Since the days of Alexander the Great, binge drinking has been a very popular past time - leading to him apparently killing a friend and burning down Persepolis while drunk.

Those are some Great shoes to fill.

Yet, governments, schools and the media have repeatedly tried to teach us of binge drinking's dangers. 

Dartmouth University has taken the lead, instigating a new nationwide policy to curb heavy drinking by their students.

Pour me another glass.

Binge drinking is defined as "the consumption of five or more drinks in a row by men — or four or more drinks in a row by women — at least once in the previous 2 weeks. Heavy binge drinking includes three or more such episodes in 2 weeks."

Seems I don't know anyone who isn't a heavy binge drinker.

Do you think this definition should be changed or should we change people's attitudes? Or should you follow HPD's no fools guide to drinking a lot but not dying?  . . read more

The climate change debate has slowed in recent days, but it will soon rear its ugly head once again. However this time rather than breaking into old arguments, there should be a more pragmatic approach. 

There has been a general mutual consensus reached about the implementation of REDD schemes in developing areas, however there has not been enough money or effort thrust in their direction. 

COP15 is about to rear its head, and when everyone arrives at that table they should come prepared with options to tackle climate change. These options should centre around sustainable development in rural communities and the eradication of forest reliant localities.

Lets paint this town Redd!

  . . read more

You might remember Lord Monckton, he was the climate change denier that was seemingly everywhere around the the Copenhagen climate change conference; spouting off talk about how a global agreement would destory US sovereignty and that global warming was a myth. Not surprisingly he was picked up by conservative news programs all over the world as his peerage and 'scientific' credentials gave him a weight that other deniers failed to match. . . read more

Tomorrow I'm heading to Cop 16 in Cancun with the hope that something can be achieved against climate change. Although the world media has shown almost complete indifference (as opposed to Copenhagen), it isn't unreasonable to think that with lowered expectations and a meeting outside the media's glare, something might be achieved. 

Let's just hope that the world of diplomacy which has been unearthed by WikiLeaks is less self-centered and duplicitous than they currently appear.   . . read more

The emails could prove to be extremely damaging to the reputation of the scientists and the robustness of their research if they are revealed to be authentic.

A UEA spokesman said: "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine."

The authors of the emails include Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU, Keith Briffa, also at the CRU, and Michael Mann at the University of Virginia.

An anonymous link to an FTP server where the data was posted by the hacker first appeared on the blog The Air Vent yesterday.

According to Dave Britton, a press officer at the Met Office, the security breach occurred a couple of days ago. "We don't know yet whether the data that was stolen is authentic, but a thorough investigation is underway," he says.

Mann declined to comment on the content of the emails, but added, "However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction on public web sites, etc. of individuals emails that were obtained, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping that the perpetrators and their faciliators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

Published at New Scientist, click view for more information  . . read more

Without a single day of talks, the vast majority of pundits have already set the bar of expectations so low that it seems we should be popping the champagne if the most anodyne of political agreements is reached.

Not to fall into the trap of optimism, but shouldn't we be a little bit hopeful and a little bit proud of the victories this fight has already won?

For instance, there cannot be a single sane leader on this planet who can realistically ignore this issue.

Yes, so far most of the world's responses have bordered on the tokenistic, but the sheer awareness and the fear of backlash, is a sign that the movers and shakers are getting scared.

Not to exaggerate but there could also be a dangerous connotation to this wide-spread cynicism-that connotation being that the most modest of successes will cause surprise and a spark of hope amongst a grey and apathetic public.

Sort of takes the heat off government leaders who thought they'd have to thrash it out in debates and eventually return to their countries exhausted, treaty in hand proclaiming that the problem was finally solved.

Instead, with the contour-less global media poised with their fingers quivering over keyboards (and the letters that spell 'failure'), an undue amount of column inches will be written for the promised funds for developing nations, as renewable technolgies are extolled and the great demon coal is exorcised. 

My point?

Well we really have to keep our collective critical thinking cap on, because this about to become a no-holds barred grudge match where everything will be too little, too late, too much, too weak etc.

Just don't be too pessimistic because fatalism never fixed anything.   . . read more

During the day foresters, scientists and enviro-kids of all shapes and sizes shall sit and listen to keynote speakers droning on about their favourite trees.

Where it really gets interesting however, is after hours, where we shall see the serious tree people enjoy some fantastic Argentinean cuisine and sort out these climate issues. What is for sure is that the wheeling and dealing done in Buenos Aires, along with the handshakes and laughs exchanged, shall actually do a lot more good for the environment than the stubborn loggerheads shall, at COP15.

Do I hear distant indignant cries? Come on then, prove me wrong, I dare you.  . . read more

Now imagine building another five power stations for every one that already exists in the United States. That is about the amount of electricity generation that the world is on track to add over the next 20 years.

And three-quarters of the new stations will use fossil fuels. These startling figures were released today by the International Energy Agency. The agency predicts that between a quarter and a third of the new capacity will be built in China, which generates over 40 per cent of its electricity from coal. This will lead to huge increases in carbon dioxide emissions.

The agency has previously said that the current recession has helped rein in emissions, but that effect will not last. The report predicts that 40 billion tonnes of CO2 will be emitted worldwide in 2030, around twice the figure for 1990.

That would put us on a path towards a future in which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels top 1000 parts per million and average global temperature rise by up to 6 °C. Many scientists think that that our goal should be a maximum rise of 2 °C and that 4 °C would cause severe flooding and drought.

The agency describes our current trajectory as almost certain to cause "irreparable" damage to the planet. We are not, of course, locked into this future. The agency's calculation come from a modelling exercise in which we continue on the path we are on now, rather than switch to low-carbon technologies like solar power.

Many governments have already committed to changes, albeit limited ones, so the most dire aspects of the agency's predictions will not come to pass. But they are a useful reminder of just how wrong things will go if we do not take action.

Originally published at New Scientist, click view for more information  . . read more

It's been referred to as a fad, a con, a scandal that has earned it the famous 'gate' suffix and infamously 'as the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time'- climate change, the issue we've loved to forget.

So why are numerous reports still appearing that show the earth's temperature to be unequivocally rising?

And why is it barely charting as an election issue in Australia?

And how has it fallen so precipitously from the public consciousness?

The answer to these questions- if they ever emerge- would show three facts about society today.

One is that humans are unable or unwilling to act to prevent problems that appear invisible today, the second is that there are forces in this world that would see its destruction- all the while holding the keys to its survival. 

The third fact of life today relates to an old English proverb that suggests that even when voices of reason pierce through the cracks of intransigence that turning away from the truth will always be easier; the old proverb reads that there are none so blind as those, that will not see. 

Who amongst us can pretend to be anything but willfully blind?

 . . read more

He gave us in An Inconvenient Truth a melee of graphs based on sound scientific data; the affect of which was amazing in bringing the issue of climate change to the homes and cinemas of the middle-classes. 

However in a worrying change of tone, Al Gore stated yesterday in a speech in Copenhagen that:

''Reason based analysis has thus far proved of limited value in motivating action''

Now this may be true but the alternative- to rely on emotion and fear- plays right into the hands of deniers who claim the climate change movement is one built on unlikely doomsday prophecies. 

The risk is also enormous when you consider what has happened to the climategate emails. Those much analysed documents seemed to show a similar reasoning by renowned scientists who were frustrated by inaction so they used their credibility, and reputations to fuzz the numbers. 

Now it may have been a throw away comment, but I really hope that Al Gore- still the climate change movement's most prominent face- stays patient and prudent.  . . read more