TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Earthquake recorded in North Sea An earthquake is recorded in the North Sea about 155 miles east of Aberdeen. bbc.co.uk |
Letters: And Now, Mockingcat (1 Letter) Letters from our reader. feeds.nytimes.com |
Letters: A Taste for Peppers (2 Letters) Letters to the editor. feeds.nytimes.com |
One climate paper, two conflicting headlines How can one climate paper be reported under two contradictory headlines by two different news websites?Last week, on October 6th, The Guardian published a story under the headline "Sun's role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds.". A day later, tech website The Register published a climate story of its own, "Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun," at a URL that ended "/solar_as_big_as_people/." The two headlines are completely contradictory, yet bizarrely both stories report on the same Nature letter, a piece of research led by Professor Joanna Haigh at Imperial College London. So what on Earth is going on? The research itself is fairly clear, albeit provisional. You would expect that when the sun is most active it would have a warming effect on temperatures, while at times of low activity it it ought to have a cooling influence. Instead, the data so far show that - for a three year period between 2004 and 2007 at least - the opposite happened. While the Sun's activity declined, the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth fell, but the output of energy reaching us as visible light actually increased. The effect of that shift in the type of energy reaching us on the atmosphere could mean that lower solar activity actually results in a slight warming effect, and vice versa. It might just be an anomaly, or it might mean we have to alter our understanding of solar forcing - we'll know for sure as we get more data from longer periods.Either way, it has little effect on the reality of man made climate change. Since the sun's activity waxes and wanes over a fairly regular 11 year cycle, the changes even themselves out over time. And as Haigh points out, "the warming influence of rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emitted by human activities, was at least 10 times greater than changes in the strength of the sun." And yet The Register article puts a whole different spin on the story, one that seems to completely contradict The Guardian's reporting, the paper, and Haigh's own statements on the subject. "New data indicates that changes in the Sun's output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions."Eh? Compare and contrast with e.g. Imperial College's press release:"Overall solar activity has been increasing over the past century, so the researchers believe it is possible that during this period, the Sun has been contributing a small cooling effect, rather than a small warming effect as had previously been thought."That's basically the complete opposite then. The Register go on to state that:"The prof considers that increased sun-powered warming probably had as much effect on global temperature as carbon during the period of her study."And that's sort of true, but the period of study was only three years, and the impact evens out of the course of the 11 year cycle. To suggest then that "recent temperature rises may well have been down to the Sun as much as anything humanity has done" seems rather obtuse. The article appears to me to seriously misrepresent the research, but don't take my word for it. I showed The Register's article to Professor Haigh herself, and here's her response:"The title of the article in The Register entirely misrepresents the paper's conclusions. While our work showed over a 3 year period that declining solar activity might have caused a warming of the planet it made no claims on longer periods. Even if it were the case that solar activity is inversely related to warming then the ups and downs of the solar cycle would cancel out over time. And over the past century overall solar activity has risen which, on the same basis, would imply global cooling."At a time when action to deal with climate change is needed more than ever, this sort of misleading reporting does nothing to help the public debate. But it's not just the misrepresentation of science that grates. Through-out the article, the author, uses rather unfortunate language to describe scientists. The team of researchers are described as "boffins working at Imperial College," and the research is described as being published in "hefty boffinry mag Nature." The use of 'boffin', common at the random-USE-of-CAPITALS end of tabloid journalism, is problematic to many scientists, as the word is increasingly loaded with negative connotations. I find it quite a dehumanizing term, and it's fascinating to me that no names are mentioned until the second half of The Register's article, as if all scientists are replaced by interchangeable 'boffin' avatars in the consciousness of the writer. Whenever I see it, it reeks of a self-conscious desire to separate the reporter from the labeled group of people, to present clear space between the human writer, and those faceless, nameless 'boffins'. Or perhaps I'm reading too much into it - your mileage may vary - but either way I feel it belittles researchers, and patronizes the reader. I put Haigh's criticisms to The Register website this morning, and I'm waiting for a response - if I get one I'll post it on this blog. At a minimum it would be nice if they would consider issuing a correction. Personally I think they owe Professor Haigh an apology.Update: The Register have just published an amusingly put-out 'response' to this piece. Martin Robbinsguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
The X Factor and the ex-factor: what's our band called this week, please, Simon? | Mind your language Bel Ami became Belle Amie, just as FYE had to change to FYD. (Bun N Cheese, so far as we know, remain Bun N Cheese)How did they think we wouldn't notice? Somewhere between week one and week two of the X Factor live auditions, the girl group Bel Ami morphed magically into Belle Amie, without so much as a mention.There are several possible explanations for the surreptitious name change. Perhaps someone told Simon Cowell that, since the four are girls, their name ought to be the feminine rather than masculine form of the French words, which literally mean "fine friend". Alternatively, perhaps somebody knew that Bel Ami is also the name of a film starring Twilight's Robert Pattinson and Uma Thurman, due to be released next year. Maybe they even realised that Bel Ami is the name of the world's most successful gay porn company.Unlikely though it seems, let's imagine the answer lies with the first of these three possibilities. Changing the group's name to Belle Amie makes a sort of sense but, as any subeditor knows, too much tinkering with foreign words can lead to untold trouble. Were the girl group to go all the way, their success could open the floodgates to all sorts of variations, right and wrong, on les belles amies or des belles amies, not to mention assorted other French words.The second and third explanations are linked, since Declan Donnellan's film is based on Guy de Maupassant's 1885 book about Georges Duroy – a young French stud who rose to the top by manipulating powerful (and mainly older) mistresses in 19th-century Paris – and Bel Ami most commonly refers to a younger lover. The Slovak filmmaker Georges Duroy took his pseudonym from the Maupassant character and borrowed the book's title for his porn movie company.In any case, for Cowell to call his young girl band Bel Ami seems like a big faux pas. He might have realised he needs something more wholesome for his winsome foursome. (Speaking of wholesome, can't he do something about the name of One Direction, which you don't want to say too quickly?)But Belle Amie and One Direction are Cowell's own creations. The other X Factor contestants have studied the popstars' rulebook and know the score: you can have any name you want, however ridiculous, meaningless or inappropriate. So, if Storm from Edinburgh wants to be Storm, so be it. Treyc can spell her ordinary name as weirdly as she likes. If Aiden from Blackpool is sticking with Grimshaw, that's fine too. Quite a few people probably thought WTF when they first heard FYD, but it's not a problem (FYI: they wanted to be FYE, but someone else got there first). After all, a fine example was set by guest judge Will-i-am from the Black Eyed Peas.I am all for striving for grammatical correctness, but in the case of popstars, it's perhaps best not to interfere. Imagine if that other girl group Bun N Cheese had got through to the live auditions - they could have ended up as Cheese Roll.LanguageThe X FactorSimon Cowellguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |