TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Biosphere forms interstate alliance The head of Noosa Biosphere in southern Queensland says it is great news for the local region now that it has joined an alliance with two other biospheres. abc.net.au |
Copenhagen media coverage: A perfect storm Twitterers, blogging activists and other interest groups will outnumber the media at the world climate change summit in CopenhagenIn the next fortnight 5,000 journalists from 180 countries will go to Copenhagen to cover the world climate summit. There might have been far more, but two weeks ago the UN had to close its accreditation list ahead of a meeting for the first time, saying that the giant Bella venue could only hold 15,000 people. Cop 15, as it is formally known, will therefore be one of the biggest-ever international media occasions outside the 2008 Olympics and the last US conventions.It's a measure of how the environment has risen up the global agenda that the last great UN green show attracted a modest 1,000 press and TV to the more hospitable venue of Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In those days, when climate change was a mere infant in world politics and angry science deniers hardly existed, newspapers and television mostly sent one person to the earth summit. The Guardian was considered reckless for sending two specialists from Britain, and co-opted its local Brazilian correspondent. A US-based writer later flew in with President George Bush Sr, and the Guardian newsdesk, which barely understood what emissions were, bravely ran four or five pieces a day until collective incomprehension set in about Day 7.Legions of bloggers This year's summit, widely hyped as the most important meeting in the last 30 years, is a multimedia affair. The BBC is sending 35 people and the Guardian a team of eight, including environment correspondents from Beijing and Washington (emissions duly offset). And every newspaper is sending online journalists, bloggers, video and audio journalists, producers, analysts and Twitterers.For the first time, too, many developing countries will send journalists in force. Normally barred from media fests such as this by the sheer cost, governments, media foundations, Commonwealth organisations and development groups such as Panos have funded several hundred writers and filmmakers from countries on the frontline of climate change to follow the talks. China, India and Brazil, the three great emerging nations, will be sending nearly 300 journalists.In the UN list of 5,000, however, mainstream media representatives are outnumbered by people representing the publications of charities, pressure groups, business interests and non-government organisations. Churches, financiers, wind farm operators, fossil fuel industries, even carbon traders have all gained media accreditation to further their lobbying. New on the block are legions of youth activists from around the world who will be blogging on a scale never experienced at an international political meeting.Yet pity the mainstream press. Their choice is stark: stay outside the Bella centre, pay £6 for a cup of tea and cover rallies, demonstrations and fringe meetings in the freezing cold; or keep warm inside, pay £7 for tea and asphyxiate in the hot, poisonous air generated by armies of diplomats and non-government groups.What all first-timers to the UN climate process may find hard to grasp at Copenhagen is that this could be the only mass media event in history without a proper beginning or an end, which has no genuine celebrities, no fixed agenda, no guaranteed outcome and is unlikely to throw up clear winners or losers. It's like a cricket Test match in that the rules of the diplomacy game are complex, most meetings are supremely boring, very little may happen for many days and it is all conducted in incomprehensible UN-speak language.The problem is getting anywhere near the truth. Most countries do their diplomacy in private and do not want anyone – let alone the press – to know what goes on in the negotiations. Beyond that, the talks are so technical that few can understand them even if they are explained. Moreover, meetings are closed, all decisions are dependent on others and are made in secret, the UN secretariat is opaque, the diplomats and negotiators are unaccountable and speak in code, and because of the insane complexity of the negotiations, there is probably only a handful of people who actually understand what is happening at any moment. The drama at the very end when world leaders start their horse-trading will be genuinely dramatic, but no one will actually see it take place.The UN is partly to blame for this opacity and the paucity of genuine information. Press conferences where blocs of countries assess the proceedings are infrequent and kept to a few short questions; many countries have no experience with the media; everyone briefs against everyone else and because diplomats are famously partial and are paid to lie for their countries, and objective facts are in short supply.None of this will stop tonnes of copy being sent back. There will be set pieces, sideshows and photo opportunities galore, such as Obama flying in for a few hours to give an inspirational speech tomorrow then heading on to collect the Nobel peace prize. When the 100 world leaders come in a week later, they are likely to be met with profound weariness if they try to compete with each other to be seen as the greenest.But there could still be drama. The poorest countries in the world could walk out in protest if the talks do not go to plan; the Danish model Helena Christensen could strip off and swim in the Baltic. Climate activists are also plotting.More likely, climate deniers from Britain and the US will gain a rare platform to attack the