Mei 到處 8

生活篇

  • Edward Wechner's patents

    My husband Edward Wechner's work - 2011 version. ..

  • Chainless Biycle

    Edward 愛看Tour d' France, 每次看到看到那些賽手因為 jamming the chain, 而lose the race又或跌倒甚至傷得很重! 這是他自此而很大願望設計出一款比chain drive 鏈條單車更可reliability賴性, 更安全safety, without losing performance and without increasing the weight of the bicycle, but also inprove the efficiency..

  • Trench Casting Machine

    It does dig a trench 300mm wide and 6000mm deep and fills it with concrete simultaneously at an advance rate of 20m/hour...

  • solar power and terrestrial power

    The world is desperately looking for alternative power sources in order to reduce greenhouse gases and with it save our planet. Opinions vary widely on what course we should take to achieve a more environmentally acceptable power source ...

  • 2 22 2011 Christchurch Earthquake

    在 4 日 9 月 2010 年, 紐西蘭的基督城發生了一次 7.1 magnitude earthquake. 那時才死了不到幾個人. 建築物也損害不太重(與今次6.3級地震相比). 於是, 地震後, 政府就開始重建了. 才不到半年(5 個月吧了) 就有了第二次的大地震. 2月22日2011, 這次只是 6.3 級地震. 可是死了123人226人失蹤(至今天2月26日為至). 成為了紐西蘭80年來最大的自然災難....

  • Bowerbirds

    Bowerbirds 神奇之處是他們是天才建築師, 為了吸引女性, 他們會建一巢(請看圖), 外面加很多裝飾品(有石塊/水果/果實/花葉/汽水罐... 所有有顏色的東西), 而顏色的挑選完全是由男性認為什麼顏色可以吸引自己喜愛的女性, 而已這些個人口味完全是從遺傳因子而來的...

Posted by Wechner 0 意見

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Dawkins is the essence of scientific reason, an evolutionary biologist, a best-selling author, and strident atheist. He's been declared one of the most influential - and provocative - thinkers of our time. He's our guest in the last episode of this series of Elders.

RICHARD DAWKINS: I'm a scientist. I believe there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief. There is no well demonstrated reason to believe in God and I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe.
[Reading] Everything Darwin said is wrong and evolution has never been proven and nothing is evolving now the bible is the best book ...(deep breath!)
The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough.

ANDREW DENTON V/O: Richard Dawkins is the essence of scientific reason. An evolutionary biologist. A best-selling author. And, strident atheist. He's been declared one of the most influential - and provocative - thinkers of our time.

ANDREW DENTON: Richard, thanks very much for inviting us to your house. You've described being moved to tears by the natural world. When has that happened? Why does it move you to tears?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I think we are social animals. We have deep emotions, we have the emotions of empathy and sympathy and sadness and love and happiness and I think it's part of being human, part of being a social animal to have these intense emotions and I don't find it that surprising to be moved by the natural world. But that includes things like looking up at the Milky Way and looking up at the sheer number of stars, being overwhelmed by the scale of the universe. And that to me gives a sort of overwhelming feeling of being, it's a feeling of exultation in that case.

ANDREW DENTON: You've described science rather beautifully actually as the poetry of reality. Where is the poetry in science?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Science is opening your eyes to the wonderfulness of what's there. It's, it's as though you've got tiny little, I've used the analogy of a burka, you know those dreadful ghastly black tents that Muslims wear, and you've got this tiny slit, rip open the burka. That's what science does, and the light floods in, and that's poetry. The poetry of the expanding universe, the poetry of geological time, the poetry of the deep complexity of life, all these things, which we're not normally equipped to understand and the science gives it to us.

ANDREW DENTON V/O: Richard was born Africa, in 1941. It was an environment that helped trigger his lifelong passion for nature.

ANDREW DENTON: You spent your early childhood in Kenya. When you go back to Africa, what response does that stir in you?

RICHARD DAWKINS: The smells, the sights of Africa, the sounds of Africa. They are immensely evocative. Whether it's just the evocativeness of childhood itself, I think perhaps everybody looks back to their childhood, especially if it was a happy childhood, with the same kind of sense of heightened awareness. I've never actually taken an hallucinogenic drug, but I've read accounts by Aldous Huxley and others of somehow everything you look at has a sort of enhanced... you're looking at with enhanced perception and my memory of childhood is that that's what it was like, that there's a sort of Garden of Eden feeling about it.

ANDREW DENTON: You talk about your childhood feeling heightened. I'm interested, you have such rigour in the way you think and such a fierce logic in the way you've approached your work. What shaped you as a child? What shaped that drive?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Gosh, I don't know. I mean heredity and environment. I suppose my parents are both interested in living things, in biology. My father read botany at Oxford and was a much better naturalist than I ever was and my mother too, was a better naturalist than I ever was. My father must have instilled in me a kind of scientific way of thinking. I had a happy, fulfilled childhood with plenty of things going on, plenty of opportunity to question and discuss and talk, seeing different parts of the world. I suppose that arouses one's curiosity.

ANDREW DENTON V/O: As a child Richard was quite devout; the idea of a 'Designer' of the natural world captured his imagination. But, in his teenage years he began to doubt the existence of God.
The complexity of life and the universe seemed better explained by Darwin's theory of evolution. In his thirties, he published his first best-seller, The Selfish Gene. He argued that we living things are mere survival machines, designed to allow genes to replicate. It was an idea that made him famous. Today, thirty years, nine books and several TV series later, he unabashedly pits logic and science, against faith and God.

ANDREW DENTON: Your friend the late Douglas Adams, laughingly quoted you once, saying your words, "I wouldn't say I was arrogant, but I find it hard to be patient with those who don't share my humility in the face of facts."

RICHARD DAWKINS: [Laughter] ... That sounds better than me. I think that's Douglas himself probably.

ANDREW DENTON: He was very good at that. When you face people who in your view are ignorant or who are superstitious, how have you dealt with your anger?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I'm virtually never angry with somebody who's honestly seeking after truth. I mean if somebody is ignorant, well that's no crime. If somebody's stupid, that's no crime. But I think, if I find somebody who is a charlatan, who is actually a fake, who is actually pretending to be something that he isn't and is particularly bamboozling young people, I think that's probably what makes me angry and when you ask how I deal with this, I probably don't very well.

ANDREW DENTON: I'm just reminded of that encounter with Ted Haggett in the "Root of all Evil"...

RICHARD DAWKINS: Oh yeah...

ANDREW DENTON: Where you were clearly angry. You could see you were flushed...

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yeah, I well I got a bit angry then, but I mean I kept control. I didn't lose it.

