Carter

= College and Sustainability = After learning a lot about sustainability, I got to thinking about what I could do in college which was susainability related, and how sustainable colleges themselves are.

First, I found [|this] article on the colleges which had the best environmental degrees. The list staked up like this: I looked at the sustainability program at Middlebury to find out more of what an environmental degree would entail, and found that it was a blending of many types of programs. The [|courses] range from very science-y things like Environmental Chem, to things that one might consider sociology, like Social Movements; theory and practice. It seems from the descriptions of the program that it is very much a degree focused on changing the world. Courses are focused on trying to do exactly what we have been hearing about in the various TED talks, and in class during these post-AP weeks.
 * 1) ﻿[|Northland College, Ashland, WIsconsin]
 * 2) [|SUNY-ESF Syracuse, New York]
 * 3) [|Program in Environmental Studies, Middlebury College]
 * 4) [|Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University]
 * 5) [|Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University]

Next, I looked up how environmentally friendly and sustainable the colleges themselves were. The ranking was based on a wide range of things, from carbon footprint, to the stance of the administration, to student involvement in environmental policy. I found that [|The best schools] where what one might expect; they were mostly small liberal arts colleges, which were relitively rural. Overall, colleges seem to be improving fairly rapidly in terms of sustainability, which is a good sign. With more people wanting to go into sustainability beyond college, a major movement can begin to move the world towards sustainability.

=Turtles=

So a turtle laid eggs in my garden last week, which was pretty cool. It was a common snapper turtle. They are found all over the US, from Idaho to Florida to Maine. They are not endangered at all. In Italy, they are an invasive species. The one that laid its eggs at my house was on the big end of average, with a shell size of almost a foot. According to things I read online, at this size it probably was about a 40lb turtle, which is pretty dangerous actually. They lay 25 to 80 eggs in one whole, and the eggs take 80-90 days to hatch. I put wire mesh over the eggs, so that the fox that lives in my neighborhood cannot get to them. I read that if an animal is starving enough, however, they could probably get through. This seemed fair to me, because I don't want foxes to die either. I am not sure what I will do when they hatch, since I can't imagine all 25-80 will make it to the woods on their own. Common snapping turtles are not good pets, though, since they have a flexible neck, which allows them to bite you when you try to hold them.

One thing that I learned that I would not have expected was that turtles are actually pretty fast on land. When it was done, it walked across my lawn, across the street, and back into the woods in only a minute or two. It also seemed to know exactly where it was going, walking in a straight line the whole time. After seeing this, I would think that a turtle really could beat a rabbit in a race. Rabbits are easily frightened and distracted, but turtles are very calm, and are not easily bothered.

(oh, and for the record, my writing is usually better than this, I just haven't slept much, and I like turtles *a lot*)

=Faking Data=

What do the anti-vaccine movement, the theories of Sigmund Freud, and tons of science fair experiments have in common? They are all based on data and observations which have been manipulated, misrepresented, or just outright faked. This corruption of science is far more common, and more dangerous than one might think

To start, the most famous case recently has been the "studies" linking vaccines to autism. A British doctor, Andrew Wakefield, published a paper in 1998 using manipulated and [|made up data] in order to link certain vaccines to autism. This sparked a major movement among parents to not vaccinate their children. Wakefeild reportedly had planned on making money from this fake study, selling "safe" vaccines and by winning lawsuits. The damage done by this fake data has been huge, with thousands of children not getting vital vaccines because of this anti-vax autism scare.

Next on the chopping block is Sigmund Freud. For those of you who do not know, Sigmund Freud was a psychologist in Austria who studied the subconscious to eventually develop his theories of personality and emotion which were based on the id, the ego and the superego. Also he just made stuff up. Mostly he just made stuff up. Like really all of Freudian psychology is wrong. While Freud was the dominant figure in psychology for much of the late 1800s and early 1900s, he was really correct about very few things. For decades, people acted according to his teachings, which instead only served to stunt the growth of psychology as a real science.

It is this manipulation of evidence which is most dangerous to science. While Andrew Wakefield and Sigmund Freud both blatantly manipulated and ignored data Wakefield at least had the decency to do so with evil intentions. When he was caught, he eventually admitted that he had faked the studies, and he knew that he was in the wrong. Freud, on the other hand, genuinely believed that, although his studies were fake, they still led to correct theories. He did not admit that he was ever wrong, and had no problems with what he was doing. This is the trap that far too many scientists, both professionals and students, fall into. Just because a faked study seems to yield "correct" results, does not make that study, or the results, legitimate. Scientific studies must always be looking to disprove what has come before, and data which goes contrary to a common thought cannot be ignored. It is for this reason that scientific theories are never considered to be proven, and all data must always be presented.

On the professional level, 46% of scientists say they have seen colleagues engage in these [|"questionable practices"] and one in seven scientists have seen a colleague actually fake data. While these numbers seem small, the implication is huge. When a member of the public hears information presented as scientific fact, they should be able to trust that it is, in fact, fact. When even a small fraction of scientists fake or change their data, all of science is harmed. This was seen best in the debate over global warming, when [|recent studies] were called into question. Because one group of scientists manipulated data, all other similar studies were called into question, and doubt was cast on the whole idea of global warming. While past studies were still legitimate and accepted, this one study, which was only partially manipulated, jeopardized everything. While these scientists may have only had the best intentions, their mistakes cost the rest of the scientific community dearly.

So, in conclusion, never fake data. Ever. No matter how "right" your data is, or how small the stakes are. Fake data kills science. When you fake data, you are a fraud. There is no acceptable way to fake data. Just don't do it.

Also, I kinda realize that this didn't relate to much of what we are talking about in class, but state science fair was recently, so that got me thinking about how annoying it is when people pretend to actually do science, but then they just make things up.

=Global Warming's Interesting Effect on Greenland = Most people know of global warming, and it's many negative effects. It is expected to raise global temperatures and water levels significantly (although every source I found had a different specific amount) in the not too distant future. There are, some interesting positive effects of this.

When Erik the Red and the Vikings first discovered Greenland, it was actually fairly green. It had a growing season of about 120 days, and could sustain trees, various livestock, and many different types of crops. In the 16th century, however, the Little Ice Age froze Greenland over considerably, and forced the vikings to abandon their farming ways and leave. In recent history, Greenland, now a dependency of Denmark, has been sustained largely on fishing and whaling. Although it is the size of all of Europe, Greenland currently has only 9 forests, and a whopping 51 farms total. They have had to rely on imports for almost all fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and meat (besides reindeer. Apparently there are [|reindeer farms in Greenland]). This has had negative effects on the health and habits of the Greenlanders, whose diet has shifted more towards the cheaper sugary soft drinks and fast foods, since importing real fruits and vegetables makes them costly.

Due to warming temperatures, however, all of this is changing. For the first time ever, a supermarket in Greenland has sold locally grown cauliflower, broccoli and cabbage. There are now 8 sheep farmers in Greenland who have started to grow potatoes commercially, and 5 more who are growing other vegetables. One man in Greenland is starting to raise cattle (he has 22, I think), which could help replace the imported powdered milk with real, fresh, local milk. Trees which have not grown in 100s of year are starting to awaken. Because of growing seasons which are now even longer and warmer than they were in Viking times, Greenland is once again becoming green.

While for now the steps are small, they do show that a greener future may be on the way for colder nations. Greenland and other formerly barren countries are now becoming new frontiers for expansion and growth. As of now, they may still be foreboding, yet opportunities in agriculture and mining, along with government subsidies, could make countries like Greenland very attractive to those looking forge a new and adventurous life.

sources: [] [] [] []