.

Joni Mitchell’s classic, with a bit of mangling, sums things up well:


They’ve looked at clouds from all sides now, as feedback and forcing, and still somehow, it’s clouds’ illusions most often recalled. More work is needed to know clouds at all.

8:52 p.m. | Postscript |
There’s more coverage of the Spencer-Braswell paper at Knight Science Journalism Tracker and the blogs of Roger Pielke, Sr. and William M. Briggs. Roy Spencer has posted a piece titled “More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us.”

Philosophers Notwithstanding, Kansas School Board Redefines Science (N.Y. Times)

By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: November 15, 2005

Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science.

In the early 1990’s, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed “the end of objectivity.” The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth.

The right defended the traditional notion of science back then. Now it is the right that is trying to change it.

On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state’s science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.

The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: “natural explanations.” But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science.

The old definition reads in part, “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” The new one calls science “a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Adrian Melott, a physics professor at the University of Kansas who has long been fighting Darwin’s opponents, said, “The only reason to take out ‘natural explanations’ is if you want to open the door to supernatural explanations.”

Gerald Holton, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, said removing those two words and the framework they set means “anything goes.”

The authors of these changes say that presuming the laws of science can explain all natural phenomena promotes materialism, secular humanism, atheism and leads to the idea that life is accidental. Indeed, they say in material online at kansasscience2005.com, it may even be unconstitutional to promulgate that attitude in a classroom because it is not ideologically “neutral.”

But many scientists say that characterization is an overstatement of the claims of science. The scientist’s job description, said Steven Weinberg, a physicist and Nobel laureate at the University of Texas, is to search for natural explanations, just as a mechanic looks for mechanical reasons why a car won’t run.

“This doesn’t mean that they commit themselves to the view that this is all there is,” Dr. Weinberg wrote in an e-mail message. “Many scientists (including me) think that this is the case, but other scientists are religious, and believe that what is observed in nature is at least in part a result of God’s will.”

The opposition to evolution, of course, is as old as the theory itself. “This is a very long story,” said Dr. Holton, who attributed its recent prominence to politics and the drive by many religious conservatives to tar science with the brush of materialism.

How long the Kansas changes will last is anyone’s guess. The state board tried to abolish the teaching of evolution and the Big Bang in schools six years ago, only to reverse course in 2001.

As it happened, the Kansas vote last week came on the same day that voters in Dover, Pa., ousted the local school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design.

As Dr. Weinberg noted, scientists and philosophers have been trying to define science, mostly unsuccessfully, for centuries.

When pressed for a definition of what they do, many scientists eventually fall back on the notion of falsifiability propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper. A scientific statement, he said, is one that can be proved wrong, like “the sun always rises in the east” or “light in a vacuum travels 186,000 miles a second.” By Popper’s rules, a law of science can never be proved; it can only be used to make a prediction that can be tested, with the possibility of being proved wrong.

But the rules get fuzzy in practice. For example, what is the role of intuition in analyzing a foggy set of data points? James Robert Brown, a philosopher of science at the University of Toronto, said in an e-mail message: “It’s the widespread belief that so-called scientific method is a clear, well-understood thing. Not so.” It is learned by doing, he added, and for that good examples and teachers are needed.

One thing scientists agree on, though, is that the requirement of testability excludes supernatural explanations. The supernatural, by definition, does not have to follow any rules or regularities, so it cannot be tested. “The only claim regularly made by the pro-science side is that supernatural explanations are empty,” Dr. Brown said.

The redefinition by the Kansas board will have nothing to do with how science is performed, in Kansas or anywhere else. But Dr. Holton said that if more states changed their standards, it could complicate the lives of science teachers and students around the nation.

He added that Galileo – who started it all, and paid the price – had “a wonderful way” of separating the supernatural from the natural. There are two equally worthy ways to understand the divine, Galileo said. “One was reverent contemplation of the Bible, God’s word,” Dr. Holton said. “The other was through scientific contemplation of the world, which is his creation.

“That is the view that I hope the Kansas school board would have adopted.”

In the Land of Denial (N.Y. Times)

NY Times editorial
September 6, 2011

The Republican presidential contenders regard global warming as a hoax or, at best, underplay its importance. The most vocal denier is Rick Perry, the Texas governor and longtime friend of the oil industry, who insists that climate change is an unproven theory created by “a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”

Never mind that nearly all the world’s scientists regard global warming as a serious threat to the planet, with human activities like the burning of fossil fuels a major cause. Never mind that multiple investigations have found no evidence of scientific manipulation. Never mind that America needs a national policy. Mr. Perry has a big soapbox, and what he says, however fallacious, reaches a bigger audience than any scientist can command.

With one exception — make that one-and-one-half — the rest of the Republican presidential field also rejects the scientific consensus. The exception is Jon Huntsman Jr., a former ambassador to China and former governor of Utah, who recently wrote on Twitter: “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” The one-half exception is Mitt Romney, who accepted the science when he was governor of Massachusetts and argued for reducing emissions. Lately, he’s retreated into mush: “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that, but I think that it is.” As for the human contribution: “It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

The others flatly repudiate the science. Ron Paul of Texas calls global warming “the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years.” Michele Bachmann of Minnesota once said that carbon dioxide was nothing to fear because it is a “natural byproduct of nature” and has complained of “manufactured science.” Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, has called climate change “a beautifully concocted scheme” that is “just an excuse for more government control of your life.”

Newt Gingrich’s full record on climate change has been a series of epic flip-flops. In 2008, he appeared on television with Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, to say that “our country must take action to address climate change.” He now says the appearance was a mistake.

None of the candidates endorse a mandatory limit on emissions or, for that matter, a truly robust clean energy program. This includes Mr. Huntsman. In 2007, as Utah governor, he joined with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then the governor of California, in creating the Western Climate Initiative, a market-based cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing emissions in Western states. Cap-and-trade has since acquired a toxic political reputation, especially among Republicans, and Mr. Huntsman has backed away.

The economic downturn has made addressing climate change less urgent for voters. But the issue is not going away. The nation badly needs a candidate with a coherent, disciplined national strategy. So far, there is no Republican who fits that description.

Flânerie bipolar (FSP)

A melancolia, da excentricidade romântica à patologia farmacêutica

Folha de S.Paulo, Ilustríssima
São Paulo, Domingo, 04 de Setembro de 2011
Por MARIA RITA KEHL

Descrita até a modernidade como um fenômeno da cultura, sinal de excentricidade e reclusão, a melancolia perdeu, com o advento da psicanálise, o caráter criativo. No século 21, se converte em patologia “bipolar”. Publicação de clássico do século 17 e filme de Lars von Trier trazem o melancólico de volta à cena.

O PLANETA MELANCHOLIA não é o Sol negro do poema de Nerval. É uma Lua incansável, cuja órbita desgovernada a aproxima da Terra indefesa até provocar uma colisão devastadora.

O filme de Lars von Trier mistura ficção científica com parábola moral, sofisticada e um tanto ingênua, como convém ao gênero. A destruição do mundo pela melancolia é precedida de um longo comentário sobre a perda de sentido da vida, pelo menos entre os habitantes da sociedade que Trier critica desde “Dançando no Escuro” (2000) e cujo imaginário o cineasta dinamarquês, confiante em seu método paranoico-crítico, conhece pelo cinema sem jamais ter pisado lá: os EUA.

Ao longo do filme, Trier semeia indicações de sua familiaridade com a história da melancolia no Ocidente. O cineasta, que se fez “persona non grata” em Cannes com provocações descabidas em defesa de Hitler, mostrou compreender a posição do melancólico como a de um sujeito em desacordo com o que se considera o Bem, no mundo em que vive. Em “Melancholia”, esta é a posição de Justine (Kirsten Dunst), prestes a se casar com um rapaz tão obsequioso em contentá-la que presenteia a noiva com a foto das macieiras em cuja sombra ela deverá ser feliz.

Feliz? A perspectiva do futuro congelado numa imagem perpétua congela também o desejo de Justine, que se desajusta de seu papel e estraga a festa caríssima organizada pela irmã, cheia de rituais destinados a produzir os efeitos de “happiness” exigidos dos filhos da sociedade da abundância.

SINTOMA SOCIAL Se não tivesse o mérito de desvendar a estupidez da fé contemporânea nos “efeitos de felicidade” como medida de todas as coisas, o filme de Trier já terá valido por reabilitar a figura da melancolia como indicador do sintoma social.

Por mais de dois milênios, as oscilações da sensibilidade melancólica indagaram a cultura ocidental a respeito da fronteira que separa o louco e o gênio. Desde a Antiguidade clássica, o melancólico, incapaz de corresponder à “demanda do Outro”, denunciava o que não ia bem, no laço social.

A crise que leva Justine a arrebentar seu compromisso amoroso, sua festa de casamento e seu emprego numa única noite é conduzida com precisão didática pelo diretor. Uma observação cruel da mãe (representação perfeita da mãe do melancólico freudiano), seguida da indiferença do pai, deflagra em Justine uma verdadeira crise de fé. De repente, a noiva se exclui da cena na qual deveria ser a principal protagonista. Não acredita mais. Despenca da rede imaginária que sustenta o que se costuma chamar de realidade, ficção coletiva capaz de dotar a vida de significado e valor.

Justine, incapaz de olhar o mundo através do véu de fantasia que conforta aos outros, “os tais sãos” (como no verso de Pessoa), enxerga o que a cena encobre. Ela não teme a chegada de Melancholia porque nunca foi capaz de se iludir sobre a finitude de tudo o que existe. Justine “vê coisas”. Árida vida a de quem vê demais porque não sabe fantasiar.

EXCEÇÃO Desde a Antiguidade o melancólico foi entendido, no Ocidente, como aquele que ocupa um lugar de exceção na cultura. O pathos melancólico foi explicado por Hipócrates e Galeno com base na teoria dos quatro humores que regulam o funcionamento do corpo e da alma. As oscilações da bile negra fariam do melancólico um ser inconstante, a um só tempo doentio e genial, impelido a criar para aplacar as oscilações de seu temperamento.

No cerne de sua reflexão “O Homem de Gênio e a Melancolia” (O Problema XXX), Aristóteles já discernira uma questão ética a respeito dos excessos emocionais do melancólico e uma questão estética sobre o gênio criador. Daí o incômodo papel que lhe coube: questionar os significantes que sustentam o imaginário de sua época.

SÉCULO 19 A tradição inaugurada por Aristóteles termina com Baudelaire já no século 19 -o último dos românticos, o primeiro dos modernos, segundo outro melancólico genial, Walter Benjamin. Para suportar os altos e baixos de seu temperamento e dar algum destino à sua excentricidade, alguns melancólicos dedicaram-se a tentar compreender seu mal.

O classicismo inglês produziu o mais completo compêndio sobre a melancolia de que se tem conhecimento, obra da vida inteira do bibliotecário de Oxford Robert Burton (1577-1640).

Sua “A Anatomia da Melancolia”, publicada em 1621 e reeditada várias vezes nas décadas seguintes, é um compêndio de mais de 1.400 páginas contendo tudo o que se podia saber sobre a “doença” de seu autor. A editora da Universidade Federal do Paraná acaba de lançar no Brasil o primeiro volume de “A Anatomia da Melancolia” [trad. Guilherme Gontijo Flores, 265 págs., preço não definido].

É pena que o primeiro volume se limite ao longo introito do autor a seus leitores. Esperamos que em breve a Editora UFPR publique uma seleção dos capítulos do livro, que inicia com as causas da melancolia -“Delírio, frenesi, loucura” […] “Solidão e ócio” […] “A força da imaginação”…- segue com a descrição dos paliativos para aliviar o sofrimento (“alegria, boa companhia, belos objetos…”) para ao final abordar a melancolia amorosa e a melancolia religiosa.

O autor assinou a obra como Demócrito Júnior, a afirmar sua identificação com o filósofo que, segundo a descrição de Hipócrates, afastou-se do convívio com os homens e, diante da vacuidade do mundo, costumava rir de tudo. O riso do melancólico é expressão do escárnio ante as ilusões alheias.

A empreitada de Burton só foi possível em uma época em que a melancolia era entendida não apenas como uma doença, mas como um fenômeno da cultura. O texto seminal de Aristóteles já continha uma reflexão sobre a capacidade criativa do melancólico, atribuída à instabilidade que o impele a expandir sua alma em todas as direções do universo.

FREUD Tal processo de desidentificação encontra-se também no diagnóstico freudiano, ao qual falta, entretanto, a contrapartida da mimesis. Solto da rede imaginária que o enlaça a si mesmo e ao mundo, o melancólico contemporâneo só conta de encarar o Real com a aridez do simbólico.

Algo se passou, na modernidade, para que a inconsistência imaginária do melancólico deixasse de estimulá-lo a reinventar as representações do mundo e ficasse à mercê da Coisa. A receita preparada para Justine tem gosto de cinzas; fios de lã invisíveis impedem suas pernas de andar. Diante desse horror, ela prefere a colisão com Melancholia.

A melancolia deixou de ser entendida como um desajuste referido às normas da vida pública quando Freud arrebatou o significante de seu sentido tradicional a fim de trazer para o campo da psicanálise o diagnóstico psiquiátrico da então chamada psicose maníaco-depressiva -que hoje a medicina retomou sob a designação de transtorno bipolar.

Freud não privatizou a melancolia por acaso: a própria psicanálise deve sua existência ao surgimento do sujeito neurótico gerado nas tramas da família burguesa, fechada sobre si mesma e fundada em compromissos de amor. A psicanálise freudiana é contemporânea ao acabamento da forma subjetiva do indivíduo e à privatização das tarefas de socialização das crianças.

Vem daí que o melancólico freudiano não se pareça em nada com seus colegas pré-modernos: o valente guerreiro exposto à vergonha diante de seus pares (Ajax), o anacoreta em crise de fé (santo Antônio), o pensador renascentista ocupado em restaurar a ordem de um mundo em constante transformação (como na gravura de Dürer). Nem faz lembrar, na aurora modernidade, o “flâneur” a recolher restos de um mundo em ruínas pelas ruas de uma grande cidade (Baudelaire) de modo a compor um monumento poético para fazer face à barbárie.

O melancólico freudiano é o bebê repudiado pela mãe, pobre eu transformado em dejeto sobre o qual caiu a sombra de um objeto mau. O que se perdeu na transição efetuada pela psicanálise foi o valor criativo que se atribuía ao melancólico, da Antiguidade ao romantismo. Perdeu-se o valor do polo maníaco do que hoje a medicina chama de transtorno bipolar.

Onde o melancólico pré-moderno, em seus momentos de euforia, era dado a expansões da imaginação poética, hoje a mania leva os pacientes “bipolares” a torrar dinheiro no cartão de crédito. O consumo é o ato que expressa os atuais clientes da psicofarmacologia, apartados da potência criadora que sua inadaptação ao mundo poderia lhes conferir.

DEPRESSÃO Já não existem melancólicos como os de antigamente? Os neurocientistas que o digam. A psiquiatria e a indústria farmacêutica já escolheram seu substituto no século 21: no lugar do significante melancolia, instala-se a depressão como grande sintoma do mal-estar na civilização do terceiro milênio. Quanto mais se sofistica a oferta de antidepressivos, mais a depressão se anuncia no horizonte como expressão privilegiada do mal-estar, a ameaçar sociedades que se dedicam a ignorar o saber que ela contém.

