Nothing releases passion like the subject of immigration. Nor is anything so certain to unleash binary thinking, with defenders and attackers of this essentially economic phenomenon dividing into mutually hostile camps, high on their own anger and righteousness. It’s time for some balanced nuanced thinking. As ever, Larry Elliott of the Guardian is here to provide it, [1] In an article titled It’s not bigotry to worry about immigration
We won’t steal his thunder. You should read it. No, really, this time. it applies to your country too. But we will dare to adduce the two essential points
1 Immigration isn’t all bad-it has serious economic advantages
2 Immigration isn’t all good- it has serious economic disadvantages
Our thoughts? Those who call themselves leftists should be passionately against immigration, as it’s a classic example of a free market mechanism disrupting society. Those who call themselves rightists should be passionately in favour of immigration as it’s a classic example of a free market mechanism disrupts society, which is always the price for economic efficiency. Can we go back to some science now?
“What is Truth?” Pilate is reputed to have asked Jesus at the latter’s trial in long-ago Jerusalem. Yet it is a question of neuralgic importance today. For we live in an era of angry competing claims, where everyone asserts that their particular fact-set is equal to anyone else’s. Opinions are simply hurled against each other, like children throwing stones. No learning, no judgement is possible at all. How can we, that tiny group of intelligent people who must somehow carry Civilisation forward find some sieve to winnow truth from opinion? Professor David Spiegelhalter may have some answers.
Spiegelhalter is a statistician. Fans of Covid-19 may recall him popping up on telly a lot during that pandemic. Look out for him during the next one. Yet his list of criteria (derived from the work of Bradford-Hill and Doll) may be applied to any scientific hypothesis. as a first step to get sort out wheat from chaff. . We decided to apply it to global warming today, so here goes:
Direct Evidence
1The effect is so great that it cannot be explained by any random variable: The planet is undeniably heating up fast and this has become statistically significant
2There is a close causal proximity between cause and effect We’ve been pumping out enormous quantities of fossil fuel gases since about 1840
3The “dose” causes a response and it is reversible This comes from medical science, but if the “dose” is waste gas, then compare the fossil fuel emission pattern curve with that of temperature That it is indeed from coal, oil etc is demonstrated the well-known changes in C12 C13 and C14 ratios in the atmosphere
Evidence of mechanism
4 There is a plausible mechanism, explicable from known science, which explains the effect Carbon dioxide and methane are known to trap heat. Quite a lot of it.
Parallel Evidence
5 The effect fits in with what we know from other studies Consider what has happened in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus by comparison to Earth.
6The same effect is found when the study is repeated Many peer reviewed papers have validated the early evidence; none have found against.
7 The effect is observable in very different studies and phenomena Studies as diverse as ice core samples, temperature measurements in oceans, land and atmosphere and the rising intensity of weather patterns only confirm the predictions of the first discoveries
The above list could be applied to any study of economics, social science, marketing or politics as well as the hard sciences, In fact Bradford Hill and Doll derived it from their pioneering work on the link between cigarettes and cancer. Any fairground huckster or well-funded corporate journalist can make claims. We hope the above will help you, gentle reader, to be a little more confident as to the veracity of those.
[1] Spiegelhalter, D: The Art Of Statistics Penguin 2019
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.comPhoto by u0410u043bu0435u043au0441u0430u043du0434u0440 u041cu0430u043au0435u0434u043eu043du0441u043au0438u0439 on Pexels.com
“It’ll be alright.” Somehow, we still cannot admit the the enormity of what we have brought upon ourselves. That clever scientists will still find a way to save us from the mass pandemics and climate change caused by our endless greed for stuff-cheap food, bright shiny junk, empty experiences-that most people persist with, like drunks dancing blindfold on the edge of a precipice. Well here are two stories which indicate that salvation may already be too late.