science of climate change. Nick Griffin of the BNP will be there, as will several contrarian US senators.However, the vast majority of bloggers and delegates believe in man-made climate change and any deniers will be very much on the fringes outside the hall. Against them will stand the scientific community, sherpas testifying to profound change in the Himalayas the young and President Nasheed from the Maldives explaining that his country will soon not exist, and activists intent on grabbing the stage.Gore's prescienceEnvironment journalism has come a long way since 1975 when Geoffrey Lean – then of the Observer, now of the Telegraph – became the first dedicated correspondent. Before that, the brief was mostly given to correspondents who shadowed the government's rural affairs or farming department. The beat still covers traditional areas such as floods, spuds and trees, but it is now centred on science writing, international development and politics, energy, technology, economics, celebrity and lifestyle, as well as business, trade and protest. And because it crosses so many traditional journalistic boundaries, it has become a specialist area that suits generalists. Equally, there is no specialist political, business or feature writer who does not now regularly report on the environment. To paraphrase Al Gore, we are all environment journalists now.Copenhagen climate change conference 2009Newspapers & magazinesDigital mediaNewspapersClimate changeClimate changeTwitterChinaIndiaBrazilDenmarkUnited NationsObama administrationNobel peace prizeNick GriffinBNPMaldivesAl GoreActivismJohn Vidalguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
A Conversation With Frank A. Wilczek: Discovering the Mathematical Laws of Nature The Nobel Prize-winning physicist, whose work confirmed some of Einstein’s ideas, is now writing a mystery novel. feeds.nytimes.com |
This column will change your life: Short cuts for taking everyday decisions Everyday decisions are often the ones that we find most problematical. So why not have a few short cuts to help you reach the right ones?I feel slightly sorry for Suzy Welch, the self-help guru behind the book 10-10-10: A Life-Transforming Idea. Welch's "10-10-10" method for taking decisions (not to be confused with the 10:10 climate campaign or, for that matter, 1010, the year Beowulf was probably written) is genuinely wise. When faced with any dilemma, she advises, ask yourself: what will the consequences be in 10 minutes, 10 months and 10 years? This process "surfaces our unconscious agendas", Welch claims, though what it most obviously does is properly balance short- and long-term perspectives, avoiding both hedonistic impulsiveness and a grim-faced fixation with the future. "Sound simple? Not quite," warns the book's publicity material. Actually, though, it is simple. That's its strength – but it also means that, unsportingly, I've now told you everything important in the book. That I can do this so briefly is surely, sales-wise, a problem.Yet decision-making tricks such as 10-10-10 ought to be ridiculously simple, because we need them most when it comes to addressing the countless minor dilemmas that crowd our days. Momentous life-choices, by contrast, can be dwelt on and discussed with friends. But it's a curious fact that many people seem to find the insignificant choices at least as paralysing as the big ones – a truth I've had many opportunities to ponder while waiting for my father, not an indecisive man on the macro level, to agonise over toppings at PizzaExpress. Here are three more short cuts for taking everyday decisions:1) 5-3-1: A dependable tactic for two people choosing a restaurant or movie: one person picks five options, the other narrows the field to three, then the first person selects one. This "has saved me and my girlfriend from starving to death on more than one occasion", writes one commenter at ask.metafilter.com. Hint: couples should agree in advance to use this rule, so that "whether or not to use 5-3-1" doesn't become a dilemma itself.2) Be a satisficer, not a maximiser: "Satisficing", coined by the economist Herbert Simon, means not letting the best be the enemy of the good. But it's more rigorous than that. Rather than trying to pick the best bed-and-breakfast, for example, decide first on the criteria that matter most – "near woodland", "serves a great breakfast" and "in Wales", perhaps – then select the first one you encounter that ticks all the boxes. This is far less exhausting, and may actually bring you closer to the "best", by focusing your mind on what matters, rather than alluring advertising or other distractions.3) The 37% Rule. This is for sequential choices, where each option must be accepted or rejected in turn – as in flat-hunting, where an option may vanish if you hesitate, or, say, choosing where to picnic while hiking (assuming you don't want to retrace your steps). Provided you can estimate the total number of options – the number of flats you're prepared to look at, the number of potential picnic spots – it's a weird mathematical truth that your best bet is to reject the first 37% of them, then pick the first one that's better than any of those first 37%. (If none is, pick the final one instead.) According to an article in Lecture Notes In Economics And Mathematical Systems, this can be applied to choosing a mate, too. But maybe that journal's not the greatest place to look for dating tips.oliver.burkeman@guardian.co.ukHealth & wellbeingPsychologyOliver Burkemanguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Massive Mayan head found in jungle Archaeologists have discovered a huge Mayan sculptured head in Guatemala, suggesting a little-known site in the jungle-covered Peten region may once have been a significant city. abc.net.au |