Tal produção ativa de ignorância a respeito do sentido da melancolia está no centro da parábola de Lars von Trier. John, cunhado de Justine, afirma sua fé no mundo das mercadorias. Abastece a casa com comida, combustível, geradores de energia. Confia na informação científica divulgada pela internet. Verifica no telescópio a aproximação do planeta ameaçador.

Sua defesa é tão frágil que, diante do inevitável, suicida-se com uma overdose das pílulas da esposa. Claire, por sua vez, tem grande fé na encenação da vida. O fracasso do casamento espetacular da irmã não a impede de planejar outro pequeno ritual, na bela varanda da casa, com música e vinho, para esperar a chegada de Melancholia. Excelente final para um melodrama hollywoodiano, que Justine descarta com desprezo.

Justine não tem ilusões a respeito do fim. Mesmo assim, para proteger o sobrinho do horror final, mostra-se capaz de criar a mais onipotente das fantasias. Constrói com ele uma frágil tenda “mágica” sob a qual se abrigam para esperar a explosão de luz trazida pela colisão com Melancholia.

O triângulo formado por três galhos presos na ponta não chega a criar uma ilusão: são como traços de uma escrita, como um significante a demarcar, “in extremis”, um território humano em face do Real.

Mental illness rise linked to climate (Sydney Morning Herald)

Erik Jensen Health

August 29, 2011
Climate change“Emotional injury, stress and despair” … the impact of climate change on health. Photo: Reuter

RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.

As many as one in five people reported ”emotional injury, stress and despair” in the wake of these events.

The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ”preview of life under unrestrained global warming”.

”While cyclones, drought, bushfires and floods are all a normal part of Australian life, there is no doubt our climate is changing,” the report says.

”For instance, the intensity and frequency of bushfires is greater. This is a ‘new normal’, for which the past provides little guidance …

”Moreover, recent conditions are entirely consistent with the best scientific predictions: as the world warms so the weather becomes wilder, with big consequences for people’s health and well-being.”

The paper suggests a possible link between Australia’s recent decade-long drought and climate change. It points to a breakdown of social cohesion caused by loss of work and associated stability, adding that the suicide rate in rural communities rose by 8 per cent.

The report also looks at mental health in the aftermath of major weather events possibly linked to climate change.

It shows that one in 10 primary school children reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in the wake of cyclone Larry in 2006. More than one in 10 reported symptoms more than three months after the cyclone.

”There’s really clear evidence around severe weather events,” the executive director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, Professor Ian Hickie, said.

”We’re now more sophisticated in understanding the mental health effects and these effects are one of the major factors.

”What we have seriously underestimated is the effects on social cohesion. That is very hard to rebuild and they are critical to the mental health of an individual.”

Professor Hickie, who is launching the report today, said climate change and particularly severe weather events were likely to be a major factor influencing mental health in the future.

”When we talk about the next 50 years and what are going to be the big drivers at the community level of mental health costs, one we need to factor in are severe weather events, catastrophic weather events,” he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html#ixzz1WeAsre00

Mais da metade dos alunos não sabe resolver operações matemáticas básicas (JC, O Globo)

JC e-mail 4331, de 26 de Agosto de 2011.

Prova ABC avaliou desempenho de recém-alfabetizados; em leitura, resultado foi melhor: 56,1% mostraram dominar a língua.

Resultados de um teste aplicado em seis mil alunos de todas as capitais e do Distrito Federal mostram que 57,2% dos estudantes do 3 º ano do ensino fundamental – a antiga 2ª série – não conseguem resolver problemas básicos de matemática, como soma ou subtração. Inédita no País, a Prova ABC também avaliou a aprendizagem de leitura e escrita. “A dificuldade é na hora de fazer a conta do ‘vai um'”, explicou ontem, em São Paulo, na divulgação dos resultados, o professor Rubem Klein, da Fundação Cesgranrio, referindo-se à soma de números superiores a uma dezena.

A Prova ABC, ou Avaliação Brasileira do Final do Ciclo de Alfabetização, foi realizada pelo movimento Todos Pela Educação, em parceria com o Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (Inep), a Fundação Cesgranrio e o Instituto Paulo Montenegro/Ibope. O teste foi aplicado no início deste em estudantes de 250 escolas, conforme a proporção em cada rede (privada, estadual e municipal).

Em matemática, a média nacional de alunos do terceiro ano (2ª série) que aprenderam o esperado foi de 42,8%, o que significa que 57,2% não sabem o mínimo adequado para este período do aprendizado. As escolas privadas tiveram média de 74,3%, e as públicas, de apenas 32,6%, uma diferença de 41,7 pontos percentuais.

“Temos de levar em consideração que os professores dessas primeiras séries são formados em Pedagogia, curso que atrai pessoas de classes mais baixas e que não tiveram boa formação em matemática. É um ciclo vicioso que precisa ser rompido”, analisou o professor Paulo Horta, do Inep.

Teste de leitura: 43,9% não aprenderam o suficiente – A média nacional na prova de leitura foi 56,1%. Isso quer dizer que o restante, ou seja, 43,9% dos alunos, não aprenderam o suficiente. O índice dos que aprenderam o esperado chegou a 79% nas escolas particulares. Já nas públicas ficou em 48,6%.

Em escrita, o índice nacional dos que aprenderam o esperado caiu para 53,4%, ou seja, 46,6% não tiveram o aprendizado adequado. Nas escolas privadas, o aproveitamento foi 82,4%; nas públicas, 43,9%. “Mesmo com um índice melhor das escolas privadas, que são o objetivo dessa nova classe média para os seus filhos, elas não chegaram a 100%. E 100% significa apenas o que é esperado que as crianças tenham aprendido. No geral, a Prova ABC mostrou que as crianças que frequentam os três primeiros anos da escola não estão tendo garantido o direito básico que tem à aprendizagem”, observou a diretora-executiva do Todos Pela Educação, Priscila Cruz.

Assim como em outros índices da educação brasileira, o desempenho dos alunos do Sul e do Sudeste superou na Prova ABC os resultados das crianças do Norte e Nordeste, conforme o modelo do Sistema de Avaliação da Educação Básica (Saeb). A nota média nacional em matemática foi 171,07 (o desejado era 175), mas no Sul chegou a 185,64 e, no Sudeste, a 179,06. Por outro lado, foi bem menor no Norte (152,62), no Nordeste (158,19).

Regionalmente ainda os resultados da prova de leitura, conforme a escala Saeb de 175 pontos, não foram diferentes. No Sul a média foi 197,93, enquanto no Nordeste chegou a 167,37, uma diferença de 30 pontos. No Centro-Oeste a nota foi 196,57, no Sudeste 193,57 e no Norte 172,78.

Na prova de escrita – cuja nota média para um nível de aprendizagem considerado exitoso é 75, em uma escala de 0 a 100 – o Sudeste atingiu a média de 77,2 – uma diferença de 27 pontos em relação aos 50,2 do Nordeste.

Média nas escolas privadas foi 211; nas públicas, 158 – A metodologia da Prova ABC leva em conta a mesma escala Saeb, responsável por compor a nota do Índice de Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica (Ideb), que é o principal indicador de qualidade da educação do País. Nessa prova, como no Saeb, os alunos precisaram obter um resultado igual a 175 pontos para que o aprendizado equivalente ao terceiro ano (ou segunda série) seja considerado suficiente. Na prova escrita, no entanto, que foge do padrão Saeb, a nota média considerada de bom desempenho foi 75.

Por nota, a média nacional em matemática foi 171,1 (211,2 para escolas privadas e 158 para as públicas. Na prova de leitura, a nota média do País foi 185,8 (216,7 para as particulares e 175,8 para as públicas). Com outra escala de pontos, na prova escrita a nota média foi 68,1 (86,2 na rede privada e 62,3 na pública).

