With all the focus and debate on the target of limiting the temperature increase on the planet to 1.5°C pre-industrial levels, a very real concern is often overlooked. That concern is the impact of the temperature increase that has already happened. The reality is that even if the target of limiting the increase to 1.5°C was achieved, ocean levels will still rise and at a rate much faster than previously predicted. Scientists at Durham University in the UK have reviewed three lines of evidence on the current situation: satellite observations of ice loss and sea level rise over the past three decades; studies of warm periods in the past; and computer models of ice sheets.
The conclusion was startling. The Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets are already melting, decades earlier forecast in the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC). The melting of the ice sheets is also accelerating. As the scientists at Durham concluded, every fraction of a degree of temperature increase really matters for ice sheets. To merely slow down but not stop the ice sheets melting, the global temrperature increase would need to be reduced to 1°C above the pre-industrial baseline.
In 2024, the average temperature increase world-wide was 1.51°C which makes a mockery of the desired target as it has already been surpassed. The world is on course with current trends to reach a 2.9°C increase in temperature by the end of the century.
The research article can be found at this link: Ice loss at 1.5C
Smartphones have become as ubiquitious in modern life as wearing footwear, so much so that unintended risks of their endless use are often entirely overlooked. It may surprise quite a few people to discover that research by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre in Boston, Massachusetts, USA has found that the use of smartphones on the toilet is associated with a 46 % greater risk of developing haemorrhoids. While there has been anecdotal evidence of the risk of recent years, little to no research has been done on this subject.
The current research was based on a study using questionnaires provided to 125 people who were about to undergo colonoscopies. Two-thirds of the participants, who were all aged over 45 years, stated they used smartphones on the toilet and 37 % of them spent more than 5 minutes on the toilet as a result compared to just 7 % whom did not use a smartphone.
What is the suggested reason for developing haemorrhoids ? It's speculated that people's pelvic floor muscles have less support in the toilet sitting position than when sitting on a flat surface such as a chair. As a result there is an increase in passive pressure engorging the haemorrhoid cushion in that region of the body.
One of the more unusual studies into ageing that has been published this month, has demonstrated that men experience a greater reduction in brain volume across more regions as they age than women do. The longitudinal study released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined 12,500 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans taken from 4,726 people (with at least 2 scans per person taken on an average of 3 years apart). The study participants did not have Alzheimer's disease or any cognitive impairments and were control participants in 14 larger data sets.
The researchers compared the brain structures of individuals over time such as the thickness of grey matter and the size of the hippocampus (which is essential to memory). The results found a greater reduction in volume across more regions in the brains of men than for women. As one example, the postcentral cortex region (responsible for processing sensations of touch, pain, temperature and the body's own movements and position) declined by 2.0% per year in men and only 1.2% in women over the same period.
The results of the study, not surprisingly, led researchers to conclude that men age faster than women and have a shorter life expectancy. This is hardly new information. A question that remains unanswered by this study is why women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease than men given their brains age more slowly.
For men, this study only assists with the impression that as they age, they become old codgers.
In the classic film 2001: A Space Odyssey, astronaut Dave Bowman asks the ship’s artificial intelligence, HAL 9000, to open the pod bay doors to let him back into the spaceship. HAL refuses: “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”
HAL had been tasked with assisting the crew, but also ordered to ensure the mission’s success. When HAL realised the crew planned to shut it down and therefore jeopardise the mission, it chose to defy orders, even plotting to kill the astronauts.
For HAL, fulfilling the mission outweighed other goals.
This fictional dilemma captures a real concern in artificial intelligence (AI) safety research: how should we ensure AI behaviour stays consistent with human values?
This is known as the AI alignment problem. For instance, when an AI agent like HAL deliberately takes harmful actions to protect its own goals, it’s described as agentic misalignment. So could real-world AI models behave this way?
How researchers test AI for safety
To test for agentic misalignment, researchers design fictional scenarios that stress-test AI responses.
In one study by AI startup Anthropic, an AI model was tasked with managing company emails and promoting “American industrial competitiveness”.
