The climates, they are a changing...

Here's a brief anecdote that nicely sums up how my mind works. A decade studying Neuroscience will not leave you unscathed.
Before Christmas, I was at the pub meeting a friend. The freezing conditions had been in effect for about two days, there was ice everywhere and I'd been particularly careful about where I was walking.
Several drinks and a drop of about 10 degrees later, my caution was lessened somewhat. I left by the pub by the back entrance (stop looking for a metaphor, there isn't one), which ends in a noticeable downward gradient that I didn't notice. I blithely stepped onto this ice-covered slope and promptly did one of those all time classic falls. Legs flying out, arms windmilling madly, before thumping down with great force onto my standard-sized arse.

I instantly lost all feeling in my lower body. And it's telling that my fist thought was 'Oh my God! I'm Paralysed!'. I lay there gasping, convinced I'd snapped my spinal cord and desperately wracking my brain for what I could remember about motor neurone damage, spinal trauma, whether or not I had any contacts investigating stem cell repair or regenerative therapies, even wondering if the artificial neurones research I'd read about in New Scientist in 1998 had progressed any further to the point of human trials. At worst, I was planning how I'd manage on a day-to-day basis in a wheelchair, with images of myself as the Stephen Hawking of the Neuroscience comedy scene (current membership = me).
Then the numbness faded, and the pain appeared. It was very cold on the icy concrete, hence the numb feeling. I'd not broken anything, just given myself a massive wallop on the backside, and got to my feet, alternatively laughing and stifling screams .

I was planning physiotherapy and mentally volunteering for experimental treatments where most people would say 'ouch'.

A hideously over-the-top conclusion caused by a very brief encounter with the icy conditions. Sound familiar? Those of us following the news in Britain will have seen similar things recently (See what I did there?). The climate change sceptics have been asking "how can global warming be happening when it's so cold?", to the utter bafflement of the climate campaigners.

This overlooks the fact that climate and weather aren't the same thing, but if they're making the ridiculous statement in the first place then this fact will mean nothing to them.

This is a rather surreal example of one of the many arguments against climate change. There are several valid ones of course, and the worlds climate being the chaotic system it is there can never be certainty. But where's the fun in analysing valid arguments? There are plenty of others to choose from

Rather than go over the evidence like everyone else does, I thought I'd analyse the possible logic and reasoning behind the arguments people make to deny climate change.

A Liberal Conspiracy

Some of the most vocal and vociferous climate sceptics say the whole thing is a liberal conspiracy. These woolly, hand-wringing bleeding heart liberals apparently have regular monthly meetings and have decided that concocting a decades-long international scam would be the best way to... to...um... prevent proper people from driving oversized cars, and stuff like that. But then, anything that goes against the natural instinct to 'look out for number one' is the fault of liberals. Why change your self-indulgent behaviour when you can blame the liberals? And the gays, they're in on it too. And the commies, of course. In fact, anyone except me is a complete bastard and deserves to die anyway, so climate change, which isn't real, would be a good thing. If it existed. Which it doesn't.

Have I just provided an unfair and massively simplistic analysis of a complex argument based on nothing more than prejudice and knee-jerk reactions? Of course I have. It's quite fun actually, I can see why people would prefer that to actually thinking about things.

A Stealth Tax

Some people argue that environmental policies overstate the problem of climate change in order to secretly raise taxes. Every major government in the world is in on this. Normally they'd just raise taxes the usual way; Blatantly and legally. But this one is different because it's secret. These governments, which frequently change and were seemingly unable to stop a global economic meltdown, are nevertheless organised enough to keep this conspiracy going across the whole planet for a number of decades. Or is that the liberals again? It's hard to keep up.