Em matemática, para conseguir os 175 pontos, as crianças teriam que demonstrar domínio de soma e subtração resolvendo problemas envolvendo, por exemplo, notas e moedas. Na prova de leitura, os alunos deveriam identificar temas de uma narrativa, identificar características de personagens em textos, como lendas, fábulas e histórias em quadrinhos, e perceber relações de causa e efeito nas narrativas Já na escrita foram exigidas três competências: adequação ao tema e ao gênero, coesão e coerência e registro (grafia, normas gramaticais, pontuação e segmentação de palavras).

Climate Cycles Are Driving Wars: When El Nino Warmth Hits, Tropical Conflicts Double (Science Daily)

ScienceDaily (Aug. 24, 2011) — In the first study of its kind, researchers have linked a natural global climate cycle to periodic increases in warfare. The arrival of El Niño, which every three to seven years boosts temperatures and cuts rainfall, doubles the risk of civil wars across 90 affected tropical countries, and may help account for a fifth of worldwide conflicts during the past half-century, say the authors.

El Nino drought cycles heavily affecting some 90 countries (red) appear to be helping drive modern civil wars. (Credit: Courtesy Hsiang et al./Nature)

The paper, written by an interdisciplinary team at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, appears in the current issue of the leading scientific journal Nature.

In recent years, historians and climatologists have built evidence that past societies suffered and fell due in connection with heat or droughts that damaged agriculture and shook governments. This is the first study to make the case for such destabilization in the present day, using statistics to link global weather observations and well-documented outbreaks of violence. The study does not blame specific wars on El Niño, nor does it directly address the issue of long-term climate change. However, it raises potent questions, as many scientists think natural weather cycles will become more extreme with warming climate, and some suggest ongoing chaos in places like Somalia are already being stoked by warming climate.

“The most important thing is that this looks at modern times, and it’s done on a global scale,” said Solomon M. Hsiang, the study’s lead author, a graduate of the Earth Institute’s Ph.D. in sustainable development. “We can speculate that a long-ago Egyptian dynasty was overthrown during a drought. That’s a specific time and place, that may be very different from today, so people might say, ‘OK, we’re immune to that now.’ This study shows a systematic pattern of global climate affecting conflict, and shows it right now.”

The cycle known as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO, is a periodic warming and cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean. This affects weather patterns across much of Africa, the Mideast, India, southeast Asia, Australia, and the Americas, where half the world’s people live. During the cool, or La Niña, phase, rain may be relatively plentiful in tropical areas; during the warmer El Niño, land temperatures rise, and rainfall declines in most affected places. Interacting with other factors including wind and temperature cycles over the other oceans, El Niño can vary dramatically in power and length. At its most intense, it brings scorching heat and multi-year droughts. (In higher latitudes, effects weaken, disappear or reverse; La Niña conditions earlier this year helped dry the U.S. Southwest and parts of east Africa.)

The scientists tracked ENSO from 1950 to 2004 and correlated it with onsets of civil conflicts that killed more than 25 people in a given year. The data included 175 countries and 234 conflicts, over half of which each caused more than 1,000 battle-related deaths. For nations whose weather is controlled by ENSO, they found that during La Niña, the chance of civil war breaking out was about 3 percent; during El Niño, the chance doubled, to 6 percent. Countries not affected by the cycle remained at 2 percent no matter what. Overall, the team calculated that El Niño may have played a role in 21 percent of civil wars worldwide — and nearly 30 percent in those countries affected by El Niño.

Coauthor Mark Cane, a climate scientist at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said that the study does not show that weather alone starts wars. “No one should take this to say that climate is our fate. Rather, this is compelling evidence that it has a measurable influence on how much people fight overall,” he said. “It is not the only factor–you have to consider politics, economics, all kinds of other things.” Cane, a climate modeler, was among the first to elucidate the mechanisms of El Niño, showing in the 1980s that its larger swings can be predicted — knowledge now used by organizations around the world to plan agriculture and relief services.

The authors say they do not know exactly why climate feeds conflict. “But if you have social inequality, people are poor, and there are underlying tensions, it seems possible that climate can deliver the knockout punch,” said Hsiang. When crops fail, people may take up a gun simply to make a living, he said. Kyle C. Meng, a sustainable-development Ph.D. candidate and the study’s other author, pointed out that social scientists have shown that individuals often become more aggressive when temperatures rise, but he said that whether that applies to whole societies is only speculative.

Bad weather does appear to tip poorer countries into chaos more easily; rich Australia, for instance, is controlled by ENSO, but has never seen a civil war. On the other side, Hsiang said at least two countries “jump out of the data.” In 1982, a powerful El Niño struck impoverished highland Peru, destroying crops; that year, simmering guerrilla attacks by the revolutionary Shining Path movement turned into a full-scale 20-year civil war that still sputters today. Separately, forces in southern Sudan were already facing off with the domineering north, when intense warfare broke out in the El Niño year of 1963. The insurrection abated, but flared again in 1976, another El Niño year. Then, 1983 saw a major El Niño–and the cataclysmic outbreak of more than 20 years of fighting that killed 2 million people, arguably the world’s bloodiest conflict since World War II. It culminated only this summer, when South Sudan became a separate nation; fighting continues in border areas. Hsiang said some other countries where festering conflicts have tended to blow up during El Niños include El Salvador, the Philippines and Uganda (1972); Angola, Haiti and Myanmar (1991); and Congo, Eritrea, Indonesia and Rwanda (1997).

The idea that environment fuels violence has gained currency in the past decade, with popular books by authors like Jared Diamond, Brian Fagan and Mike Davis. Academic studies have drawn links between droughts and social collapses, including the end of the Persian Gulf’s Akkadian empire (the world’s first superpower), 6,000 years ago; the AD 800-900 fall of Mexico’s Maya civilization; centuries-long cycles of warfare within Chinese dynasties; and recent insurgencies in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, tree-ring specialists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory published a 1,000-year atlas of El Niño-related droughts; data from this pinpoints droughts coinciding with the downfall of the Angkor civilization of Cambodia around AD 1400, and the later dissolution of kingdoms in China, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand.

Some scientists and historians remain unconvinced of connections between climate and violence. “The study fails to improve on our understanding of the causes of armed conflicts, as it makes no attempt to explain the reported association between ENSO cycles and conflict risk,” said Halvard Buhaug, a political scientist with the Peace Research Institute Oslo in Norway who studies the issue. “Correlation without explanation can only lead to speculation.” Another expert, economist Marshall Burke of the University of California, Berkeley, said the authors gave “very convincing evidence” of a connection. But, he said, the question of how overall climate change might play out remains. “People may respond differently to short-run shocks than they do to longer-run changes in average temperature and precipitation,” he said. He called the study “a useful and illuminating basis for future work.”

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by The Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Journal Reference:
Solomon M. Hsiang, Kyle C. Meng, Mark A. Cane. Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate. Nature, 2011; 476 (7361): 438 DOI: 10.1038/nature10311

Profits Before Environment (N.Y. Times)

August 30, 2011, 10:27 PM
By MARK BITTMAN

I wasn’t surprised when the administration of George W. Bush sacrificed the environment for corporate profits. But when the same thing happens under a Democratic administration, it’s depressing. With little or no public input, policies that benefit corporations regardless of the consequences continue to be enacted.

No wonder an April 2010 poll from the Pew Research Center found that about only 20 percent of Americans have faith in the government (it’s one thing upon which the left and right and maybe even the center agree). But maybe this is nothing new: as Glenda Farrell, as Genevieve “Gen” Larkin, put it in “Gold Diggers of 1937,” “It’s so hard to be good under the capitalistic system.”

But is anyone in power even trying? Last winter, the Department of Agriculture deregulated Monsanto’s genetically modified alfalfa, despite concerns about cross-pollination of non-genetically modified crops. It then defied a court order banning the planting of genetically modified sugar beets pending completion of an environmental impact study.