[FOOTAGE]
Ted Haggett: You do understand that this Issue right here of intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people of faith. I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I know so much more, and if you only read the books I know and if you only know the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me. Well. Sir, there could be many things you know well, there are other things that you don't know well but as you age you will find yourself wrong on some things, right on some other things .... But please, in the process of it, please, don't be arrogant.

ANDREW DENTON: When do you think a belief is important?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Belief in what?

ANDREW DENTON: Belief in whatever it is an individual believes in, belief as a driving force.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, belief I suppose is a strong conviction that something is the case based upon evidence. It better be based upon evidence or it doesn't deserve the title of belief I think.

ANDREW DENTON: Is evidence always necessary? Do we need to understand why a piece of music, for example, moves us to accept that it does?

RICHARD DAWKINS: You don't need to understand why it does but it clearly does. I mean the evidence for that is the evidence of what you. I mean you actually do feel moved by it, you actually feel moved to tears, indeed I could be moved to tears by music and that to me is evidence for the belief that I'm moved by music. I don't have to understand what's actually going on in the nervous system in order for that to happen.

ANDREW DENTON: Is it possible to explain love?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I think it in principle can be explained but I don't actually have the internal wherewithal to explain it. I just experience it.

ANDREW DENTON: Of course if somebody says to you well, I have a love of a God, I don't need to explain it, that, that is my belief. How does your logical brain respond to that?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I think what you're getting at is that even if God doesn't exist the person has an experience an internal experience, which feels to them as real as my love for another human being or a dog, and I don't doubt that the experience that they feel is real to them in the same way as my experience of loving a, a person is, is real. The thing that they love doesn't exist, but that doesn't stop them loving it. I mean in, in a sense you could say it's a hallucination, but it will feel very real to them.

ANDREW DENTON: For many people, God is what gives their life meaning. What gives your life meaning?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well when they say that God gives their life meaning, I wonder what that really means. I mean they've got an imaginary friend which I guess might be nice for them. In some cases they're just using the word God as another name for that which gives their life meaning. Most people- meaning's rather a grand name for what we're talking about- I don't mind using a grand word like meaning for science, I mean that does give my life meaning, my work.

ANDREW DENTON: What's your definition of success?

RICHARD DAWKINS: ...Oh dear, I don't really answer that kind of question...

ANDREW DENTON: Why not?

RICHARD DAWKINS: ...I'm just trying, well, because I just think of it as a dictionary word, which has a dictionary definition and you can go and look it up. I don't have a personal...

ANDREW DENTON: Well, you don't have a marker in your life for what would be achievement?

RICHARD DAWKINS: No, it's cause it's either you just give a dictionary definition or it becomes very complicated and personal. No, I don't really think I've got a got a good answer to that.

ANDREW DENTON: At Douglas's funeral, Douglas Adams' funeral you read a eulogy in which you said one of his chief charms was his ability to laugh at himself.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes.

ANDREW DENTON: When do you laugh at yourself?

RICHARD DAWKINS: ...Are all the questions going to be like this?

ANDREW DENTON: Not all... do you find these very difficult?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes.

ANDREW DENTON: Well, why is that?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Um ... because they're about me, I suppose.

ANDREW DENTON: Some of the questions are about you and some are about your observation of other people.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes...

ANDREW DENTON: If you like I can come back to that and we can talk more generally.

RICHARD DAWKINS: I might. I mean...I might laugh quite a lot and I'm sure I laugh at myself a lot, but I'm not sure I can think of particular examples.

ANDREW DENTON: I don't wish to make you uncomfortable, so why don't we park that and come back to it.

ANDREW DENTON V/O: Richard lives in Oxford, with his third wife Lalla Ward. An actress, beloved of Dr Who fans, Lalla now illustrates and narrates Richard's books. Richard has one daughter from a previous marriage, Juliet.

ANDREW DENTON: You wrote a letter which has been published to your daughter, Juliet, when she was ten. Can you tell me about that?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yes, it is an attempt to encourage her to ask questions and think for herself. It begins by saying, how do we know the things that we know? And so it's a kind of hymn to evidence, it's kind of trying to encourage this ten year child to always look for the evidence for anything that you're asked to believe. And it specifically singles out for scepticism, things like tradition, authority, and revelation, which are not ways of knowing anything. Evidence is the way you know anything that you know, and I tried to put into language that a ten year old might understand- how we get evidence, and how we evaluate it.

ANDREW DENTON: It was a beautifully written but a complex letter for a ten year old. I assume you've talked it through with Juliet over the years?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Not much actually, no. I mean at that time she was living with her mother from whom I was divorced. Her mother has since died and so she then did come to live with us. We get on very well, we have a very good relationship. But we don't really talk about those things very much. I dedicated the book to her when- on her eighteenth birthday, when the book in which it was reprinted, "A Devil's Chaplain", so that was a kind of nice- in a way closure of that particular episode.

ANDREW DENTON: I'm guessing that the Tooth Fairy didn't have a very long life in your family.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well no, I mean all that kind of thing you know, the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, we went along without all of that.

ANDREW DENTON: I think my son was ten when we told him there wasn't Santa and I can still see his tears squirting across the room.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Seriously?

ANDREW DENTON: Yes, well I'm not sure if it was about the presents or about Santa, but ...

RICHARD DAWKINS: ... Um yeah, um well that's rather a sad story. I think most children kind of guess don't they, before they're told. It is a puzzle to me why children virtually all accept that they've been mislead, actually lied to, by their parents about Father Christmas and about the Tooth Fairy. And yet it doesn't tumble to them that maybe the same thing applies to God. I do wonder sometimes whether magical fiction- where you have spells and princes turning into frogs and things like that- whether that actually might have a pernicious effect upon the child mind.

ANDREW DENTON: In what way?

RICHARD DAWKINS: By giving the child the idea that anything goes, that there's no discipline to reality. I'm only kind of asking the question. Is it possible that teaching children about fairies with magic wands and sleeping beauties and frogs turning into princes, that that actually does set up a kind of counter reality view of the world, which might pre-dispose them to religion, which is also magical in the same sense, but also might undermine the tendency to a sceptical take on reality, which I think is important, and actually wonderful. Because the world, the real world, the real universe is wonderful. You don't need the cheap and tawdry magic of frogs turning into princes, you've got a much better magical in a better sense- reality out there.

ANDREW DENTON: Are perhaps, fairy tales for example, speaking to that part of the human consciousness which is absolutely not rooted in reality, which is imagination and our desire to feed imagination and to play ...

RICHARD DAWKINS: ... Well that's a good point but I mean imagination is enormously important and in science as much as anything else, and scientific theory, scientific hypothesis depend upon imagination dreaming up imaginative ideas.