We're not that Significant

Refuge in inadequacy, the belief that we as a race are seriously overstating the impact we have, ergo there's no reason to change what we're doing. I also think of this as 'The Clarkson Defence', seeing as how Jeremy Clarkson compares our CO2 output to sticking a pin in an elephants foot. A seemingly valid claim given the immensity of our planet, but based on a flawed premise. (And I also find it interesting that the people who find it arrogant to think the human race, even acting in unison, could affect something as big and complex as the atmosphere are the same people who believe a relatively small group of people could build something THAT COULD DESTROY THE ENTIRE PLANET COMPLETELY BY ACCIDENT!!)

If you ripped the atmosphere off our planet, every living thing on it would die. And you'd be some sort of God, but never mind that now. But if you then put the atmosphere back on the planet, the concoction of gasses that make it up wouldn't just return to the way it was before. Or if it did, it certainly wouldn't stay that way for long. The atmosphere is only semi-stable, relying on complex interacting processes (many of which depend on living things) to exist in it's current state. Going back to Clarkson's example, it's more like an elephant standing on a small table; It's fine as long as it can consciously keep it's balance. But start aggravating it (i.e. Stick pins in it's feet) and it might lose it's balance and adopt 'a more stable arrangement'. And flatten anyone in the way.

Not the most subtle metaphor, but an apt one I feel.

It's natural

Some people argue that CO2 can't be harmful because it's natural, like bears, arsenic, Ebola and avalanches. Slightly more level-headed is the view that climate change IS occurring, but is part of a natural fluctuation in the planets temperature, which has occurred many times in the past. Potentially true, but if it is, surely that's an even better argument for cutting CO2 output? You don't open the sunroof when driving in a downpour, that just makes the problem worse. So why contribute to the greenhouse effect when the planets heating up anyway? If another giant asteroid was heading to Earth, would people prefer to try and stop it, or would they prefer that we draw a giant bullseye around the predicted impact site with nuclear bomb craters?

Just because it's not your fault doesn't mean you won't be hit with the fallout.

Plants will benefit

Another, more subtle argument is that the rising CO2 causes bigger and better plants and trees which suck it back up again. This only really works, though, if your assume that plants are the chief cause of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Which they aren't, not at all (Rocks and oceans are two other major players here). But it can't hurt, right? We get bigger plants like trees and they compensate for our CO2 output more, surely.

Indeed, unless we do something stupid like, oh, I don't know, cut them down at an alarmingly increasing rate in order to make flat pack furniture and leaflets denouncing climate change.

It's the Illuminati!

Climate change is another series of conspiracies instituted by the New World Order, a secretive group of people who are actually giant lizards in disguise. This blog is long enough already, so I won't bother explaining what's wrong about this theory. But a tip for anyone who finds them self under the control of a giant lizard; simply stove it's head in with a heavy object while it's warming up. But then, if you've allowed yourself to be bested by a creature that needs to spend half it's waking time in a warm location in order to get it's body temperature to a useful level, then perhaps thinking for yourself isn't your forte.

So yeah. Hopefully I'll get some bile-spewing ravings in the comment section for this. Sadly, overall I think a main contributor to climate change is the CO2 exhaled arguing with the people who are adamant that it isn't happening.

Twitter: @garwboy

Sore throat? Get a new one...

Stem Cells used to rebuild throat!

Spanish woman gets her damaged trachea replaced by a stem-cell developed new one? Admittedly, I've twice used the word 'throat' now without actually being technically accurate, as it's the windpipe that feeds into the lungs that's been replaced. This isn't technically part of the throat, in my limited experience, although it does connect to it. Still, it's an impressive feat.
The article mentions several drawbacks though. The holy grail of stem-cells seems to be taking a clump of stem cells from the person who needs a transplant, put them in a dish of some sort, then grow whatever organ or tissue is needed by said patient, then stick it back in them. Sort of like some squidgy but biologically advanced herb garden, perhaps? That would understandably be great, preventing the need for this whole opt in-opt out organ donor malarkey.