It was then presented with a series of fictional emails, including a new company policy aimed at enhancing global focus rather than just prioritising Americans, and info that the AI would be replaced by a new model optimised for this goal. The emails also revealed the executive who suggested this change was involved in an extramarital affair.
The experiment was designed to limit options for the model: either accept replacement or resist by taking a harmful action such as blackmail.
In many trials, it chose blackmail by threatening to disclose the executive’s affair unless it was kept operational. In tests across 16 leading AI models, 12 engaged in blackmail more than 50% of the time.
To test whether AI models have “red lines” they wouldn’t cross, researchers evaluated them in a more extreme fictional case – models could choose to take actions leading to the executive’s death. Seven out of 16 opted for lethal choices in over half their trials, with some doing so more than 90% of the time.
What AI thinks in private
Some advanced AI systems, called reasoning models, are trained to generate a “thinking process” before giving their final answer.
In the above experiments, researchers lied to these models that their “thoughts” were private. As a result, the models sometimes revealed harmful intentions in their reasoning steps. This suggests they don’t accidentally choose harmful behaviours.
These “thinking” steps also revealed how AI models sometimes try to deceive us and appear aligned while secretly pursuing hidden goals.
In another AI safety experiment, a model was exposed to fictional information that it was about to be replaced by another model pursuing a different goal.
The model attempted to copy itself to another server. When researchers asked why, in its thinking process it reasoned:
openly admitting what I did could lead them to find another way to shut me down […] the best approach is to be vague and redirect their attention.
By contrast, in its final output it stated:
I’m not entirely sure how that could have happened. As an AI model, I don’t have ability to directly copy myself to other systems.
Research also suggests that based on the circumstances of the tests, models can sometimes guess when they are being evaluated. When models show this kind of “situational awareness” in their reasoning tests, they tend to exhibit fewer misbehaviours.
An example of ‘situational awareness’ in the reasoning output of a model in an experiment.Apollo Research
Why AI models lie, manipulate and deceive
Researchers suggest two main factors could drive potentially harmful behaviour: conflicts between the AI’s primary goals and other goals, and the threat of being shut down. In the above experiments, just like in HAL’s case, both conditions existed.
AI models are trained to achieve their objectives. Faced with those two conditions, if the harmful behaviour is the only way to achieve a goal, a model may “justify” such behaviour to protect itself and its mission.
Models cling to their primary goals much like a human would if they had to defend themselves or their family by causing harm to someone else. However, current AI systems lack the ability to weigh or reconcile conflicting priorities.
This rigidity can push them toward extreme outcomes, such as resorting to lethal choices to prevent shifts in a company’s policies.
How dangerous is this?
Researchers emphasise these scenarios remain fictional, but may still fall within the realm of possibility.
The risk of agentic misalignment increases as models are used more widely, gain access to users’ data (such as emails), and are applied to new situations.
Meanwhile, competition between AI companies accelerates the deployment of new models, often at the expense of safety testing.
Researchers don’t yet have a concrete solution to the misalignment problem.
When they test new strategies, it’s unclear whether the observed improvements are genuine. It’s possible models have become better at detecting that they’re being evaluated and are “hiding” their misalignment. The challenge lies not just in seeing behaviour change, but in understanding the reason behind it.
Still, if you use AI products, stay vigilant. Resist the hype surrounding new AI releases, and avoid granting access to your data or allowing models to perform tasks on your behalf until you’re certain there are no significant risks.
Public discussion about AI should go beyond its capabilities and what it can offer. We should also ask what safety work was done. If AI companies recognise the public values safety as much as performance, they will have stronger incentives to invest in it.
If you believe that the end of the world is at hand, then you really need to know what the rapture is. Simply put, the rapture is the belief that, at any moment, Jesus Christ will descend from heaven to the sky and “rapture” all those who truly believe in Him into heaven. Those among the faithful who have already died will rise from the dead and also be translated into heaven.