ANDREW DENTON: So look at someone like Salvador Dali and his vaulting imagination, isn't the flipside of fairy stories and things like that, isn't that appealing to our sense of wonder, our playfulness with the universe?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Dali isn't actually saying that there are objects that assume these surreal qualities that he paints. So he's boring into our subconscious and stimulating our minds to think in imaginative ways. He's not actually lying to children about the way reality is. Saying that frogs turn into princes is a lie. It's not just because it hasn't ever happened. It couldn't ever happen. It would violate a deep, deep scientific principle for anything like that to happen. I think there might be better ways of stimulating the imagination. I mean we've got dinosaurs, we've got the universe, we've got the whole world of nature. Don't you think a child could have its imagination stimulated by these unfamiliar and yet wonderful, magically wonderful in the good sense of magically, aspects of reality?

ANDREW DENTON: After 68 years of looking at human beings are you optimistic for the future of humanity?

RICHARD DAWKINS: At an intellectual level, I'm not entirely optimistic...

ANDREW DENTON: Why?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well I take note of the crises that are upon us – global warming – I mean they're familiar enough, the technology to do terribly destructive things is becoming cheaper and easier and there are all sorts of reasons to be pessimistic intellectually. Emotionally, I'm not an emotional pessimist, I don't sort of fret all night about the future of the world, like some people do.

ANDREW DENTON: In your gut do you feel good about human beings?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Yeah, I'm optimistic about the goodwill, the pleasantness, the niceness, the kindness of most people. Most people don't like to see suffering; most people will feel sympathy for somebody who is suffering and try to bring it to an end.

ANDREW DENTON: What's your moral code?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I suppose it's a version of the Golden Rule, don't do unto others what you wouldn't wish them to do to you. I do feel intense vicarious sadness when I encounter sadness in others. It doesn't have to be in my own species, I mean it could be of another species as well. My moral code is definitely nothing to do with the sort of busy-bodyish religious moral code that cares about what people do in private. What they do with their sex organs and things like that, seems to me to be an utterly private matter, nothing to do with morals. I despise that kind of alleged morality, deeply despise it.

ANDREW DENTON: And how do you deal with that sense of despising something?

RICHARD DAWKINS: What can I do right about it? Speak about it, my weapons are words.

ANDREW DENTON: What would you like to live long enough to know the answer to?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I'm not a physicist but physicists talk about a theory of everything, talk about understanding those corners of physics, of the universe, of the cosmos, which we still don't yet have a grasp of. And it's not impossible that that will come in the next few decades, even in the next couple of years perhaps.

ANDREW DENTON: That concept to me is my small brain is starting to explode thinking about that...

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well me too, yes, I mean I agree with that, and I'm pretty pessimistic that I would personally understand the theory of everything. I don't know enough physics or mathematics to do that, but I think if the theory of everything said, we now understand where the laws of physics come from, where the physical constants come from, why there is a universe at all, how it started, if indeed "started" means anything. I think physicists are not far from that now and it may just need one more little push and they might they might be there.

ANDREW DENTON: That question of starting, the ultimate question. Does it not, it does me, does it not drive you mad trying to think of that, whatever the original thing was ...

RICHARD DAWKINS: ... Well yes it does ... yeah it does...

ANDREW DENTON: ...and what it formed from.

RICHARD DAWKINS: I mean physicists, many of them will say that you're not allowed to ask the question, what was there before the Big Bang. And I can't deal with that.

ANDREW DENTON: But you say you can't deal with that but you have to accept it?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I think I'm humble enough to feel well what I can't deal with doesn't necessarily mean that it's undealable with. I'm coming perilously close to a sort of faith position where I'm saying, I've got faith in, well in an immediate proximal sense, in other scientists that they understand it. I'm fully aware that I can't understand some things that other scientists can. And so there's a kind of element of faith. But it's a faith that's borne out by the experience of what works.

ANDREW DENTON: What do you believe in that you can't prove?

RICHARD DAWKINS: If there is life on other planets, (this is something I've written about quite often), then I believe that it will turn out to be Darwinian life in the sense that it's based upon some version of Darwinian natural selection. I can't prove it in the sense that I can't see life on other planets- but I can make it plausible by setting out an argument based partly upon, it's not really based upon life on this planet, but almost based upon logic actually. But it's not something I can prove.

ANDREW DENTON: Where this show started was actually that T.S. Eliot quote, "Where is the wisdom we've lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we've lost in information?" which to me suggested that there is an innate or core knowledge learnt from experience, which isn't necessarily something that's gained from books. it's from observation and from having lived life. How would you define wisdom?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Uh I don't do... let's not have any definitions.

ANDREW DENTON: Oh no definitions, okay.

RICHARD DAWKINS: There's a perfectly good dictionary on the shelf. You can go and look it up.

ANDREW DENTON: Well, I guess the operative word there was "you"...?

RICHARD DAWKINS: But I'm not going to get into the business of defining words that already have dictionary definitions.

ANDREW DENTON: I will not ask you for another definition.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Ok

ANDREW DENTON: I promise. You present always as, as very confident and very clear in your arguments. When you do you doubt yourself?

RICHARD DAWKINS: (laughs) When people ask me how I define words that I have no particular specialised knowledge of. I doubt myself sufficiently to decline to answer the question.

ANDREW DENTON: Was that doubt or is that dismissal?

RICHARD DAWKINS: No, it's doubt.

ANDREW DENTON: Really?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I have nothing to add to the dictionary definition of a word like wisdom...

ANDREW DENTON: It's interesting though because, and again I really am not trying to trap you here, as I said the operative word was "you". What I'm interested in is what you draw from it, but your way of responding to that is to say, no, you're after a dictionary definition.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Okay, well, I doubt myself enough to feel that that why should anybody be interested in... I mean I should expect people perhaps to be interested in what I can tell them about evolution, which I've spent a lifetime talking about, but I don't feel I've got anything very wise, I suppose, to say about wisdom.

ANDREW DENTON: What do you see when you look in the mirror?

RICHARD DAWKINS: [Pause] Ah...I don't have an interesting answer to that. I mean I see myself. No, cut that one. I guess I've probably dodged all the questions that you've been told to put to everybody.

ANDREW DENTON: No, not that I've been told, that I've chosen to. No, not all of them, but many, yes. Most of the personal ones. But that is your choice.

RICHARD DAWKINS: My choice is that I don't think people should be interested in me, but I hope I may have something interesting to say about the world.