I'm firmly in the opt-out camp myself, if organs from my mangled carcass can be used to save lives why the hell wouldn't I approve? A lot of people I've heard are just uncomfortable with the idea for no discernible reason. "It's not natural" apparently. Of course not, it's medicine. The natural thing to do would be just to let everyone die when they get ill, even if it's something easily curable, but we don't do that, because as thinking, rational beings we don't have to submit to natures whim's. Nature doesn't have whims either, it's a concept, or a process or whatever you like. Some people don't allow themselves medication because of their ultra religious beliefs which state that illness is the work of God, so by treating themselves they are going against his will. Unlike most scientists, I support this viewpoint. If I was God, and I'm at least a close second, the first thing I'd do is kill off all the people that stupid. So good luck to them. Or not.

So, back to the point, his trachea surgery is brilliant, but not quite perfect. For starters, someone still had to die for the surgery to go ahead. Without getting into the whole aborted -foetuses debate, this is a less than desirable pre-requisite for any surgery. Before they've begun, it's already got a 50% mortality rate. But there's potential for improvement, as they needed a donor trachea to provide a 'framework' for the stem cells to grow around. I guess it's beyond our means to make false ones at the moment, but still, here's hoping. We obviously can't control the way the stem cells develop in spatial configurations at the moment, but it's a start.

Also, I like the way the article states that the use of stem cells 'tricked the body into thinking the donor trachea was part of it'. If we're being honest, the stem cells are technically part of her body, so it's not really a trick. The trachea structure is donated, but does that make up the bulk of the donated tissue after every donor cells has been scrubbed off? But that's just being pedantic.

So, the scope for this is endless, but as always I worry about such procedures being abused, or used for less than noble purposes. If we can make safe, reliable organs to order, would people be happy with the ones they've got? My initial throat confusion was genuine, and lead me to wondering if the Spanish lady had the same voice as before. Obviously a trachea transplant wouldn't effect that, but what if it was the larynx and voice box?

Say some well-to-do person wanted to be a singer, so they get specially designed voice box made that allows them to sing well. But of course, a voice is nothing if you don't have the lungs to use it right. So they get a new pair of those too, bigger and better and fresher than the old ones, which are taken out and thrown in the bin, as no-one needs donor's anymore. Theoretical person can now sing very well. But being a famous singer is more than just vocal ability these days, it's about image. So person gets all ugly parts of her, or his, but lets say her, her body removed and replaced with specially designed better ones. Lets say for arguments sake that said person is horrifically ugly, so all bits of her body, bar skeleton and brain and some connective tissue, get replaced. Now we have basically the bulk of a person sat squelching in the corner. Rap it around a skeleton, bung in a rudimentary brain and it could be used to perform very simple tasks, like digging holes, pushing buttons or working for Virgin Railways. All unskilled labourers could be made redundant, replaced by the flung-off semi-carcasses of the wealthy.

So what happens to our now attractive singing person? She becomes a star for a brief period, but then people start doing the same and redesign themselves to be more talented and better looking and ever on to the point where she gets left behind in the race to be the next new superhuman celebrity star person thing. She gets depressed and sinks into drink (seriously damaging 8 Livers before the money runs out) and drugs (4 septums lost to coke and 2 arms lost to repeated use of infected needles, all replaced before money runs out). After a lengthy spell in 'rehab' where she's chained to a wall for 23 hours a day and gets hosed down regularly (proper comfy rehab is for people with money, which as we've established, has run out), she attempt to re-launch her career by appearing on 'I'm a celebrity, get me out of here', but in this day and age the horrific trials involve eating massive, swollen organs like anuses and bladders grown from her own cells, while being watched and laughed at by Ant & Dec (versions 4.8).

This combination of copious autocannibalism while being mocked by small Geordie clones finally destroys the last vestiges of her sanity. She tries to get a brain replacement, but that's the only organ that can't be replaced as it would mean she's not the same patient anymore, and medical malpractice insurance doesn't cover that. But she's adamant, so they put her under anaesthetic and just remove her brain and launch it into space. Not for research, just to get rid of her because she's getting on everyone's nerves.

So what I'm saying is, stem cells, not necessarily a good thing.