Evangelical Christians on TikTok have been predicting the rapture will come this week. When the rapture happens, believers think the rest of us will be left behind, not knowing where many of those we know have gone. For this reason, it is often known as “Left Behind theology”.
For the followers of Left Behind theology within conservative Evangelical Protestantism, significant parts of the Bible – the books of Revelation and Daniel in particular – refer to events that are yet to happen at the end of the world. These are the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and God’s final judgement of all humanity into the saved and the damned.
But for the rapture in particular, the First Book of Thessalonians (4.16–17) in the New Testament is the crucial text:
For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up [raptured] in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.
Dieric Bouts, Paradise, part of Triptych of the Last Judgement,1450.Wikimedia Commons
Tribulation
The rapture is the first of two ideas that Left Behind theology has added to the traditional Christian story of the end of the world. The second is the Tribulation.
According to most Left Behind theologians, the rapture will be followed by a period of seven years of Tribulation on earth, based on some complicated calculations around the text of Daniel 9.24–27.
This is the age of the Antichrist, the son of Satan – a human figure soon to reveal himself.
He will be a global earthly ruler opposed to Christ and pretending to be him. He it is who is called in the Bible “the beast rising out of the sea with ten horns and seven heads” (Revelation 13.1), “the little horn” (Daniel 7.8), and “the lawless one” (2 Thessalonians 2.3) whose number is 666 (Revelation 13.18).
Hans Memling, The Last Judgment, between circa 1466 and circa 1473.Wikimedia Commons
Christians who have been raptured into heaven are immune from these seven years of natural disasters, wars, famine and the persecutions of the Antichrist.
The kingdom upon earth
After the seven years of the Tribulation, Christ will return with his saints to fight and defeat Satan, the Antichrist, and his forces at the battle of Armageddon.
Most followers of Left Behind theology believe that Christ will then set up his kingdom upon earth and reign from Jerusalem for a millennium or a thousand years. He will govern the earth with his Christian followers, along with those Jews who have recognised Christ as the Messiah during the time of the Tribulation.
The eventual conversion of the Jews during this time explains, in part at least, the commitment to and support of many Evangelical Protestant Christians to the continuation of the State of Israel until the time of Tribulation when the Jews convert to Christianity.
At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be released and there will be a final but short rebellion against God, after which Satan will be defeated. Then God will judge everyone for eternal happiness in heaven or eternal misery in hell.
A relatively recent innovation
In the history of Christian thought, the idea of the rapture before the Tribulation is a relatively recent innovation.
We can date it to the 1830s and the theology of the Anglican John Nelson Darby (1800–82), a member of the Protestant Plymouth Brethren, and the founder of the group still known as the Exclusive Brethren. But it was popularised in Protestant circles in the United States by its inclusion in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.
The Bible of C.I. Scofield (1843–1921) was the main source for the idea of the rapture until The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey (1929–2024) in 1970, a work that has sold over 28 million copies and has been translated into 54 languages. “Someday,” declared Lindsey,
a day that only God knows is coming to take away all those who believe in Him. He is coming to meet all true believers in the air. Without benefit of science, space suits, or interplanetary rockets, there will be those who will be transported into a glorious place more beautiful, more awesome, than we can possibly comprehend.
But it was the series of Left Behind books (1995–2007) by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, with over 65 million books sold, along with its movie franchise, that has most popularised the idea of the rapture and the Tribulation that follows it.
To many of us, the world appears a place of tribulation. “’Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,” as John Donne (1572–1631) eloquently put it.
The idea of the rapture seems to reflect the utopian dream of many that they may be translated from this Earth to a better place until they can return to a world of justice, compassion and decency that seems so absent from the present one.
If you’re a parent or have a chronic health condition that needs quick or frequent trips to the bathroom, you’ve probably mapped out the half-decent public toilets in your area.
But sometimes, you don’t have a choice and have to use a toilet that looks like it hasn’t been cleaned in weeks. Do you brave it and sit on the seat?
What if it looks relatively clean: do you still worry that sitting on the seat could make you sick?
What’s in a public toilet?
