"Across almost all of the papers presented at the conference, there was an inescapable consensus: a fundamentally different economic system is required, if we are serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, based on nurturing wellbeing rather than stoking corporate profit.
This is, of course, not a new idea. But what was striking was the convergence across contributors from the breadth of the physical and social sciences. The clear message was that unrestrained capitalism is incompatible with decarbonisation: the sums simply don’t add up.
… And if these sound like radical statements, unbecoming of the stately, reserved sentiments associated with the Royal Society, then consider the prospect of a world that is four or even six degrees hotter and the havoc and suffering that would be inevitable. This is also a radical choice.”
Jon Stewart and Matt Taibbi discuss the different treatment afforded to ‘street’ based drug users and white-collar criminals profiting from the drug trade.
The timeline of Scrooge McDuck’s life by Don Rosa
Driving home today I thought “I bet Patrick Stewart would look sexy as fuck in a dress,” which isn’t the kind of thought I normally have but hey who am I to tell my thoughts what they can and can’t be. Then I went home and Googled “Patrick Stewart in a dress” and couldn’t find any results and now I’m shocked and bummed.
Celebrating 50 years of Beatles Music - The beatles performing at IBC studios in London
HOW TO BECOME A GODDAMN MAGICIAN
1. OWN A TABLET PEN
2. PUT IT DOWN FOR TEN SECONDS
3. ABRACADABRA WHERE THE FUCK DID IT GO
We really really need a campaign specifically targeted at stopping news organisations giving airtime to climate deniers. It is like giving airtime to people who think Black people are genetically inferior or who think Homosexuality is a mental illness or who think the Holocaust didn’t happen or who think there’s valid science that shows no link between Smoking and Cancer. It is a point of view that is overwhelmingly disproved by science.
I dunno what kinda campaign I mean (boycotts? in some way?), but we need to set a norm that makes media organisations think twice before giving a pedestal to a climate denier, so that even when it with a Politician, there is ammo there to shame them.
I’ve blogged before about Dartmouth College research finding that correcting people’s incorrect beliefs with facts can backfire. Now the same group has confirmed their previous work, this time testing various pro-vaccination messages.
Mother Jones reports:
The paper tested the effectiveness of four separate pro-vaccine messages, three of which were based very closely on how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) itself talks about vaccines. The results can only be called grim: Not a single one of the messages was successful when it came to increasing parents’ professed intent to vaccinate their children. And in several cases the messages actually backfired, either increasing the ill-founded belief that vaccines cause autism or even, in one case, apparently reducing parents’ intent to vaccinate.
The study, by political scientist Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College* and three colleagues, adds to a large body of frustrating research on how hard it is to correct false information and get people to accept indisputable facts. Nyhan and one of his coauthors, Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, are actually the coauthors of a much discussed previous study showing that when politically conservative test subjects read a fake newspaper article containing a quotation of George W. Bush asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, followed by a factual correction stating that this was not actually true, they believed Bush’s falsehood more strongly afterwards—an outcome that Nyhan and Reifler dubbed a “backfire effect.”