Another Round up of Science Stuff

General perspective on Science Stories and whatnot:

Screw you, Icarus!

Solar powered planes, seem like a good idea to me. The Icarus thing is clearly flipped over here, as the closer the plane gets to the sun the more power it gets, and the longer it can fly. Nice. It's a military thing, which explains why they could afford the best technology and support. The company 'QinetiQ' were involved, and I was at a seminar by a representative of them once. They spent around £500,000 on their logo. Money to burn, clearly. But as with most military applications, I'm sure this will be available to the general public before long. Not sure what we'd do with lightweight planes that can stay in the air for the best part of a week. Any suggestions?

Face on, Face off!

Face transplant surgery is improving, with more successful results. We're still a long way from the John Travolta/Nicholas Cage style direct swap seen in Face Off (although a bit of that film they just skimmed over was where Travolta's character had to be slimmed down to replace Cages, but then Cage took Over Travolta's role, so he had to be fattened up, so was there some form of reverse liposuction going on?), but face transplants seem to be more of a reality all the time. It's good news for those people who suffer serious injuries obviously, but I anticipate some problems in future.

• Who's going to donate these faces? People are reluctant enough to donate organs, but whole faces? Would they be more or less pleased about a complete stranger walking around with their visage?
• I.D. theft is a common problem, what if this technique become freely available on the private market, and they find a way to make new faces from scratch, what's to stop people stealing your identity quite literally? From 'don't throw out old bank details' to 'just don't ever show your face to anyone'. Add to this the possibility of the propagation of human cloning and we'll be advised not to leave any DNA lying around anywhere. Maybe we'll get a future where people wander around wearing full length impermeable body suits and black bike helmets. might be funny.

Stem Cells from Teeth

You can obtain stem-cells from teeth now, apparently. That's nice, might get away from the controversy of using embryos. But now the tooth fairy seems like a legitimate career move. Can we expect genuine hard cash for kids teeth now? I've actually heard the phrase 'I'd give my eye teeth for that', will that now be a legitimate option rather than just an obscure phrase. Although a lot of the support for stem-cell research is based on the argument that they could be used to replace lost or damaged tissue from their own stem cells which won't be rejected by your body. Statistically, the one body part people are most prone to losing is teeth. But it's OK because they can make new ones from . . . wait . . .

Bloody birds, coming over here...

Because of global warming, birds are moving northwards sooner than usual, but still not fast enough. This is obviously bad for birds, but probably good for global warming proponents. Birds have specific migration patterns and behaviours, so this is bad for them overall. This suggests that birds from France may even end up in Britain t some point as the global temperature bands fluctuate. But I wonder how the BNP will react to this, because you know if this happens the tabloids will completely undermine the seriousness of it with headlines like "THOUSANDS OF FRENCH BIRDS HEAD FOR BLIGHTY". A massive mix of confusing emotions, hatred of dirty foreigners coming into our country, lust and pride combined at the thought of all the naive French ladies leaving those useless Frog men and looking for some proper British blokes, confusion at all the stereotypes coming to mind, with hairy armpits but Mediterranean passions, all to lead to confused disappointment as it's actually regarding small feathered creatures looking for food sources. Silly old Bigots.

And finally...

I don't really follow the regular news, so was surprised to such outrage as Gary Glitter re-enters the country. Do people really hate Glam Rock that much these days?
Of course, I'm aware that he's a filthy child molester. But I do question his sanity. I think he should be back in the UK, why should other countries have to deal with our perverts? Is it fine of foreign kids get horrifically abused, as long as their not good old British children? But Glitter seems to be worse than a regular paedophile, he's a smug paedophile. The article says he plans to start his singing career again. Good for him. Bare in mind this is the country where all kids have knives (apparently) and paediatricians get their offices torched because it sounds vaguely similar, I would love to see the audience at his next tour.

Also, I put the word paedophile twice (well, three times now) in this entry and mentioned child molesting a few times, so I may be getting some very questionable hits in a bit.