Reversing Out of Facebook

For a couple of months, this blog has laid silent. Part of the reason is the increasing workload and real life commitments. But another part comes from using Facebook as an alternative.

Facebook is great for quick snippets of posts and it does automatically alert friends to what you're saying. Contrast this with blogging, in which people will be informed of an update if they subscribe to the feed or check the blog. It is like a very centralised RSS feed reader with a user-friendly and fast interface.

But soon I found it cumbersome. Much as it keeps me aware of things happening to other people, sometimes there is just information overload. Moreover, I found it hard to write longer posts like these.

I'll still be on Facebook, and I'll be alerted to important (in a relative sense) messages through email, but I think I'll still stick to my blog.

Rain, Strike and Exams

It rained this morning, and then in the afternoon. This makes cycling quite horrendous.

There was a scheduled bus strike today, so public transport is completely down. So it's either down to carpooling or taxi.

While I laze in my room with a steaming up of tea, I pity those with exams today.

Now, For the Proper Scientific Opinion on Climate Change

Here it is, finally, an objective survey of the opinions of scientists actively working in climate science, showing that 98% of them support anthropogenic climate change. I haven't had the time to look at the actual paper yet, but the linked news article seem to capture the gist of it, based on the abstract.

But honestly, ever since I've been keeping an eye out for articles on climate change, it is pretty clear to me that this kind of survey is superfluous. Most researchers, contrary to public perception, accept the basic tenets of anthropogenic climate change. And really, anyone would, given the wealth of published materials that substantiates the arguments. This study only exists because of the stark -- and sometimes baffling -- contrast between scientific opinion and public opinion.

Of course, there is plenty of debate and research on climate science, but that is mainly trying to quantify the effects. For example, it is accepted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is revving up the temperatures; the debate now is on how much that temperature rise is gonna be. In fact, if you look at the BBC article, the climate sceptic interview said pretty much that. Unfortunately, when it goes out to the general public, it becomes a denial that anthropogenic climate change is occurring.

And expectedly, climate sceptics bring up the claim of publishing bias. Maybe that is true, but I've seen research articles challenging anthropogenic climate change that got through the peer-review process and was published on top-tiered journals. It is interesting to watch how their arguments get shredded by comments from other researchers (peer-reviewed comments, not Internet comments). I remember particularly fondly how one article got torn into utter bits by a very simple mathematical demonstration.

But then again, I doubt climate denialists care about proper science.

Warming Up

Ping! Revving up!

...

Welcome back to the living.