ANDREW DENTON: Indeed you do, and I guess it's that, as I said when I first met you, that rigour, the way you have so rigorously approached the way you've examined the world, that does make you interesting.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well that's nice, I'm glad you think that. But perhaps let it stand at that rather than ask me to say it myself and to define anything about myself.

ANDREW DENTON: I do have one final question, having read some of your work, having looked at a lot of your work, I'm curious, what star sign are you?

RICHARD DAWKINS: [Pause] ...You serious?

ANDREW DENTON: No, I just wanted to see your response! [Laughter] And it was worth it! Richard, thank you very much.

Posted by Wechner 0 意見

Climate change and it effects dominated the news in 2009 (Source: David Gray/Reuters)

The News in Science team will be taking a break during the Christmas-New Year period, but you can still enjoy the following highlights from 2009.

The highlight for Australian science in 2009 would have to be Dr Elizabeth Blackburn becoming the first Australian-born female scientist to receive a Nobel Prize. Her work in discovering telomeres and their role in ageing saw her receive the Nobel Prize in Medicine with fellow researchers Dr Carol Greider and Dr Jack Szostak.

CSIRO also scored big in 2009 when they reached a settlement with a number of companies regarding the use of its patented Wi-Fi technology. The organisation received more than $200 million in licensing fees and its creator, Dr John O'Sullivan, received the Prime Minister's Science Prize.

Heavens above

As the world celebrated the 400th anniversary of Galileo pointing a telescope to the night sky and 40 years since Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, the most viewed story in 2009 was about our impending doom: a French study found there is a 1% chance Jupiter will kick start a game of 'planetary snooker' in the next five billion years.

This year astronomers admitted they were baffled as to why the giant red star Betelgeuse is rapidly shrinking, and NASA scientists predicted the current solar minimum to be the quietest in almost 100 years.

The number of planets outside our solar system continued to grow in 2009 and astronomers peered deeper into our universe than ever before.

The European Space Agency successfully launched two space telescopes to look deep into the universe, while NASA deliberately crashed a spacecraft into the Moon and tested its space shuttle replacement, the Ares 1 rocket.

Climate issues

The debate surrounding climate change reached a fever pitch in the lead up to the UN Copenhagen climate conference.

While some studies found the world is warming faster and sea levels are rising quicker than previously predicted, others found it is occurring as predicted and that glaciers and ice cover are actually growing.

Plans to reduce CO2 levels through ocean fertilisation and biochar were brought into question, while experts debated whether governments should implement a carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme.

Australian researchers identified a strong link between the patterns in the Indian Ocean and reduced rainfall in southeastern Australia, which they believe contributed towards Victoria's Black Saturday bushfires.

Researchers suggested the dust storm that blanketed eastern Australia in September was caused by weather events a year earlier. The dust later caused an explosion of phytoplankton in the Tasman Sea.

Health

This year geneticists identified what might cause autism, motor neurone disease, vaccine memory, brittle bones and even curly hair.

There were a number of studies questioning the use of tests for prostate, breast and cervical cancers, as well as heart disease.

Researchers also found that thunder thighs may be good for the heart, red wine prevents tooth cavities, vitamin C wards off gout and daily sex increases the number of healthy sperm men have.

Animals

Sex in the animal kingdom continues to intrigue researchers ... and readers. This year found that females of a species of Australian lizard roll over to avoid sex, chimpanzees exchange sex for food, being a desirable fruit fly comes at a cost, and male redback spiders that provide inadequate foreplay quickly become dinner.

Scientists revealed that a lack of genetic diversity could be the undoing for three Australian icons - the koala, Tasmanian devil and grey nurse shark.

They also showed being a free-range chicken doesn't guarantee a worry-free existence, the cocker spaniel is the meanest breed of dog, serotonin causes locusts to swarm, a tiny marsupial soaks up the sun like a lizard, and the true colour of the extinct moa using its DNA.

Meanwhile, palaeontologists unearthed three new species of dinosaur in outback Queensland and found the world's earliest 'willy' in Western Australia.

Nano pros and cons

The benefits of nanotechnology featured heavily in the news throughout 2009. They included nanorods for increased data storage and nanotransistors for faster quantum computing, through to gold nanospheres that cook cancer cells and vibrating iron-nickel nanodiscs that cause cancer to self-destruct.

But there were also concerns regarding the use of nanotechnology in bandages and underwear, exposure of workers in 'nanomanufacture' and the ability of nanoparticles to affect cells remotely.

Weird science

During his stay on the International Space Station, Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata conducted a number of unusual experiments including, flying on a carpet, using eye drops in microgravity and wearing a pair of wash-free underwear for more than a month.

Researchers investigated ways to harness the power of hamsters running in a wheel, trained bacteria to draw on an agar plate, and grew fully-functional artificial penises that allowed dismembered rabbits to once again breed … like rabbits.

From ABC Science's News in Science team have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We'll be back publishing on 11 January 2010.

ref: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/12/18/2771151.htm

Posted by Wechner 0 意見

 

There is no doubt that science has become more like science fiction in the past decade, with amazing innovations and discoveries that increased our understanding of the universe. We list ten of the biggest science stories from the past decade.

This was the decade of the first face transplant, the first extinct species brought back from the dead, and printable human tissue; a decade that brought us closer to synthetic life forms and the invisibility cloak. But we've whittled it down to ten of the decade's biggest science stories, with discoveries, advances, and topics that are sure to change our lives in the next ten years.

It's Full of Planets: This was a big decade for planets, and not just because Pluto got a downgrade. In 2005, astronomers discovered Eris, a dwarf planet larger Pluto (as well as smaller dwarf planets Haumea and Makemake). Eris' discovery prompted the International Astronomical Union to actually define the term planet, leading to Pluto's demotion to dwarf planet. But the discovery of Eris after all this time suggests there is still a lot to learn about our solar system.

We also got our first direct look at exoplanets, worlds outside our solar system, thanks to the Hubble Telescope. In 2008, astronomers at the Keck and Gemini captured the first images of planets orbiting distant stars. And the planetary discoveries just keep getting more exciting; just this week, astronomers announced that they had observed a super-Earth that might be made largely of liquid water.

 

Water, Water Everywhere: The world watched on as the Phoenix Lander dug through the Martian terrain for signs of water on the Red Planet. In the summer of 2008, NASA announced it had found definitive proof of water ice on Mars. More recently, scientists discovered that large deposits of water ice exist beneath the planet's surface. This fall, the moon became the center of our watery attention when astronomers found evidence of water throughout the moon's surface. Although the supervillainous plot to bomb the moon didn't seem as initially impressive as we had hoped, the probe did confirm researchers' suspicions that the moon does, in fact, contain a significant amount of frozen water. These discoveries not only reveal more about our solar system, they indicate that, should humans try to colonize Mars or the moon, there will be resources to make survival a little easier.