Monsanto engineers these plants and makes Roundup, the herbicide they resist. But Roundup-ready crops don’t increase long-term yields, a host of farmers are now dealing with “superweeds” and there is worry about superbugs, nearly all courtesy of Monsanto. In fact, this system doesn’t contribute to much of anything except Monsanto’s bottom line. Yet Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack gave Monsanto the nod, perhaps yielding to pressure from the White House.

The United States exerts that same kind of pressure abroad. WikiLeaks cables show that U.S. “biotechnology outreach programs” have promoted genetically modified crops in Africa, Asia and South America; they’ve also revealed that diplomats schemed to retaliate against any European Union countries that oppose those crops.

Sacrificing the environment for profits didn’t stop with Bush, and it doesn’t stop with genetically modified organisms. Take, for example, the Keystone XL pipeline extension. XL is right: the 36-inch-wide pipeline, which will stretch from the Alberta tar sands across the Great Plains to the Gulf Coast, will cost $7 billion and run for 1,711 miles — more than twice as long as the Alaska pipeline. It will cross nearly 2,000 rivers, the huge wetlands ecosystem called the Nebraska Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, the country’s biggest underground freshwater supply.

If Keystone is built, we’ll see rising greenhouse gas emissions right away (tar sands production creates three times as many greenhouse gases as does conventional oil), and our increased dependence on fossil fuels will further the likelihood of climate-change disaster. Then there is the disastrous potential of leaks of the non-Wiki-variety. (It’s happened before.)

Proponents say the pipeline will ease gas prices and oil “insecurity.” But domestic drilling has raised, not lowered, oil prices, and as for the insecurity — what we need is to develop wiser ways to use the oil we have.

They say, too, that the pipeline could create 100,000 new jobs. But even the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union oppose the pipeline, saying, “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil.”

Sounds as if union officials have been reading the writer and activist Bill McKibben, who calls the pipeline “a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent,” and NASA scientist Jim Hansen, who says the oil Keystone will deliver “is essentially game over” for the planet.

Game over? No problem, says the State Department, which concluded that the project will have no significant impact on “most resources along the proposed pipeline corridor.” The Sierra Club quickly responded by calling the report “an insult to anyone who expects government to work for the interests of the American people.”

I do expect that, and I am insulted. President Obama can deny Keystone the permit. A truly environmentally friendly president (like the one candidate Obama appeared to be) would be looking for creative ways to leave fossil fuels underground, not extract them. Perhaps he doesn’t “believe in” global warming at this point, like many Republicans?

When government defends corporate interests, citizens must fight. McKibben has helped organize protests at the White House against Keystone, and he’s one of hundreds who’ve been arrested in the last couple of weeks. These people are showing that the role of government as corporate ally must be challenged.

As it will be in the fight against carte blanche for genetically modified organisms: From Oct. 1 to Oct. 16, there will be a march from New York City to Washington to demand that genetically modified foods be labeled, something a majority of Americans want. This small, perfectly reasonable request has run into joint opposition from the biotech industry and (here we go again) the Food and Drug Administration.

Why are most of us are filled with mistrust of the government? Maybe because we, like Gen Larkin, know it’s so hard to be good under the capitalistic system.

Seca de 2010 na Amazônia foi a mais drástica desde 1902 (Fapesp)

Constatação foi feita por pesquisadores do Inpe a partir da análise de série histórica de dados de pluviosidade na região da bacia amazônica (foto:Fapeam)

30/08/2011

Agência FAPESP – Cientistas do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (Inpe) concluíram em um estudo, publicado na revista Geophysical Research Letters, que a seca de 2010 na Amazônia foi a mais drástica já registrada desde 1902, superando a de 2005, que até então era considerada a maior do século.

A constatação foi feita a partir da análise de uma série histórica de dados de pluviosidade na região da bacia amazônica, com medições desde 1902.

Os resultados do estudo apontam que o processo teve início no começo do verão, durante o El Niño (um processo natural de aquecimento das águas do Pacífico), mas foi intensificado pelo aquecimento das águas tropicais do Atlântico Norte. Em função disso, se originou uma estação seca que se estendeu por muitos meses, ocasionando alterações no ciclo hidrológico.

Como consequência desse processo, houve rebaixamento dos níveis de água e seca completa de cursos d’água e tributários de rios na bacia amazônica. A região sul foi a mais afetada. O fenômeno causou graves problemas socioambientais, especialmente às populações ribeirinhas, que ficaram isoladas por dependerem dos rios para seu deslocamento.

Em outro artigo recém-publicado na revista Theoretical Applied Climatology, pesquisadores do Inpe apresentaram os resultados de um amplo estudo sobre as inundações na Amazônia e Nordeste do Brasil, ocorridas no período de maio a julho de 2009. O fenômeno provocou mortes e deixou milhares de famílias desabrigadas. O trabalho demonstra que essas chuvas torrenciais foram as mais intensas e duradouras já registradas.

O rio Negro, principal tributário do rio Amazonas, atingiu seu maior nível em 107 anos. Os autores concluíram que o evento foi resultado de uma conjuntura de fatores meteorológicos, especialmente o aquecimento acima do normal das águas superficiais do Atlântico Sul – aspecto importante para a explicação das chuvas abundantes em vastas regiões do leste amazônico e Nordeste do país.

Os pesquisadores destacaram também que esses episódios extremos, assim como a seca duradoura ocorrida no ano de 2010 na bacia amazônica, reforçam a hipótese de que anomalias no regime pluviométrico e de temperatura serão mais frequentes em cenários futuros de mudanças climáticas.

Entre os autores dos estudos está José Antônio Marengo Orsini, chefe do Centro de Sistema Terrestre do Inpe.

O artigo The drought of 2010 in the context of historical droughts in the Amazon region(doi:10.1029/2011GL047436), de Orsini e outros, pode ser lido em www.inpe.br/noticias/arquivos/pdf/2011GL047436.pdf.

O partido anticiência (JC, O Globo)

JC e-mail 4333, de 30 de Agosto de 2011.

Artigo de Paul Krugman publicado no O Globo de hoje (30).

John Huntsman Jr., ex-governador de Utah e embaixador na China, não é um forte pré-candidato à indicação do Partido Republicano para concorrer à Presidência. E isto é muito ruim porque o desejo de Huntsman é dizer o indizível sobre o partido – especialmente que ele está se tornando o “partido anticiência”. Isto é algo enormemente importante. E deveria nos aterrorizar.

Para entender o que Huntsman defende, considere declarações recentes dos dois mais fortes pretendentes à indicação republicana: Rick Perry e Mitt Romney.

Perry, governador do Texas, fez manchetes recentemente ao fazer pouco da evolução humana como uma “simples teoria”, que tem “algumas lacunas” – uma observação que soaria como novidade para a vasta maioria dos biólogos. Mas o que mais chamou a atenção foi o que ele disse sobre mudança climática: “Penso que há um número substancial de cientistas que manipulou dados para obter dólares para seus projetos. E penso que estamos vendo, quase toda semana, ou todo dia, cientistas questionando a ideia original de que o aquecimento global provocado pelo homem é a causa da mudança climática.” É uma declaração extraordinária – ou talvez o adjetivo correto seja “vil”.

A segunda parte da declaração de Perry é falsa: o consenso científico sobre a interferência humana no aquecimento global – que inclui 97% a 98% dos pesquisadores de campo, segundo a Academia Nacional de Ciências – está se tornando mais forte à medida que aumentam as evidências sobre a mudança do clima.

De fato, se você acompanha a ciência climática sabe que o principal aspecto nos últimos anos tem sido a preocupação crescente de que as projeções sobre o futuro do clima estejam subestimando o provável aumento da temperatura. Advertências de que poderemos enfrentar mudanças cimáticas capazes de ameaçar a civilização no fim do século, antes consideradas estranhas, partem agora dos principais grupos de pesquisa.