Winds wreck renewable energy plant. Two things we have always known. That renewable energies offer the only practicable salvation from runaway climate change. And that extreme weather events, caused by all the global warming we’ve already had, are growing worse. So where’s the way out, if those self-same hurricanes and things start tearing down the solar farms which might save us? Proof that this is already happening comes from this article by Richard Marsden of the Daily Mail. Apparently the Porth Wen solar Farm at Llanbadrig in Wales has been ripped apart by the recent Storm Darragh. Wind turbines were torn down too. It’s one plant in one location-so far. But to us it feels like being in a car where the act of going faster weakens the brakes. How scary is that?
Next Pandemic waiting in the wings. The desire for cheap greasy chicken has led to the mass incarceration of birds in crowded unhealthy conditions which make ideal breeding grounds for new viruses. We’ve warned before about the dangers of the H5N1virus on these pages (LSS 25 11 24. 25 4 24) Now a new study, reported by Kai Kupfer in Science suggests the virus is frighteningly close to jumping the barrier into our species Get this:
If the world finds itself amid a flu pandemic in a few months, it won’t be a big surprise. Birds have been spreading a new clade of the H5N1 avian influenza virus, 2.3.4.4b, around the world since 2021. That virus spilled over to cattle in Texas about a year ago and spread to hundreds of farms across the United States since. There have been dozens of human infections in North America. And in some of those cases the virus has shown exactly the kinds of mutations known to make it better suited to infect human cells and replicate in them.
There’s more, much more. It’s a fantastic article, we’d recommend it to anyone who wants to learn a bit of basic virology. But the writing is not just in the articles. It’s now very clearly on the wall.
As Hemingway once wrote of bankruptcy, the collapse of autocratic regimes tends to happen gradually and then suddenly—slowly, and then all at once
So writes Anne Applebaum in her unflinchingly honest reflection on the fall of Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad and his tribe of hangers-on. No one can deny the people who live in Syria their brief moment of joy at the departure of the kleptocrat. But whether the inhabitants of that ravaged land can whack up the wherewithal to sustain their new freedom remains moot. Especially in this dark sombre world where “ignorant armies clash by night!*
Which is why we’re channelling the thoughts of Anne and Sir Alex Younger, because they are two of the sharpest tools in the current box. They saw all this coming. And Anne is quick to situate the Syrian upset where it belongs-inside the strategic game plan of Vladimir Putin. The current spate of rail delays, snapped cables, health system freezes and curious election outcomes are part of one essential gameplan which she defines as
When Putin talks about a new world order or a “multipolar world,” as he did again last month, this is what he means: He wants to build a world in which his cruelty cannot be limited, in which he and his fellow dictators enjoy impunity, and in which no universal values exist, not even as aspirations.
Every ruler a Bashar Assad, in fact.
For those who do not know Britain’s Security Services still recruit and even promote some of the cleverest people in our system. None more so than Sir Alex Younger until recently head of MI6, our foreign facing arm of the undercover service. He has made it his mission to pop up in corners of the infosphere to warn us of the imminent perils we confront. The mere fact they have let him out should be alarm enough in in itself-normally these people stay deep undercover even far into retirement. This outing for Sky News is pretty representative of his thought, which is always lucid [2]
Gentle readers, the way ahead will be long and extremely arduous. Nor can we clearly see its end. But the people of Syria have shown the possibility of overthrowing even the most tyrannical of despots. They have demonstrated that Putin is not infallible, as the Mediterranean Province of his empire crumbles. And that his Iranian allies have suffered a major defeat. The greatest weapon a bully has is his reputation for being unbeatable. That has just been lost.
*arnold
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/12/sudden-collapse-bashar-assad/680917/?utm_source=apple_newsthanks to P Seymour
What could be more innocent this weekend than a brisk stroll through your local shopping mall? All air-conditioned and centrally-heated, antiseptically clean, and crammed full of shops with must-have frocks and trainers and clothes and make-up and jewellery and mobile phones and shirts and trousers and computers and chocolates and more clothes and shoes and cosmetics and toys and even more clothes and accessories and skirts and furniture and even more cosmetics…..might you, have you, contributed to the tearing-down of trees in some far-away rain forest?