 

Shaking Up the Human Family Tree: Humanity got a new great-great-grandmother (or perhaps she's our great-great-great-aunt) in Ardi, a fossilized hominid skeleton found in Ethiopia. Granted, Ardipithecus ramidus was discovered in 1992, but it wasn't until 2009 that she was revealed as a significant addition to our family tree. Although there's technically no "missing link" because humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees, Ardi is, so far, our closest link to chimps, and brings us closer to the common human-chimp ancestor than ever before. Analysis of Ardi's skeleton and probably anatomy reveals just how unlike either chimps that common ancestor is bound to be. One of the Ardi researchers even quipped that when we find that common ancestor, it might look less like we evolved from a chimp-like creature and more like chimps evolved from creatures more like us.

 

The Book of Life Recorded: Our understanding of human genetics reached a new milestone with the mapping of the human genome. The Human Genome Project announced a rough draft of the human genome in 2000, followed by a more complete version in 2003; the sequence of the last chromosome was published in 2006. Though the genome hasn't been 100 percent mapped, the Human Genome Project has completed its mapping goals. We still have to interpret the sequences we have recorded, but hopefully as we translate the book of our genetic lives, we will get a better understand of how our genes interact and improve our treatment of genetic diseases. Plus, the project has paved the way for sequencing other critters and plants, and, just this week, the lung cancer and melanoma genomes were sequenced.

 

Changing Your Genes: The promises of genetic engineering have really begun to bear fruit in the last few years, in ways far beyond Alba, the glowing transgenic bunny that grabbed headlines in 2000. In 1999, an 18-year-old with a, inherited liver disease died during a gene therapy trial, after suffering an unanticipated immune reaction to a viral vector. But in more recent years, gene therapy and genetic engineering have shown their promise. In 2000, scientists reported the first gene therapy success, having provided a patient with severe combine immunodeficiency (commonly known as "Bubble Boy" syndrome), though SCID gene therapy treatments were halted when patients developed leukemia. This year, gene therapy successfully treated children with a congenital form of blindness, giving them the ability to see for the first time in their lives. Meanwhile, genetic engineering experiments on animals have cured color blindness in monkeys, created super-strong monkeys, created drug-producing rats, and enabled animals to pass their altered genes to their offspring.

 

Stem Cells Grow Up: Embryonic stem cells have been a source of contention for years, but in 2007, Shinya Yamanaka helped sidestep that issue when he found a way to reprogram adult skin cells into induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem cells themselves have continued to aid important medical advances. In 2008, researchers generated motor neurons from elderly patients with ALS, an advance that could help researchers better understand the disease. A newly released study has suggested that a mini stem cell transplant could reverse sickle cell disease, and stem cell research has lead to advances in HIV research and the treatment of heart disease.

 

Climate Change Takes Center Stage: One of the biggest science stories of the decade has been less about scientific advances than about how the public responds to scientific research. Reports that the glaciers are melting faster than expected, a decade of record warmth, and Al Gore's Nobel Prize have all been part of the conversation on climate change and to what extent humans are responsible.

 

Commercial Spacecrafts Prepare to Take Flight: Amidst NASA budget cuts, commercial spaceflight has come to the forefront. The Ansari X Prize, first offered in 1996 for the first private enterprise that could fly a three-passenger vehicle 100 kilopmeters into space twice in one week. In 2004, the prize was finally won by Mojave Aerospace Ventures' SpaceShipOne. That same year, Virgin Galactic was founded to further space tourism. The company recently unveiled SpaceShipTwo, the first commercial spacecraft. 2004 also saw the certification of the Mojave Air and Space Port, the first licensed facility for horizontal launches of reusable spacecraft in the US. In anticipation of the spaceflight business, one company claims it's readying a space hotel.

Our Cyborg Present: In the last decade, humans and machines have gotten closer than ever. We have machines that can read our memories, computers that let us type with our brains, and robotic arms controlled by monkey minds. Perhaps the most impressive cyborg advances have come in the last few months, with researchers hooking amputees up to robotic arms that not only respond to electrical signals from the human brain, but also provide tactile feedback.

 

The LHC Comes Online: The Large Hadron Collider has just begun colliding proton beams, but its construction represents one of the most ambitious scientific undertakings ever. The immense particle accelerator will hopefully give us first-hand observations of aspects of the universe that have been, thus far, the realm of theoretical physics. Despite fears from doomsayers that the LHC would destroy the world and a series of mishaps that led to claims that the device was being sabotaged from the future, the LHC came online this year and quickly got to smashing protons at record-breaking speeds.

最大粒子對撞機創紀錄
(明報)2009年11月30日 星期一 20:05
歐洲核子研究中心宣布,大型強子對撞機內的兩束質子流加速到1.18萬億伏特的能級,創下了新的世界紀錄。
歐洲科學家表示,這是一個重要里程碑,他們明年將做更多實驗,以解開宇宙物質來源的秘密。新紀錄打破了美國    創下的紀錄。

 

 

ref : http://io9.com/5430073/ten-science-stories-that-changed-our-decade

Posted by Wechner 0 意見












http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Here is some background notes to tonight's debate. When Professor Ian Plimer's outright denial of man-made global warming was championed in the UK Spectator magazine earlier this year after the publication of his book Heaven and Earth in Britain, the magazine's editor promoted the idea of a great public debate in London between Professor Plimer and the Guardian's George Monbiot. Monbiot is a renowned champion of climate science. In the end, George Monbiot's key condition for the debate, that Professor Plimer first answer in writing a series of questions about claims in his book was not met, the debate was cancelled. And tonight, with no preconditions, George Monbiot joins us in Copenhagen and Ian Plimer is here in our Sydney studio.

Thanks to both of you for being there.
IAN PLIMER, AUTHOR AND ACADEMIC: Thankyou.
GEORGE MONBIOT, AUTHOR AND GUARDIAN COLUMNIST: Thankyou.

TONY JONES: And let's start with George Monbiot, because you recently wrote, "There's no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease." Now, coming from you that's rather a startling conclusion. How did you reach it?

GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, the surveys show that large numbers of people have effectively ceased to believe that man-made global warming is taking place, and this is profoundly ironic because at the same time the evidence has hardened up to a startling degree. And the science of man-made global warming is now as solid as the science linking smoking with lung cancer and HIV with AIDS. And it seems to me that the harder the science becomes, the more people fall into denial because they simply don't want to face the writing that's now on the wall.
TONY JONES: It's odd that you should say that because if it's true that this is what's happening with the general public, it's not filtering up to the leaders that are on their way to Copenhagen, evidently.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, I think this is one of the rare instances where governments are continuing to do the right thing, even if in some cases it might be politically costly for them. Now the reason governments have taken that position is that they have scientific advisors who follow the science very closely, who understand what the science is saying, and are extremely alarmed by the implications and have managed to express that alarm to their leaders. And the leaders know that if they don't take serious action on climate change, then we're going to get into a situation which will be extremely dangerous for many of the world's people.
TONY JONES: Ian Plimer, let me bring you in. Now, is that a fair assessment, do you think, that what's going on is that there is a movement, a shift away from belief in climate change in the general public? That it's not at the leadership level of governments, because scientific advisors are telling their governments this is actually happening?
IAN PLIMER: I spend a lot of my time in the outbacks with average people, talking to people. There has been a huge movement, and I don't think governments are in contact with it. But what I think is happening is governments just cannot resist the opportunity to tax us more, to set up huge bureaucracies, and this is what Copenhagen's about. It's not about science, it's not about morality, it's not about the Third World - it's about money, and it's about governments putting their hands in our pockets, taking out our money, and having to go through sets of sticky fingers to end up disappearing somewhere else in the world. And backing that up is science, which certainly we've seen from the University of East Anglia, is at best really dodgy.
TONY JONES: George Monbiot, that's the elephant in the room, isn't it, the leaked emails from the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia? Let's talk about the impact first that's actually had on this debate. Because you've written - once again, you've written, "No-one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science."
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes. What those emails show are correspondence which I believe is unscientific, in that they have sought to suppress data, and it has not been released properly to the public, and I think that's completely contrary to the spirit of science. Science has to be open and it has to be transparent. What the emails do not show is that global warming is a hoax and a scam and a con and all the rest of it as people like Ian Plimer suggest. What they possibly do is to raise a question about one or two out of several hundred lines of evidence that man-made global warming is taking place and raise questions possibly about the integrity of three or four scientists. But there are tens of thousands of scientists involved in climate change whose evidence stands and has not been affected by this. And what Ian has been proposing is the standard old conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory which would have to involve tens of thousands of people if it were to be true, that all the scientists and all the governments are getting together to make up a completely unfounded story about climate change in order to tax us, disregarding the fact, of course, that if governments are serious about this and do pursue it through Copenhagen, they lose vast revenues in terms of the money that they make from the fossil fuel industry. They have to reshape the global economy in a way that most of them are deeply reluctant to do. And let me tell you that if this is a great global conspiracy, it's a hell of an infective one, because these guys can't even make a firm agreement on climate change, let alone pursue it so that they can all extract billions and billions in taxes as Ian Plimer suggests.
TONY JONES: Ian Plimer, do you actually regard this as evidence of a global conspiracy?
IAN PLIMER: Not at all and I've never used those words at all. What we see with these emails are Mafia-type bullying tactics on editors to stop them publishing work which is somewhat different. We see source codes of computers which are designed to change results, we see this cooking of the evidence, we see conspiracies by using words such as "tricks" - that's about all we would see. Now, the scientists involved are a handful of the major scientists who are driving this agenda. These are the major scientists who are behind the IPCC, and this UN conference in Copenhagen is based on what those major scientists have given as evidence. We see in those emails that one scientist has got $25 million from 55 research grants from frightening us witless. This is Jones, and the Jones and Wigley record is the reference standard for the IPCC. Now we have to say that that standard has been contaminated, it has been polluted, that is not a conspiracy. The emails show that, the reports show that, the source code shows that. This is the biggest scientific fraud in history.
TONY JONES: The biggest scientific fraud in history.
IAN PLIMER: ... fraud in history.
TONY JONES: Alright. Well let me throw that back to George Monbiot.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yeah.
TONY JONES: George, just hang on for one second. Let me quote to you, because you've written about this yourself. One of the worst emails - this from the head of the unit Phil Jones. He was just talked about there. He's trying to make sure several papers don't make it into the IPCC report and he says, "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is." Is there any excuse at all for what he said there?
GEORGE MONBIOT: I don't believe there is. No, I don't believe there is an excuse for that. And I condemn in the strongest terms some of the sentiments expressed in those emails. But to suggest that this is the whole of the IPCC infrastructure we're talking about, these are all the scientists who count, is simply preposterous. And I have to say that Ian is a fine one to talk about scientific fraud. His book is filled with fabrication after fabrication, simple untruths repeated again and again. And even when people point out to him that he has just made up the facts that he states in his book, he keeps restating them. Take, for example, his claim that human beings produce more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. Now, the US geological survey shows that human beings - sorry, he suggests that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human beings. The US geological survey shows that human beings produce 130 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. And yet again and again, however many times it is pointed out to him, Ian keeps reporting this straightforward fraud, this fabrication that volcanoes produce more CO2.

