This summer, there have been more shark sightings, attacks, and public awareness than the summer of “Jaws” in 1975. Systemic infections by fungus are relatively rare in humans (athlete’s foot is a fungal skin infection); one theory holds that our core temperature of 98.6 is a bit too low for most fungal infections to thrive. [1] What do these two seemingly disparate facts have in common – the role of rising temperatures and humans’ biological niche? According to a new study, our rising temperatures may bring us more intense weather and more intense pathogens.
climate change
"Climate-anxious" college students are pushing to have low-risk pesticides banned from their campuses. Meanwhile, states that have legalized recreational marijuana use are concerned that their new policy may cause more car accidents. We examine the science behind both stories on episode 14 of the Science Dispatch podcast.
Climate change has now largely supplanted COVID as the main source of hand-wringing and angst in the popular press. Carbon is directly involved in climate change through carbon dioxide (CO2) and airborne elemental carbon particles (EC). COVID-19 has an indirect impact as well. Here I add some details to the fray to insert some clarity and reason.
Suffering from "climate anxiety," some of America's entitled college students are working to get low-risk pesticides banned from their campuses, in a bid to slow global warming. They all need therapy and a basic science lesson.
A new mathematical exercise suggests that if we stop eating beef and simply substitute beans, we can reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 75%. The math is good. But the assumptions? Not so much.
As earth day approaches, activist groups have amplified their predictions of an impending environmental disaster. A brief survey of the evidence shows that the situation isn't nearly as dire as they claim.
Activists frequently assert that 'Big Meat' has tried to deny agriculture's contribution to climate change. Is there any truth to this conspiracy theory?
Vice News endorses all the currently fashionable opinions—including activist bromides about modern agriculture. The magazine recently took exception to children's books meant to teach elementary-school students about pesticides. I take exception to Vice's sorry excuse for science reporting.
In part two of our series on the Lancet's descent into ideological activism, we look at the journal's proposal to "transform" global dietary habits and protect the planet from the ravages of animal agriculture. Is there any evidence to justify this campaign against meat production and consumption?
Environmental Working Group claims that meat "is exacerbating the climate crisis." EWG isn't wrong to point out the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, though the activist group has oversimplified the problem—and its promising solutions.
The evidence consistently shows that organic farming cannot help the world slow climate change. Yet science publications that should know better continue to promote this harmful myth.
Up until last week, CO2 levels have been the concern; now methane is in the mix. But what can we say about CO2 before adding to our worries? An article from The Conversation provides some infographics.