According to Global Canopy, you probably have.[1] They are a non-profit company that tries to monitor the role of the world’s largest corporations in the sustainability of the planet, looking at production, supply chains transport- all the aspects of a modern operating firm, in fact. What impressed us was the way that they try to work with companies by providing data and feasible strategies instead of just standing outside in the rain with placards. But they are no patsies, either. Get this from their website
The 10th edition of the Forest 500( their regular survey-LSS) reveals that almost a quarter (23%) of the companies and financial institutions that have featured in each of the 10 annual assessments have still not published a single commitment on addressing deforestation…….Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds (63%) of companies that have set commitments are failing to publish adequate evidence of their implementation
They go on to name names, which we dare not here, for lack of a proper legal department. But you’ll see them tomorrow during the course of your excursion. And that’s before you stop off in the Food Concessions on level four………
Why is all this important? Well we at LSS think that deforestation if one of the major causes of the worlds ills. It not only contributes humongously to global warming, it interferes catastrophically with hydrological cycles, driving desertification and land degradation. (ever wondered where all those migrants come from?) It may even be releasing new pathogens such as respiratory viruses into the human ecosphere, as we have alluded to before in these pages (LSS Passim) The World Counts has a nifty little website here to bring you somewhat up to speed [2].
Now we at LSS are not urging you to give up the accoutrements of civilised life today. We are Whigs, not Cistercian Monks, and certain member of the Editorial Board might find immediate changes to their lifestyles very uncomfortable indeed. But look again at the way Global Canopy work; with the grain of corporate life (weak pun intended) Can you ,should you find ways to bring pressure on companies by investing differently? By purchasing a little more slowly, and perhaps a little more judiciously? By getting just one item a week from a charity shop? If you want to donate to, or help these people in some other way, we would applaud that, too. As Tesco used to say back in the 1990s; every little helps.
We couldn’t help noticing these thought provoking tropes!
The Brain that Lived for Ever According to The Guardian, eternal life may be just around the corner. Dr Ariel Zeleznikow-Johnson is hoping to extract our brains and preserve them, in order that future generations will revive them and help us to live forever. Assuming that is, that they can bothered-who needs a clapped-out 21st century brain when you have quantum computing wired into your own? Perhaps John Agar and the Brain from Planet Arous were on to something after all. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/01/with-brain-preservation-nobody-has-to-die-meet-the-neuroscientist-who-believes-life-could-be-eternal
If America Stumbles, will China take over? If America really does pull out of the Climate change agreements, any claim to moral leadership and soft power will have been vitiated. Forever. It will give the Peoples Republic of China the right to step up to the plate and lead the world to safety. Who can blame the rest of us if we follow? Here’s Justin Rowlatt for the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rx2drd8x8o
Russia’s best week turns sour Election of Donald Trump, more advances on the battlefield, free nations losing heart: what’s not to like for Russia’s Vladimir Putin? Except that his Syrian outpost is cracking and his economy is slowly going down the tubes, as this article from The Conversation makes clear. Like Britain in the 1940s he has sold out hope of future growth for the sake of victory here and now. In effect, his empire is really just a satellite of China. But maybe that’s a good thing for the rest of us-see above . https://theconversation.com/russian-rouble-collapse-exposes-deep-problems-in-the-countrys-economy-244869?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversati
Why don’t they listen to scientists? A running theme of this blog is that the world never seems to notice the work and methods of science(except when it needs vaccines in a hurry) There’s no easy answer, if the popular mind deals in emotion and stories, and the scientific one in reason and evidence. Nature Briefings offers this thoughtful discourse Why we’re not solving more with Science
A Nature global survey finds that most specialists are unhappy with systems that provide science advice to policymakers. Eighty per cent said their country’s science-advice system was either poor or patchy, and 70% said that governments are not routinely using such advice. Nature’s survey — which took place before the US election in November — together with more than 20 interviews, reveals where some of the biggest obstacles to science advice lie. Eighty per cent of respondents thought policymakers lack sufficient understanding of science — but 73% said that researchers don’t understand how policy works. “It’s a constant tension between the scientifically illiterate and the politically clueless,” says policy specialist Paul Dufour.Nature | 15 min read
Well that’s it for this week. We don’t profess any religion here, but we are fans of 17th century English, brought up on the resonances of Shakespeare and Milton and the King James Bible. Which is why we have chosen this cadent little homily from their version of Proverbs 12 3 to send you away
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom and the man that getteth understanding/ for the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver and the gain thereof than fine gold/she is more precious than rubies and the the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her
Fans of human evolution have more to contend with than the followers of any football team. For every one of the competitions they’re in ( Champions League, La Liga, Copa del Rey, whatever) We have six new skulls and four new DNA analyses every week. Or so it seems, and just about every one leads to a new species. Or so that seems too..