TONY JONES: Let's hear Ian Plimer respond to that. Do you stand by the claim in your book that volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined?
IAN PLIMER: Well I'm very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology. Now Mr Monbiot wrote to me when I asked him some questions of science and said he was not qualified to answer these questions of science. So he's a journalist and he's asking me a scientific question. He has not read this book ...
GEORGE MONBIOT: Could you answer the question, please?
IAN PLIMER: He has not read this book.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Do you stand by your claim or not?
IAN PLIMER: He has not - it is the height of bad manners to interrupt.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Do you stand by your claim or not?
IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Could you answer the question. Could you just answer the question.
TONY JONES: George Monbiot, just hang on. I will ask the same question of you if I can because I did raise that.
IAN PLIMER: And in this book I referred to a number of types of volcanoes. There are two types, and I know you haven't read the book. He certainly hasn't read the book ...
TONY JONES: It's not true that I haven't read your book, as I told you last time. I suspect that George Monbiot has also ...
GEORGE MONBIOT: And I have also read the book.
TONY JONES: But I have actually read your book.
IAN PLIMER: Well, let me make two points on this. On the chapter called Earth I talk about two volcanoes. One are the terrestrial volcanoes, which is the USGS reports on emissions of carbon dioxide, but more than 85 per cent of the world's volcanoes we do not measure, we do not see, these are submarine volcanoes that release carbon dioxide and we deduce from the chemistry of the rocks how much carbon dioxide is released.
TONY JONES: Can I ask you a question about that, if you don't mind? Because one British journalist whom you quoted those exact figures to went back to the US geological survey after you told him about this 85 per cent figure, and asked he them to confirm their claim that actually 130 times the amount of CO2 is produced by man than volcanoes. The volcanologist Dr Terrance Gerlach confirmed that figure and said furthermore that in their counting they count the undersea volcanoes. So your response to that.
IAN PLIMER: My response is that there are 220,000 undersea volcanoes that we know about. There's 64,000 kilometres of undersea volcanoes which we do ...
GEORGE MONBIOT: Which they have counted.
IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt. Please restrain yourself. And we have 64,000 kilometres of volcanoes in submarine environments with massive super volcanoes there. We do not measure them. And the figures that I have used are deduced from the chemistry of rocks which erupt on the sea floor.
TONY JONES: OK. Now, that's that point dealt with. George Monbiot, a quick response to that and then we'll move on to other questions.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yeah, sure. I mean, it's, again, straightforward fabrication. Ian produces no new evidence to suggest that the USGS figures are wrong. He keeps citing this statement that they don't include submarine volcanoes. It's been pointed out to him many, many times that the USGS figures do include submarine volcanoes. And actually, it's the height of bad manners Professor Plimer to lie on national television about something that you know to be plain wrong.
TONY JONES: OK. Ian Plimer, let me go to another point, because there are a whole series of questions raised by George Monbiot and put on the public record about your book. You state that the Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that warming stopped in 1998. Where exactly does the Hadley Centre say that?
IAN PLIMER: There are four major centres measuring temperature. You asked me this question before on Lateline. You should get a different game. There were four major centres that measure temperature, and these are done from thermometers, and as we know, temperature centres move, they change in altitude, they change in measuring technique, and they're done from radio sons and their done from satellites. I cannot give you the exact reference here. I can look it up in this book right now and give it to you in 10 seconds. But what this book has shown is that if you've claimed you've read it, and if Mr Monbiot has claimed he's read it, why didn't you look at page 481. Because in page 481, I nailed the CRU in the University of East Anglia. It's in his backyard. It's a few yards from him. He fawningly accepted everything they said and criticised everything I have said. Now why didn't he work as a journalist?
TONY JONES: Just on this very question though.
IAN PLIMER: I will get the reference for you on it, but I will have to chase it up in here. There are 2,311 references here.
TONY JONES: Indeed, but let's go back to George Monbiot because he put, I think, 15 or 16 questions about your book on the public record and he sent them to you, so we presumed you'd seen those questions. George Monbiot.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, they were very straightforward questions. All of them were simply asking for evidence of the claims made in your book, or indeed for references for those claims. You failed repeatedly to answer those questions. However many times I asked, you made up dog-eat-my-homework excuses until eventually the deadline ran out. And it was a quite deliberate ploy not to answer these very simply straightforward questions of scientific fact. And on that question of the temperature record, where you say there's been no further warming since 1998, the meteorological office responded directly to that claim that you made and said it was complete nonsense, that all the figures show very clearly that this has been the warmest decade of the entire temperature record going back to 1850, and that eight out of the 10 warmest years on record have been since 2001. And what you have done is to cherrypick that 1998 date because it happens to be the record-ever temperature date and to say temperatures have declined since then. But were you to take 1997, or 1999, or any single year in the entirety of the 20th Century except for 1998, you would have found that temperatures have risen. That is an indication of the quality of your argument and the quality, I'm afraid, of your fabrication.

TONY JONES: Your response, Ian Plimer.
IAN PLIMER: My response is I challenge Mr Monbiot to a debate; he put some questions to me; I said that's highly unusual; I'll put questions to you. I put 13 simple scientific questions to him. He ducked for cover and said, "I am not qualified to answer questions of science." Yet he writes on science. So I talk now to a journalist and not anyone who's got any knowledge about science. Please explain how we had 600 years of the Roman warming, when temperatures were higher than now, and we didn't have higher sea levels and we didn't have industry. Please explain how we had a medieval warming of 400 years, temperatures were much, much higher, we didn't have industry, we didn't have super-high sea levels, and please explain why the people who you've supported for so long have actually tried to get rid of that medieval warming, 'cause it's very inconvenient. Now, a journalist can answer that; a scientist he is not.
TONY JONES: OK. At the present moment we were talking about your claims about it cooling over the last 10 years. And can I ask you this: do you adjust your position when new information comes to light? Because for example, last week we had the World Meteorological Organisation release their annual statement which says the first decade of the 21st Century is likely to be the warmest on record, that 2009 is set to be the fifth warmest year on record. Are they credible?
IAN PLIMER: A couple of points. That is a projection; we haven't yet finished this year. The second thing is the Bureau of Meteorology told us in England it was going to be a barbecue summer. It was not. They also told us that 2007 was going to be the hottest year on record. And what both of you journalists omit is that beautiful four letter word: time. If you look back in time, you can see that over the last 4,500 years, we've had 75 major temperature changes. We've had periods when it's been much warmer than now. Please explain that.
TONY JONES: But could that be - I'm sorry to put this to you again, as I did in the last interview I did with you, but could that possibly because you repeat time and time again, 16 times in one chapter, that the world has cooled in the last 10 years?
IAN PLIMER: Well, we're looking at time over historical times, archaeological and geological times. You are trying to focus on one year or five years and tell us this is the future of the planet. I am saying that we get the future from looking at the past. And what journalists, and Mr Monbiot is a journalist. He has no scientific qualifications, because he said that to me, he's written it to me. What you are trying to do is to ignore the past and to frighten people witless about things which are happening today.
TONY JONES: OK. Alright. George Monbiot.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Right, I find this absolutely fascinating. Professor Plimer is asked a straightforward question: can he still justify his statement that it has cooled this century? Instead he goes off on a long rambling disquisition about who asked what to whom, about medieval warming, about warming 4,000 years ago, and he will not answer that question. And then accuses, as if it's a terrible thing, us of being journalists. Well the purpose of journalists is to press people to answer questions. The purpose of scientists is to be open and transparent and to answer those questions. And Professor Plimer just ducks and dives and evades and avoids at every opportunity, and he's doing the same today. He hasn't answered that question that Tony put to him and that I pressed him on about temperatures cooling this century, because he can't because it was yet another fabrication in his book. And to support that fabrication he's now giving us a whole load of new fabrications about the medieval warming period and the Roman temperature record and temperature records 4,000 years ago, when the science shows unequivocally that it is warmer today than at any of those periods that he mentions. And the only science which doesn't show that is the fabricated science where Plimer has quite deliberately pulled out figures or made them up altogether in his book.

TONY JONES: Ian Plimer, is it reasonable for journalists to ask questions about something which you repeatedly claim in your book and to actually get answers to those questions?