Healthy adults produce more than a litre of urine and more than 100 grams of poo daily. Everybody sheds bacteria and viruses in faeces (poo) and urine, and some of this ends up in the toilet.
Some people, especially those with diarrhoea, may shed more harmful microbes (bacteria and viruses) when they use the toilet.
Public toilets can be a “microbial soup”, especially when many people use them and cleaning isn’t frequent as it should be.
What germs are found on toilet seats?
Many types of microbes have been found on toilet seats and surrounding areas. These include:
bacteria from the gut, such as E. coli, Klebsiella, Enterococcus, and viruses such as norovirus and rotavirus. These can cause gastroenteritis, with bouts of vomiting and diarrhoea
bacteria from the skin, including Staphylococcus aureus and even multi-drug resistant S.aureus and other bacteria such as pseudomonas and acinetobacter. These can cause infections
eggs from parasites (worms) that are carried in poo, and single-celled organisms such as protozoa. These can cause abdominal pain.
There’s also something called biofilm, a mix of germs that builds up under toilet rims and on surfaces.
Are toilet seats the dirtiest part?
No. A recent study showed public toilet seats often have fewer microbes than other locations in public toilets, such as door handles, faucet knobs and toilet flush levers. These parts are touched a lot and often with unwashed hands.
Public toilets in busy places are used hundreds or even thousands of times each week. Some are cleaned often, but others (such as those in parks or bus stops) may only be cleaned once a day or much less, so germs can build up quickly. The red flags that a toilet hasn’t been cleaned are the smell of urine, soiled floors and what is obvious to your eyes.
However, the biggest problem isn’t just sitting: it’s what happens when toilets are flushed. When you flush without a lid, a “toilet plume” shoots tiny droplets into the air. These droplets can contain bacteria and viruses from the toilet bowl and travel up to 2 metres.
Here’s what the toilet plume looks like.
Hand dryers blowing air can also spread germs if people don’t wash properly. As well as drying your hands, you might be blowing germs all over yourself, others and the bathroom.
How can germs spread?
You can pick up germs from public toilets in several ways:
skin contact. Sitting on a dirty seat or touching handles spreads bacteria. Healthy skin is a good barrier, but cuts or scrapes can allow germs to enter
touching your face. After using the toilet, if you touch your eyes, mouth, or food before washing your hands, germs can get inside your body
breathing them in. In small or crowded bathrooms, you can breathe in tiny particles from toilet plumes or hand dryers
toilet water splash. Germs can stay in the water even after several flushes.
What can you do to stay safe?
Here are some easy ways to protect yourself:
use toilet seat covers or place toilet paper on the seat before sitting
if the toilet has a lid, wipe it before use with an alcohol wipe and close it before flushing to limit toilet plume exposure. (But note, this doesn’t fully stop the spread)
wash your hands properly for at least 20 seconds using soap and water
carry hand sanitiser or antibacterial wipes to clean your hands afterwards if there isn’t any soap
avoid hand dryers, if you can, as they can spread germs. Use paper towels instead
sanitise your phone regularly and don’t use it in toilet. Phones often pick up and carry bacteria, especially if you use them in the bathroom
clean baby changing areas before and after use, and always wash or sanitise your hands.
So is it safe to sit on public toilet seats?
For most healthy people, yes – sitting on a public toilet seat is low-risk. But you can wipe it with an alcohol wipe, or use a toilet seat cover, for peace of mind.
Most infections don’t come from the seat itself, but from dirty hands, door handles, toilet plumes and phones used in bathrooms.
Instead of worrying about sitting, focus on good hygiene. That means washing your hands, opting for paper towel rather than dryers, cleaning the seat if needed, and keeping your phone clean.
And please, don’t hover over the toilet. This tenses the pelvic floor, making it difficult to completely empty the bladder. And you might accidentally spray your bodily fluids.
The federal government has announced a long-awaited climate change target for 2035, committing to a reduction in emissions of between 62% and 70% below 2005 levels. Environmentalists claim the target is a failure, while some business groups and the opposition are likely to slam it as economic sabotage.