Proof of this comes from two new articles we have for you today. William Hunter of The Daily Mail (despite all their other deficiencies, a great Science Desk) waxes lyrical on recent discoveries in China [1] which suggests a fourth late-to modern population of hominins who lived alongside Homo sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans about 100 000 years ago. But how different were they-and how different were the other three? Our thoughts on that one below. Meanwhile Nature Briefings offers us this, An Ancient Encounter Frozen in Time
No one would take away from the dedication and professional work of the team who made this discovery. It’s just that, with so many different hominin species hurrying about, and so few with mobile phones with which to record each other, can we really be sure who planted their feet in that long ago bed of sand?
Which leads us to recall the case of the Red Deer Cave people. Who, until recently, were a bit of a mystery in the human story. They looked very archaic and odd. But they dated very recently (maybe about 14000 years BCE) They were in the right place at the right time, Could they, might they, be real Denisovans, maybe, huh? To which recent DNA analysis gave the resounding answer: no, they were fully and completely 100% human. If they were alive today you’d have to give them a vote, a credit card and a driving licence. They couldn’t be worse than some other users of the road. All of which leads us to the following conclusions
1 Keep digging in China (look what they did for dinosaur research)
2 Let’s stand one step back from all claims and remember what happened to some of them in the past
3 What if the whole business of species labelling is missing the point, and there’s really only been one human line for three million years, with startling local changes in gene frequencies due to ecological pressures and tiny population sizes?
Only we can say that, because we don’t belong to any institution. Occasionally, that’s a freedom worth having.
when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins”. The right was much more skilled on this terrain, weaving compelling human stories while its opponents tended to take refuge “in reciting their best facts and figures, as if they were trying to prevail in a high school debate tournament”.
It’s from an article by John Harris for the Guardian, [1] quoting the work of Drew Westen, a sagacious political philosopher whose work The Political Brain explains more than most about why progressives keep losing. ( Declaration of interest: Harris is on our list of all time top journalists because he actually goes out and talks to real people)
From which we deduced that the answer to all the world’s problems must be to create a Political party to obtain representation for The Intelligent and Educated. You know, the way working people in the UK set up the Labour Party in the nineteenth century, because they felt that the Liberals and Conservatives did not represent their interests? Spotted the flaw yet? We went on to point out to ourselves that we did all the science and doctoring and lawyering and wrote all the movies and……still not spotted the the flaw? And no, we had not been drinking, we’re on a diet at the moment; but we do not need to drink heavily to make huge blunders. We’re amazingly good at it, even when when sober . Last chance: have you spotted our fault?
OK here’s the answer. This morning we had coffee with a wonderful elderly neighbour who spent most of his life as a fisherman on the Sussex coast. In the course of a long, pleasant conversation we learned much of the Perils of the Sea. Storms, wrecks, unpleasant colleagues, conger eels, that sort of thing. For example, what do you do when you haul up a 1000 lb German torpedo and get it tangled in your nets in a strong wind and a heavy sea in the shipping lanes, and it is threatening to explode/capsize your boat/ slow you into the path of a 200 000 tonne supertanker? The answer is to think. Very quickly, very profoundly and very thoroughly, in a way that landlubber University Professors and keyboard wannabees never, ever have to.