IAN PLIMER: I would have to check the references in this on the last 10 years. That I will do. Mr Monbiot is talking about pressing people. In his backyard was the CRU. He fawningly accepted everything they said, and they conned him. He was so easy to con.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Answer the question, Professor Plimer.
IAN PLIMER: The second thing is he talks about is two new ...
GEORGE MONBIOT: Answer the question, Professor Plimer.
IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt. Please allow me to finish.
GEORGE MONBIOT: You are evading the question again.
IAN PLIMER: He raised a new subject, and that was ...
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well please answer the question. It is the height of bad manners to evade the question.
TONY JONES: George Monbiot, hang on a second.
IAN PLIMER: It was a new fabrication about the medieval warming. Now, can Mr Bonbiot (sic) show me where that comes from, because we know that wheat, barley and cattle and sheep were on Greenland in places where there's ice now. Was Greenland warmer or not? Now that is not a new fabrication. Second thing is, in Roman times, in his country, up near where he lives, they grew grapes. Is that a fabrication? Now he says these are new fabrications.
TONY JONES: OK. Alright. I'm gonna stick to some of the questions that Mr Monbiot's been asking you. The issue of measuring temperatures at the heart of this. Once again, you take issue with Ian Plimer's claim that satellites and radio sons show there is no global warming. Tell us why?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, well this is fascinating, because he for once gives a reference to that claim, so you're able to go back and check the reference and see if indeed it says what he says it says. And do you know what, it says precisely the opposite of what he says. It's a paper by Charles F. Keller and it said that the recent data from satellite and radio sons, which are weather balloons, the recent data blows away the contention that there has been no further warming. And what does Plimer do? He takes that bit, saying, "No further warming," and suggests that the paper is claiming that the satellites and radio sons show there's been no further warming. Again, turning round the conclusions 180 degrees, straightforward scientific fraud.

TONY JONES: Alright. We're nearly out of time, but I'm gonna have to get you to respond to that. This is a paper you do quote by Charles Keller. You stand by your quotation.
IAN PLIMER: There is a dispute on how you tweak the satellite data. And that can give you the answer you want. We know from measuring temperature at thermometer sites that's totally unreliable as well.
TONY JONES: Can I just ask, do you stand by your selection of the Keller quote?
IAN PLIMER: Selection: I think that's a very moralistic word. I have scanned ...
TONY JONES: But you've only taken a part of the overall ...
IAN PLIMER: Which page are we talking about?
TONY JONES: Yes, it's page 383.
GEORGE MONBIOT: You turned it around 180 degrees. You actually made up - you made up the conclusion to what the paper said.
IAN PLIMER: 383. And it's about the treatment of data. Well the treatment of the data is very interesting. For example, we go to any measuring site, and I've got one here for Mildura showing that there are 11 changes since we started to measure data there. That's unreliable.
TONY JONES: OK. But just a quick question.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Answer the question, Professor Plimer.
TONY JONES: I'm sorry, we're nearly out of time, so, I have to just ask you ...
IAN PLIMER: It's quite interesting the way that journalists handle science. If you don't want to hear the message, you bully people.
GEORGE MONBIOT: You made up what the reference said. Answer the question. Answer the question.
IAN PLIMER: You want to bully people rather than deal with evidence.
TONY JONES: George Monbiot, just hang on. Sorry.
IAN PLIMER: Now, there is an enormous ...
GEORGE MONBIOT: We are pressing you ... OK ...
IAN PLIMER: For God sake, get some manners young man. There is an enormous dispute as to how ...
GEORGE MONBIOT: We are pressing you ...
TONY JONES: George Monbiot, hang on a second, please.
IAN PLIMER: ... you measure temperature from satellites, because you have to put a huge number of corrections there. That is what I question, is one paper that might have one set of corrections and another paper that might have another set of corrections. And this is the same way temperature is measured. The same with ground temperatures. We have ground temperatures that get corrected all the time. But again, you are looking at the last few years, you're not looking back in time where every temperature change and every climate change has been more rapid and greater than ever we see today.
GEORGE MONBIOT: You are evading the question. The question was ...
TONY JONES: George Monbiot, a final point. Sorry, we're nearly out of time.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Sure, sure. A classic example of Professor Plimer evading the question. The question was: did you reverse the findings of the reference that you cited. Answer: yes he did. But will he answer that question? The heck he will. And it is, again, I say, the height of bad manners not to answer the very straightforward question which has been put to you, but you can't answer it because you have made up the facts.
IAN PLIMER: And why does Mr Monbiot use blog sites where the bloggers are paid to smear scientists. This is DeSmogBlog, which is paid for by the Suzuki Foundation, and those people who donate to Greenpeace and the Suzuki Foundation are putting money in to blog sites to smear scientists, those which he uses as a journalist. He's got no scientific knowledge whatsoever. And as a journalist he uses those to smear people who in a society are coming up with a different view, and my view is based on time, on history.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Again, pure distraction. You are again evading the question, you are evading the issues. It's just a fascinating exercise in evasion and distraction. Why won't Professor Plimer ever answer the straightforward questions that are put to him?
IAN PLIMER: Well let me give you a straightforward question.
TONY JONES: OK, I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to cut it off there because we could go all night, obviously, and there are many more questions besides. But we will have to leave the debate there for tonight. We thank you both for joining us - George Monbiot in Copenhagen, Ian Plimer here in Sydney. Thank you.
睇完個節目, 其實我一直都覺得 Tony Jones 是個非常厲害的時事節目主持人, 佢問的問題都是好到肉的.
今次佢的表現, 當然不會使你失望,  有些問題頌會使你內心微笑, 因為佢每每好直接抵死咁問我們觀眾想問的問題的.
而George Monbiot 所有的問題, 這位教授都左閃右避不能回答, 又勁攪笑的.
地球氣溫上升, 我覺得不理它是不是人類做成, 或是火山爆發所排出的CO2多, 還是人類所做成的CO2多.  地球是會在未來轉泠又或不斷更暖,  天氣是以前幾世紀就會不斷循環轉變的與否! 
----------------------------------------------------------
我的想法:
About climate change, actually, my thought is very simple, look at the color of the sky in Shanghai/China or many other similar cities! Do you like to live there? Breathing the polluted air and keep on coughing??? So, if you love this world, love your child, you don't need any proof of climate change, just act now, save energy, as we all know our natural recourses are limited,--- believe in climate change and support all the programs that prudent governments put forward to prevent a catastrophe!
----------------------------------------------
我老公寫了以下一封信比個條友添:
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:06 PM
Subject: lateline15.12.2009
Mr. Plimer
I admire scientists with an alternative view, but your efforts, tonight, to avoid answering not even one single question asked by Tony Jones, does not instill any confidence into your science. If you have a point, it would help if you would make an attempt to convince the public, in my opinion you have done just the opposite tonight.
Edward Wechner 

Labels

Labels

Labels