Mas não se preocupe, sugere Perry; os cientistas estão apenas atrás de dinheiro, “manipulando dados” para criar uma falsa ameaça. Em seu livro “Fed Up”, ele despreza a ciência do clima como “uma bagunça falsa e artificial que está se desmanchando”.

Eu poderia dizer que Perry está tirando isso de uma teoria conspiratória verdadeiramente louca, que afirma que milhares de cientistas de todo o mundo estão levando dinheiro, sem que nenhum deseje quebrar o código de silêncio. Poderia apontar que múltiplas investigações em acusações de falsidade intelectual da parte dos cientistas climáticos acabaram com a absolvição dos pesquisadores de todas as acusações. Mas não se preocupe: Perry e os que pensam como ele sabem em que desejam acreditar e sua resposta a qualquer um que os contradiga é iniciar uma caça às bruxas.

Então de que modo Romney, o outro forte concorrente à indicação republicana, respondeu ao desafio de Perry? Correndo dele. No passado, Romney, ex-governador de Massachusetts, endossou fortemente a noção de que a mudança climática provocada pelo homem é uma real preocupação. Mas, na semana passada, ele suavizou isso e disse pensar que o mundo está realmente esquentando, mas “eu não conheço isto” e “não sei se isso é causado principalmente pelo homem”. Que coragem moral!

É claro, sabemos o que está motivando a súbita falta de convicção de Romney. Segundo o Public Policy Polling, somente 21% dos eleitores republicanos de Iowa acreditam no Aquecimento Global (e somente 35% creem na evolução). Dentro do Partido Republicano, ignorância deliberada tornou-se um teste decisivo para os candidatos, no qual Romney está determinado a passar a qualquer custo.

Então, é agora altamente provável que o candidato presidencial de um de nossos dois grandes partidos políticos será ou um homem que acredita no que quer acreditar, ou um homem que finge acreditar em qualquer coisa que ele ache que a base do partido quer que ele acredite.

E o caráter crescentemente anti-intelectual da direita, tanto dentro do Partido Republicano como fora dele, se estende além da questão da mudança climática.

Ultimamente, por exemplo, a seção editorial do “Wall Street Journal” passou da antiga preferência pelas ideias econômicas de “charlatães e maníacos” — pela definição famosa de um dos principais conselheiros econômicos do ex-presidente George W. Bush – para um descrédito geral do pensamento árduo sobre questões econômicas. Não prestem atenção a “teorias fantasiosas” que conflitam com o “senso comum”, diz-nos o “Journal”. Por que deveria alguém imaginar que se precisa mais do que estômago para analisar coisas como crises financeiras e recessões?

Agora, não se sabe quem ganhará a eleição presidencial do próximo ano. Mas há chances de que, mais dia menos dia, a maior nação do mundo será dirigida por um partido que é agressivamente anticiência, mesmo anticonhecimento. E, numa era de grandes desafios – ambiental, econômico e outros – é uma terrível perspectiva.

Paul Krugman é colunista do “New York Times”.

Os donos da chuva (Fapesp)

Pesquisa FAPESP
Edição 186 – Agosto 2011
Política de C & T > Polêmica

Intervenções no clima global podem já ser viáveis, mas têm enormes riscos 
Por Carlos Fioravanti

Duas novas expressões – gerenciamento do clima e geoengenharia – estão aparecendo com mais frequência nos debates internacionais sobre a ciência e a política das mudanças climáticas. Uma das razões é o fracasso nas tentativas de implementação de políticas efetivas de redução de emissões de gases estufa. O que há de novo é que não é mais utópico pensar em intervir no clima regional ou mundial para evitar a contínua elevação da temperatura média global, as secas ou inundações intensas que se tornam mais frequentes à medida que as alterações climáticas se intensificam. Já pode ser viável usar aviões, balões ou canhões para espalhar partículas de aerossóis na estratosfera ou aumentar a nebulosidade do planeta semeando nuvens. Essas intervenções poderiam refletir parte da radiação solar de volta para o espaço e resfriar o planeta como forma de reduzir os efeitos das crescentes concentrações de gases do efeito estufa como o dióxido de carbono (CO2).

Os especialistas alertam, porém, que pode ser bastante perigoso – e não só porque os efeitos dessas intervenções no clima global são imprevisíveis. “Um só país ou um só milionário pode tentar mudar o clima na Terra, com consequências imprevisíveis”, observou o físico Paulo Artaxo, professor da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), em um debate realizado em junho no Instituto de Relações Internacionais da USP. “Espero que não comece uma competição entre países, grandes empresas ou bilionários dos Estados Unidos, da Inglaterra ou do mundo árabe que queiram salvar o mundo mudando o clima de propósito. A possibilidade já existe, basta uma decisão.”

Estima-se que despejar toneladas de enxofre na alta atmosfera para produzir partículas de aerossóis custaria US$ 10 bilhões ao ano, bem menos do que o US$ 1 trilhão previsto para reduzir as emissões de CO2. A geoengenharia ou engenharia climática, como é chamada a intervenção deliberada e de ampla escala no clima, oferece outras possibilidades. As mais simples incluem o aumento da refletividade das superfícies das construções e o reflorestamento em larga escala, já que as plantas absorvem muito CO2 enquanto crescem. Possibilidades mais refinadas consistem no espalhamento de íons de ferro no oceano para aumentar a fertilidade de algas marinhas, que sequestrariam CO2 e o levariam para o fundo dos oceanos.

Debatida no mundo acadêmico desde os anos 1960, a geoengenharia ganhou visibilidade pública com George W. Bush, presidente dos Estados Unidos de 2001 a 2009. Bush preferia apostar em estratégias desse tipo para lidar com os efeitos dos problemas provocados pelo aquecimento global em vez de reduzir as emissões, prevenindo os impactos. Os adeptos da geoengenharia – um grupo que inclui a indústria de combustíveis fósseis e alguns cientistas que acham que o problema climático é tão urgente que requer intervenções drásticas – argumentam que existe a possibilidade de reduzir a temperatura do planeta de propósito, não como panaceia, mas como medida paliativa, enquanto outras medidas mais demoradas são colocadas em prática.

Riscos – Alan Robock, pesquisador da Universidade Rutgers, Estados Unidos, tem alertado que os riscos podem superar os benefícios, mesmo que a geoengenharia funcione como esperado. Segundo ele, mudanças propositais no clima global poderiam amenizar a pressão social pela adoção de medidas de redução da emissão de gases do efeito estufa, além de descontrolar o clima ainda mais – um dos efeitos previstos é a redução das chuvas anuais – as monções – sobre a Ásia e a África, ameaçando a produção de alimentos para centenas de milhões de pessoas.

Em 2008, na Science, Robock afirmou que a geoengenharia poderia ser usada como arma de guerra de um país contra povos inimigos, causando secas ou inundações de consequências catastróficas em territórios hostis. Emergem também perguntas ainda sem respostas: quem vai controlar o clima e dizer que é hora de parar? Robock propõe a seguinte situação: e se a Rússia quisesse a temperatura global um pouco mais alta e a Índia um pouco mais baixa? O sociólogo da Universidade de Brasília (UnB) Eduardo Viola, que participou do debate na USP, teme que os países mais poderosos, como China, Rússia, Estados Unidos, tomem unilateralmente decisões que possam beneficiá-los, mas prejudicar muitos outros.

