Nel centenario di Gallipoli

Dopo l’uccisione di troppi medici, infermieri e feriti perfino da parte di eserciti regolari, un editoriale di Nature chiede ai ricercatori, biomed innanzitutto, di mobilitarsi insieme alle Ong per far applicare le Convenzioni di Ginevra, le cui violazioni sono “senza precedenti” stando al segretario dell’ONU e al presidente della Croce Rossa:

Among the explanations is a lack of awareness of the Geneva Conventions by protagonists — in what are increasingly not wars between nations, but smaller civil and sectarian wars, often involving non-state actors — but also a poor grasp by the media and public. (…) “What is worrying – –dice Susannah  Sirkin di Physicians for Human Rights –  is that the overt targeting of humanitarian and health workers has become the “new normal”, despite it being illegal under international law — and having the effect of depriving entire populations of health care, and children of vital vaccinations. (…)

But above all, abuses happen because there is little accountability, with perpetrators operating with almost total impunity, despite their actions often clearly amounting to war crimes — or indeed crimes against humanity. The Geneva Conventions lack a body with teeth to ensure that the rules are respected, or to stop abuses when they are under way. They also lack mechanisms to investigate and prosecute abuses. (…)

As well as the armistice, this month marks 100 years since the decision to evacuate troops from the ill-fated 1915 Gallipoli campaign, in which medical staff working under atrocious battlefield conditions suffered extensive casualties. The world has been shocked into action to protect health workers before. It must be again.

Tks, Sir Phil, bella e necessaria anche la recensione del saggio di Shane O’Mara, Why Torture Doesn’t Work.

*

(Se volete, potete firmare la petizione di Médecins Sans Frontières  per chiedere a Obama un’indagine indipendente sul bombardamento dell’ospedale di Kunduz, in Afghanistan.)

*

Le tesi degli studenti tedeschi di medicina sono scadenti, oltre che plagiate, lamenta un altro editoriale, e il terzo celebra il grande Smooth Operator:

 IF George Boole had lived, then he would have celebrated his 200th birthday this week. NOT that it makes any sense to say such a thing OR to write it. People do NOT live that long. And if there was one thing that George Boole is known for, it is logic. AND mathematics AND philosophy. Three things. NOT one thing. (…)
He did NOT have a formal education OR academic training. He taught himself languages including Latin AND Greek AND calculus. He wrote scientific papers on how to represent logical relations as symbols AND algebraic equations. Despite NOT having a university education, he was appointed professor of mathematics at Queen’s College Cork in Ireland.  
The weather in Ireland is often NOT dry and Boole caught pneumonia after walking to the college in heavy rain. His wife, Mary, a prominent mathematician, was NOT as skilled at medicine. She soaked her husband’s sheets with water AND made him shiver with cold. It did NOT help AND, sadly, he died.

In tema, l’Outlook è sui Big Data in biomedicina, gratis: è sponsorizzato da enti di ricerca pubblici cinesi, credo sia la prima volta.

*

Fra i paper, farà sicuramente discutere quello di Steve Hatfield-Dodds e altri 15 ricercatori del CSIRO. Nel modello sviluppato per l’Australian National Outlook 2015, immettono venti scenari di sviluppo economico per l’Australia fino al 2050. Con un prezzo “giusto” del carbonio,  non solo in Australia, è sostenibile e non richiede sacrifici.
Dall’abstract, grassetto mio:

we use novel integrated analysis of the energy–water–food nexus, rural land use (including biodiversity), material flows and climate change to explore whether mounting ecological pressures in Australia can be reversed, while the population grows and living standards improve. We show that, in the right circumstances, economic and environmental outcomes can be decoupled. Although economic growth is strong across all scenarios, environmental performance varies widely: pressures are projected to more than double, stabilize or fall markedly by 2050. However, we find no evidence that decoupling will occur automatically. Nor do we find that a shift in societal values is required. Rather, extensions of current policies that mobilize technology and incentivize reduced pressure account for the majority of differences in environmental performance. Our results show that Australia can make great progress towards sustainable prosperity, if it chooses to do so.

Nessuno degli scenari è una panacea. Hanno

 a different portfolio of risks and opportunities, which we have not fully modelled beyond 2050. For example, new native habitat established before 2050 could provide a permanent flow of biodiversity benefits and other ecosystem services, while the flow of carbon sequestration provided will peak and eventually decline to zero, drawing attention to challenges and opportunities beyond our modelling horizon, such as the possibility of using carbon plantations to generate negative emission bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. (…)
These scenarios may present new longer-term risks and opportunities, and the synergies and trade-offs involved will be influenced by global circumstances. We also find an important threshold effect: moderate global action to reduce greenhouse emissions may diminish Australia’s traditional comparative advantage (particularly in fossil fuel-based sectors) without creating new areas of advantage; while stronger global action that places tangible value on emissions reductions could create new opportunities for creating value, providing win-win economic and environmental benefits relative to existing trends. While Australia could dramatically reduce environmental pressures across a wide range of global contexts, the economic costs of doing so will be smaller (and benefits larger) in global settings that support the stable functioning of key Earth systems, including through promoting clean energy. As these global circumstances emerge, Australia’s opportunities will multiply.
Sustainable prosperity is possible, but not predestined. Australia is free to choose.

Conclusioni un po’ ottimiste, commentano Benjamin Bodirsky e Alexander Popp del PIK. E’ il primo studio così dettagliato che leggo, affascinante, ma senza carbon capture, carbon tax mondiale ecc. pare ottimista anche a me.

***

Negli scenari di Hatfield-Dodds et al. aumentano i consumi di carne. Combinazione, sul Journal of Environmental Biology esce uno studio di Marcus Clauss et al. sulle flatulenze dei canguri: calcolate in funzione del cibo ingerito, le loro emissioni di metano sono pari a quelle dei ruminanti, com. stampa dell’Università di Zurigo, commento sul Guardian.

***

Sul Guardian, Dana Nuccitelli celebra un altro anniversario: 50 anni fa, gli scienziati americani consegnavano al Potus un rapporto sul degrado dell’ambiente e del clima causato dagli inquinanti, CO2 compresa. Dana N. ricorda anche il modello che Wally Broecker, uno degli autori del rapporto, aveva pubblicato nel 1974 e ne paragona le proiezioni con le osservazioni al 2015:

(Il ten.col.Guidi ne informerà un giorno la sua troupe o continuerà a ripetere la propaganda della Exxon?)

Novembre 2015, invece, l’American Meteorological Society manda al repubblicano Lamar Smith una lettera in difesa dei climatologi della NOAA che il Torquemada del Congresso sta perseguitando:

Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges. As expressed in the AMS Statement on Freedom of Scientific Expression : The ability of scientists to present their findings to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative.

Che pretese! Per tradizione, un politico ha il diritto di intimidire chi gli pare.

*

Sou pubblica l’elenco dei 13 bigoilisti che su Indiegogo chiedono $59 mila per farsi un proprio vertice a Parigi durante la COP21.

*

Dev’essere il global cooling: a Milano con le finestre spalancate, in casa ci sono 23 °C.