And suddenly it crossed our minds. Who’s intelligent now? What price all your books and theories when you have to face existential crises like that one? And still have to calculate the economics of the fishing business-pay for fuel, pay the crew, keep alive, sell the fish, etc? And another lesson became even clearer. Until we in the Centre, on the Left, Liberals, Whigs, Progressives, Greens or whatever we want to call ourselves take very seriously-very seriously indeed- the feelings, emotions and opinions of those who actually do the work, we will be lost at sea indeed.
Ask elderly readers of this blog about their BCG vaccine and they will recall an age of 45rpm records, Ben Sherman shirts and George Harrison‘s Concert for Bangladesh. But they still bear tiny marks, high on their left arms from they day they lined up outside the school dispensary. Ostensibly, the vaccination was against TB. But it may have been doing something else which concerns them very much here and now. It may actually have been protecting them against dementia. Get this from an excellent article by Amy Fleming of The Guardian:
…...BCGvaccine was originally used against tuberculosis, but it is also often part of a treatment programme for bladder cancer. “It stimulates the immune system,” says Lathe. A team of researchers in Jerusalem, he says, decided to look at patients who survived bladder cancer and compare dementia prevalence among patients treated with BCG and those who weren’t. “Do they differ in the rate at which they get Alzheimer’s disease?” The answer is yes – the BCG group appeared to get 75% protection against Alzheimer’s. A number of studies have now found varying levels of protection from BCG, with an average, according to one meta‑analysis, of 45%. [1]
And that is only the tip pf the iceberg, gentle readers. For what Amy’s article is really all about is a set of discoveries that the brain’s privileged position as a microbe-free zone is now under serious challenge. It was a position suspected by no less a scientist than the great Alzheimer himself. But was then rather complacently dismissed for many following years. It’s a theme which we’ve alluded to here before (LSS 14 9 24) following leads by the excellent team at the New Scientist. If so, we could at least be on the verge of real cures for all kinds of mental disturbances. And when we think of the terrible suffering such illnesses inflict both on the immediate victim, and their families and carers, we see that as a step forward indeed.
The patient careful thought of researchers and scientists offers the only real hope of ameliorating the human condition. How sad to live in an age when it is eclipsed by the passionate emotion of savage, ignorant mobs. That’s a theme we shall return to, as well.
“Smoking causes cancer.” Remember the stages of denial and obfuscation we faced in that battle? It seems long-ago and quaint now, like Planning Objections to Hadrian’s Wall. Stage 1 Refusal to listen at all. Stage 2: try to trash the evidence: Very few smokers we knew had any qualifications in science or medicine, but they seemed to know a lot about those subjects, suddenly. Stage 3:Towards the end came an angry insistence on individual freedom, as if their liberty included the right to kill the rest of us by breathing out vast clouds of noxious poisons in pubs. There may be some uncomfortable contemporary parallels.
The forces of ignorance have not gone away. Instead they have lighted on objections to all things that might advance the slow progress towards Net Zero, a fairly anodyne policy which will do for our lungs much the same job as banning smoking did. We need hardly remind readers as intelligent as ours of the links between particulates , Nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone and all the other horrible things that cars push out, and the list of cardiac, pulmonary and neurological ailments that these entail. Because this report from the WHO will do it for you. [1] How ironic if a policy like Net Zero, conceived as a global answer to problems like rising sea levels, titanic storms and mass migration, could also end up as a remedy for public health. Yet it might, according to this article by Gary Fuller of the Guardian [2] Get this quote:
…….. policies for US net zero by 2050 could result in rapid health gains. By 2035, early deaths from air pollution could be reduced by between 4,000 and 15,000 a year, with even greater benefits thereafter……The $65bn to $128bn financial gains from fewer people dying early from air pollution exposure are at least as big as the financial benefits from avoiding direct damage from a changed climate.
Remember this the next time you hear someone inveighing against efforts to cut fossil fuel emissions: they are directly harming your children, as well as their own.
Learning, Science and Society 