“Não temos governança global para lidar com esses problemas. O que um presidente dos Estados Unidos como Sarah Palin faria?”, indagou Jason Blackstock, pesquisador do Center for International Governance Innovation (Cigi), Canadá, em sua apresentação na USP. “Temos de ter um entendimento claro de todas as implicações.” Cada estratégia traz fortes efeitos colaterais. Segundo ele, aumentar a quantidade de enxofre na atmosfera pode esfriar a Terra, mas também alterar a precipitação e o balanço de radiação direta e difusa, com fortes efeitos sobre o funcionamento dos ecossistemas. Inversamente, a proposta de reduzir em 0,5% o teor de enxofre do combustível usado em navios até 2020, cogitada como forma de evitar 35 mil mortes de pessoas, principalmente nas proximidades de portos, poderia aumentar a incidência de luz solar na superfície – e o planeta esquentaria um pouco mais.

“Os cientistas em geral são favoráveis à pesquisa de geoengenharia e podem planejar experimentos em pequena escala nos próximos anos”, diz Artaxo, com base nas reuniões internacionais de que tem participado. “O problema é que não há efeito apenas local.” Por causa dos ventos, parte de uma carga de enxofre lançada, por exemplo, na região central dos Estados Unidos facilmente em apenas um dia iria para o Atlântico ou para o Pacífico, com consequências imprevisíveis sobre o equilíbrio do clima terrestre.

As descargas intencionais de partículas aerossóis teriam um efeito similar ao das supererupções vulcânicas. O exemplo mais citado é o Pinatubo, vulcão das Filipinas que entrou em erupção em junho de 1991. Em poucos dias, ele liberou 20 megatoneladas (cada megatonelada equivale a 1 bilhão de quilogramas) de dióxido de enxofre. As partículas se espalharam pela atmosfera e a temperatura do ar na superfície dos continentes do hemisfério Norte caiu dois graus. Depois de um ano, as partículas assentaram e a temperatura voltou a aumentar.

Em 2002, na Science, Robock observou que o espalhamento de partículas vindas de erupção vulcânica não é um fenômeno inócuo: pode reduzir a radiação solar e, consequentemente, a evaporação e a chuva por um ou dois anos. Artaxo aponta outra consequência do acúmulo de aerossóis na atmosfera: “Nunca mais teremos céus azuis como hoje, e os telescópios ópticos na superfície terrestre seriam inúteis”.

Para ele, a melhor solução contra os impactos do aquecimento global é reduzir rapidamente o consumo de combustíveis fósseis e as emissões de gases do efeito estufa e mudar o modo pelo qual usamos os recursos naturais do planeta. “Se formos inteligentes”, diz ele, “podemos usar os recursos naturais do planeta de modo mais eficiente e sustentável, sem precisar de experiências mirabolantes que colocam ainda mais em risco nosso frágil ecossistema terrestre”.

Psychologist James Pennebaker reveals the hidden meaning of pronouns (Scientific American)

The Secret Language Code

By Gareth Cook | Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Psychologist James Pennebaker. Image: Marsha Miller

Are there hidden messages in your emails? Yes, and in everything you write or say, according to James Pennebaker, chair of the department of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Pennebaker has been a leader in the computer analysis of texts for their psychological content. And in his new book, “The Secret Life of Pronouns,” he argues that how we use words like “I,” “she,” and “who” reveal secrets of our psychology. He spoke recently with Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.

COOK: How did you become interested in pronouns?

PENNEBAKER: A complete and total accident. Until recently, I never thought about parts of speech. However, about ten years ago I stumbled on some findings that caught my attention. In the 1980s, my students and I discovered that if people were asked to write about emotional upheavals, their physical health improved. Apparently, putting emotional experiences into language changed the ways people thought about their upheavals. In an attempt to better understand the power of writing, we developed a computerized text analysis program to determine how language use might predict later health improvements. In other words, I wanted to find if there was a healthy way to write.

Much to my surprise, I soon discovered that the ways people used pronouns in their essays predicted whose health would improve the most. Specifically, those people who benefited the most from writing changed in their pronoun use from one essay to another. Pronouns were reflecting people’’s abilities to change perspective.

As I pondered these findings, I started looking at how people used pronouns in other texts — blogs, emails, speeches, class writing assignments, and natural conversation. Remarkably, how people used pronouns was correlated with almost everything I studied. For example, use of first-person singular pronouns (I, me, my) was consistently related to gender, age, social class, honesty, status, personality, and much more. Although the findings were often robust, people in daily life were unable to pick them up when reading or listening to others. It was almost as if there was a secret world of pronouns that existed outside our awareness.

COOK: What would make you think that the use of pronouns would be meaningful?

PENNEBAKER: Never in a million years would I have thought that pronouns would be a worthwhile research topic. I ran study after study and initially found large and unexpected differences between people in their pronoun use. In hindsight, I think I ignored the findings because they didn’’t make sense. One day, I lined up about 5 experiments that I had conducted and every one revealed the same effects. It was that day that I finally admitted to myself that pronouns must be meaningful.

COOK: What differences have you found between men and women?

PENNEBAKER: Almost everything you think you know is probably wrong. Take this little test. Who uses the following words more, women or men?

> 1st person singular (I, me, my)
> 1st person plural (we, us our)
> articles (a, an, the)
> emotion words (e.g., happy, sad, love, hate)
> cognitive words (e.g., because, reason, think, believe)
> social words (e.g., he, she, friend, cousin)

Most people assume that men use I-words and cognitive words more than women and that women use we-words, emotions, and social words more than men. Bad news. You were right if you guessed that women use social words more. However, women use I-words and cognitive words at far higher rates than men. There are no reliable differences between men and women for use of we-words or emotion words (OK, those were trick questions). And men use articles more than women, when you might guess there’d be no difference.

These differences hold up across written and spoken language and most other languages that we have studied. You can’t help but marvel at the fact that we are all bombarded by words from women and men every day of our lives and most of us have never “heard” these sex differences in language. Part of the problem is that our brains aren’t wired to listen to pronouns, articles, prepositions, and other “junk” words. When we listen to another person, we typically focus on what they are saying rather than how they are saying it.

Men and women use language differently because they negotiate their worlds differently. Across dozens and dozens of studies, women tend to talk more about other human beings. Men, on the other hand, are more interested in concrete objects and things. To talk about human relationships requires social and cognitive words. To talk about concrete objects, you need concrete nouns which typically demand the use of articles.

No matter what your sex, if you have to explain that Sally is leaving her husband because of her new lover, you have to make references to all the actors and you have to do some fairly complex cognitive analyses. If you have to explain why your carburetor in your car is broken, your causal analysis will likely be relatively pallid and will involve referring to concrete nouns.

COOK: You write about using this to analyze historical documents. Do you think this tool might be of any use to historians or biographers?

PENNEBAKER: Historians and biographers should jump on this new technology. The recent release of the Google Books Project should be required reading for everyone in the humanities. For the first time in the history of the world, there are methods by which to analyze tremendously large and complex written works by authors from all over the world going back centuries. We can begin to see how thinking, emotional expression, and social relations evolve as a function of world-wide events. The possibilities are breathtaking.

In my own work, we have analyzed the collected works of poets, playwrights, and novelists going back to the 1500s to see how their writing changed as they got older. We’ve compared the pronoun use of suicidal versus non-suicidal poets. Basically, poets who eventually commit suicide use I-words more than non-suicidal poets.
The analysis of language style can also serve as a psychological window into authors and their relationships. We have analyzed the poetry of Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning and compared it with the history of their marriage. Same thing with Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath. Using a method we call Language Style Matching, we can isolate changes in the couples’ relationships.

COOK: What are some of the more unusual “texts” you have applied this technique to?

PENNEBAKER: Some of the more unusual texts have been my own. There is something almost creepy about analyzing your own emails, letters of recommendation, web pages, and natural conversations.

COOK: And what have you found?

PENNEBAKER: One of the most interesting results was part of a study my students and I conducted dealing with status in email correspondence. Basically, we discovered that in any interaction, the person with the higher status uses I-words less (yes, less) than people who are low in status. The effects were quite robust and, naturally, I wanted to test this on myself. I always assumed that I was a warm, egalitarian kind of guy who treated people pretty much the same.

