Pharyngula: Carnivalia, and an open thread

Genetic Future

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.

Pastor Ray Mummert of Dover, PA

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

Generic bumps and recycled genetic cascades

Homo floresiensis, Flores Man

Patterning the nervous system with Bmp

Vertebral variation, Hox genes, development, and cancer

Lobster sex

A complex regulatory network in a diploblast

Polar lobes and trefoil embryos in the Precambrian

The Cambrian as an evolutionary exemplar

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Friday Cephalopod: Threesome! | Main | Is Pharyngula banned in Boston? »

Carnivalia, and an open thread

Category: Carnivals • Open Thread
Posted on: February 2, 2007 1:04 PM, by PZ Myers

Let's all catch up with the latest carnivals, shall we?

Otherwise, a few long threads are sucking all the air out of this place. Say whatever you think, as long as it doesn't involve cartoon characters and their creators.

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

I guess that rules out Boston too.

Hey, how about that local athletic team? They certainly played in the most recent event!

Posted by: Warren | February 2, 2007 1:41 PM

There are three things we can be certain of:
1. Global warming is occurring.
2. Increases in greenhouse gases contribute to global warming.
3. Human activity contributes to an increase in greenhouse gases.

While each of these statements is true in its own right, the implied conclusion that decreasing the level of greenhouse gases will lead to a significant reduction of global warming is not supported by the evidence. One important question has been overlooked: What percentage of the global warming that we observe is due to an increase in greenhouse gases and what percentage is due to other factors, such as normal fluctuations in solar activity? All of it? Half of it? One percent of it?
If most of the global warming we are seeing is due to fluctuations in solar activity over which we have no control and if only a small percentage of the global warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, then efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will have little or no effect on the earth's climate.
Historical data inform us that there have been fluctuations in earth's climate repeatedly in past centuries from the medieval warm period spanning the 10th to the 14th century and the "little ice age" from the 16th to the 19th century. These fluctuations have been linked to sunspot activity and solar output and have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.
Absent better data, I'm inclined to the opinion that global warming is not related in a significant way to the emission of greenhouse gases and that these "the sky is falling!" scenarios are mostly political rather than scientific in nature.

Posted by: Sugarbear | February 2, 2007 1:45 PM

I'm gonna violate PZ's directive and say that today's xkcd is zarkin' awesome.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 2, 2007 3:15 PM

Oh, and speaking of xkcd, my friends and I have now decided to speak of the Wobosphere and the Blagnet.

Dum-da-dum, dum-da-dum-da-dum.

I've added Wobosphere and Blagnet to my spell-checker's dictionary. It's getting serious now.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 2, 2007 3:21 PM

From the Knight Science Journalism Tracker:

A news tidal wave will follow today and over the weekend and beyond, but the wires and online sites of major media are already dancing with first reports from the IPCC's summary of its latest, still-to-come and book-sized reports on climate change. They are the work of 800 authors and 2,500 other contributors over a six year period. The horde glitters with PhDs. It'll take months for the full load. But the summary provides a taste. Many enviro groups, universities, and other outfits with gravitas or opinions are bombarding reporters with lists of their available experts for comments.
AP's Seth Borenstein reports that the human cause of it is so certain, and the changes already built into climate so unstoppable inside of a few centuries, that the experts are hoping people don't just throw in the towel. One top UN official, he says, remarked "The public should not sit back and say, 'There's nothing we can do.'" History, it says here, won't be kind to such attitudes. Reuters's Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle report another top IPCC official saying, "February 2, 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether (people) are to blame for climate change." Time Magazine's Bryan Walsh hustles a story out that leads with a simple, "The Debate is Over," which it has been for some time, yet is not over at all of course. The last words in his piece: "..we can't say we weren't warned."; NPR Steve Inskeep interviews a top US scientist and panel co-chair there who was among those pushing hard, reports say, for tough language ...

Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 2, 2007 3:51 PM

Long threads inevitably degenerate to hopeless arguing with the hopeless.

I'm glad comments are now numbered. It's very nice.

Posted by: j | February 2, 2007 5:23 PM

Long threads inevitably degenerate to hopeless arguing with the hopeless.

Do not!

Posted by: Troll 1 | February 2, 2007 5:35 PM

Do too!

Posted by: Troll 2 | February 2, 2007 5:36 PM

One important question has been overlooked: What percentage of the global warming that we observe is due to an increase in greenhouse gases and what percentage is due to other factors, such as normal fluctuations in solar activity? All of it? Half of it? One percent of it?

No, my friend. It has not been overlooked. Only you have overlooked the research on it.

Remember: Google is your friend. Spend a day or two googling, and you'll know. Or just read the IPCC report that came out today.

Posted by: David Marjanović | February 2, 2007 6:36 PM

#10

Yet it was Google which made it look (by juxtaposition of title and image) as though just one man was responsible for all the global warming!

Posted by: SEF | February 2, 2007 9:03 PM

#11

On squid:
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200301/df20030107.jpg

and evolution:
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200403/df20040304.jpg

(and many other things besides).

Posted by: SEF | February 4, 2007 6:26 PM

#12