I was the same as everyone else. When undergraduates wrote me, their emails were littered with I, me, and my. My response, although quite friendly, was remarkably detached — hardly an I-word graced the page. And then I analyzed my emails to the dean of my college. My emails looked like an I-word salad; his emails back to me were practically I-word free.

COOK: Does your work have any application in lie detection?

PENNEBAKER: It does. Several labs, including ours, have now conducted studies to evaluate the prospect of building a linguistic lie detector. The preliminary findings are promising. In controlled studies, we can catch lying about 67% of the time where 50% is chance. Humans, reading the same transcripts, only catch lying 53% of the time. This is actually quite impressive unless you are a person in the judicial system. If you are waiting for a language-based system to catch real world lying at rates of 90 or 95 percent of the time, it won’t happen in your lifetime. It’s simply too complicated.

COOK: What are you looking into now? Where do you see the field going in the future?

PENNEBAKER: One of the most fascinating effects I’ve seen in quite awhile is that we can predict people’s college performance reasonably well by simply analyzing their college admissions essays. Across four years, we analyzed the admissions essays of 25,000 students and then tracked their grade point averages (GPAs). Higher GPAs were associated with admission essays that used high rates of nouns and low rates of verbs and pronouns. The effects were surprisingly strong and lasted across all years of college, no matter what the students’ major.

To me, the use of nouns — especially concrete nouns — reflects people’s attempts to categorize and name objects, events, and ideas in their worlds. The use of verbs and pronouns typically occur when people tell stories. Universities clearly reward categorizers rather than story tellers. If true, can we train young students to categorize more? Alternatively, are we relying too much on categorization strategies in American education?

I think one advantage I have had in my career is that I’ve got a short attention span. If something new and exciting bubbles up in our data, I will likely drop what I’m doing and try to understand it. It’s a wonderful time to be alive.

Confronting the ‘Paradox of Progress’ (Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media)

A First-Hand Perspective
Google’s Science Communication Fellows

Paul Higgins August 2, 2011

The ‘paradox of progress’ illustrated by climate change prompts a first-hand participant in a recent Google fellowship program to ponder how best to combine scientific and technological advances with improved public understanding for the benefit of society overall.

Scientific and technological advances are creating a challenging paradox for society, a paradox of progress.

Advances in the sciences and technical fields provide our society with tremendous capacity to overcome the numerous challenges we face. But those challenges in many cases are driven by the rapidly expanding scale of human activities, which are made possible in the first place by advances in science and technology.

Circumventing this paradox of progress — reaping the benefits that science and technology bring us, while avoiding the unintended negative consequences — will depend on using those advances more effectively throughout all of society.

Climate change illustrates the paradox of progress extremely well. The social and technological advances that powered the Industrial Revolution vastly improve our quality of life and well-being, but also drive our global disruption of the climate system. All the while, scientific and technological advances help us understand the causes, consequences, and potential risk management solutions to climate change.

It’s a serious concern that these massive advances in scientific knowledge have had little impact on public understanding of climate science, its implications, or society’s risk management efforts.

Given the importance of circumventing the paradox of progress, for climate change and more broadly, I was pleased to learn that Google was initiating a Science Communication Fellowship Program and thrilled to be named a member of the inaugural class of 21 fellows. Still, the question, to me, is this: Can the combination of the technological capabilities of one of the world’s leading IT companies and the expertise of the scientific community transform scientific communication for climate change and, more broadly, for all socially-relevant scientific disciplines?

The fellowship program centered on a workshop held in June at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California. There were, in my view, three specific goals of the workshop and the fellowship:

– to promote collaboration among the fellows;

– to develop transformative project ideas that could harness new media and information technology (IT) for more effective communication of the science of climate change; and

– to help develop communication approaches that would be broadly and generally transferable to other scientific disciplines.

The workshop included perspectives from outside experts, presentations from Googlers (the internal moniker for Google staff) on new media and advances in IT, and brainstorming activities designed to generate new ideas.

The Googlers’ presentations were impressive, perhaps even a little daunting. They brought home, in a way I hadn’t realized before (despite my heavy reliance on new technology), how rapidly the IT world is advancing and how much potential IT has to transform society. At times, seeing what these Googlers could do with information technology left me questioning what was left for me to contribute. Fortunately, the brainstorming provided an answer.

I had gone to Google with two ideas for climate science communication and I had two more ideas while there. That seemed fairly standard among the fellows so by the end we were awash in new, interesting, and potentially transformative ideas for communicating climate science.

Of course, with so many ideas and a need to winnow them to a tractable number of actual project proposals, everyone was bound to see some of their favorite ideas end up forlorn and abandoned on the bottom of a white board. I had two ideas that I was sorry to see stall during the vetting but that I intend to pursue separately nonetheless. (At this stage it is appropriate and consistent with the workshop protocol, in my view, to discuss only those ideas that were both my own and that are not moving forward formally within the fellowship program).

The first is a multi-media show featuring leading climate experts. Each show will follow a one-on-one interview format and will showcase the expert’s knowledge and understanding. The discussion will explore what the expert does, why their work is important, what the current state of knowledge is (what is known and understood and with what level of confidence), what key questions remain unresolved or contentious, and the broader implications of their work to society.

The show would meet three critical needs: 1) it would help educate the public about climate change; 2) it would provide a new venue for rapid responses to important events (e.g., ground-breaking research findings and public controversies and misunderstandings), and 3) it would help develop the communication skills of climate experts.

The second idea involves development of an interactive game that would give users a chance to assess and manage climate change risks for themselves. Subjective preferences have major implications, good and bad, for policy choices, and this tool could help reveal and encourage reflection over those opinions. Are you risk averse? If so, how do you balance your risk aversion between policy choices that are too aggressive (e.g., that risk excessive increases in energy and transportation prices) or too weak (i.e., that risk disruption of key life-support services)? How do your answers change as you learn more about the nature of the risk management problem (i.e., with additional information from the physical, natural, and social sciences)?

Breakthroughs in Science and Public Understanding

Over the next few weeks, the 21 fellows will refine project ideas and submit proposals to Google for possible seed funding. Whether these ideas can ultimately transform science communication will take time to determine. Regardless, the process of generating new ideas during the workshop was profoundly successful. That’s a good first step because resolving the paradox of progress will depend on achieving breakthroughs not only in science but also in how society uses the knowledge and understanding that results.

With more effective use of scientific knowledge and understanding, we can make choices with the greatest chance to benefit society overall. So far the massive advances in scientific understanding of climate change appear to have little impact on public understanding of climate science, its implications, or society’s risk management efforts. But perhaps Google’s Science Communication Fellowship Program over time can do for civic engagement of science what Google has done for information technology.

Championing Ideas … Your Own and Those of Others

The combination of talks and brainstorming made for an invigorating three days but also a grueling workshop experience. By the end of each day, many participants were clearly spent and more than a little confused about best paths forward. That is what happens when people’s horizons are expanding and they are confronting new challenges.

Fortunately, by the following morning, I had integrated what I’d learned the day before and found what I thought would be a good path forward.

For me, the most critical breakthrough was to recognize and accommodate two complementary approaches: 1) to champion the idea(s) that I thought most promising, regardless of whether others at the workshop liked my vision or not; and 2) to help, however possible, champions of other ideas successfully implement their visions.

This two-pronged approach for me captures the nature of scientific pursuit at its best. Science relies on personal autonomy, individual incentives, and unique contributions, but also depends on collaboration and cooperation to help make everyone’s work more effective. The first component reflects the importance of individual insight and ability, the second the importance of staying focused on broader, shared goals: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding in the case of scientific research, increased public understanding in the case of science communication.

Author
Paul Higgins is the Associate Director of the American Meteorological Society’s Policy Program in Washington, D.C.