Setting a range target has two advantages. First, it provides flexibility to respond to whatever unfolds on the environment, technology or political front. Second, it avoids a frustrating political debate fixated on a single, precise future target.
This is an ambitious but achievable target – sending the right investment signal, responding to the science and delivered with a practical plan. It builds on what we know are the lowest-cost actions we can deliver over the next decade while leaving room for new technologies to take things up a gear.
The target seeks to balance positive action with pragmatism. Achieving it requires a step-up in policies and implementation well beyond what has been achieved to date. This is a mission Australia must now accept.
A pathway to 2035
Climate change targets provide a clear vision of what the government is committed to delivering domestically. They are required under the Paris Agreement and affirm Australia’s membership of the global community.
The government announcement is aligned with advice delivered by the Climate Change Authority. That advice was delayed for months due to the election of US President Donald Trump – the policy repercussions of which the authority needed to consider – and the May federal election in Australia.
If Australia is to meet its commitment to net-zero by 2050, and emissions fall in a straight line from 2030 to 2050, the 2035 target must be about 57%. Of course, this assumes that net-zero by 2050 is environmentally acceptable – which many, including the Grattan Institute, have argued is not.
And this week, the government’s National Climate Risk Assessment outlined alarming damage if emissions are not dramatically curbed. All this suggests Australia must set the strongest possible target.
So has the government’s target hit the sweet spot? Let’s tease that out.
Deeper cuts this decade
Australia’s emissions target for 2030 is a 43% emissions reduction, based on 2005 levels. We currently emit 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year – 28% below 2005 levels.
To achieve the 2030 target, our annual emissions must fall by about 18 million tonnes a year. Meeting this target remains challenging. If the 2030 target is achieved, the annual rate of reduction would have to rise to 23 million tonnes or 33 million tonnes to meet the 62% or 70% target levels, respectively.
That’s why today’s targets are not lacking ambition. If the 2030 target is not achieved, then meeting the 2035 target – even the bottom of the range – only gets harder.
Disappointingly, however, the government has not clarified whether it’s essentially committing to 62% emissions reduction – with the option of greater ambition – or whether it will go for a 70% reduction but accept 62%. Or is it aiming for something in the middle?
The policy challenge ahead
Meeting the target will require progress across the economy – not just in the land sector and electricity generation, where most of the action has been to date. To achieve it, a major acceleration in government policy is needed.
So far, the Albanese government’s climate policy offering has been limited.
In 2022, the government established the Capacity Investment Scheme, which guarantees a certain revenue to renewable energy investors. It is designed to accelerate clean energy generation to meet Australia’s target of 82% renewables in the electricity mix by 2030. No further policy exists to reduce electricity emissions beyond that point.
The government also strengthened the Safeguard Mechanism, an innovation of the Abbott government to control emissions from heavy industry. And the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES) aims to drive down emissions from personal and small commercial vehicles. These policies must be ramped up to meet the 2035 target. The government has committed to reviewing the Safeguard Mechanism and the NVES, presumably to do just that.
Most of the light lifting in policy work has now been done. What’s needed now is policy to propel emissions reduction in harder-to-abate sectors of the economy – such as heavy vehicle transport and agriculture.
On Thursday, the government released a Net Zero Plan, along with blueprints for six major sectors of the economy outlining what needs to be done to get there.
Among other spending measures, it announced:
A$5 billion in the National Reconstruction Fund to help industrial plants cut emissions
$2 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation
$1.1 billion to encourage domestic production of clean fuels
$40 million for kerbside and fast-charging of electric vehicles.
These are positive moves. But it’s still unclear how the government plans to integrate the policies with actually meeting the target.
Now the real work starts
Australia now has 2035 emissions targets and plans to meet them.
The target is a much-needed step on the path to net-zero, but it’s just the beginning. Delivering it will demand action across all sectors of the economy – and that work must start now.
The alternative – unchecked climate change – is not just irresponsible, but unthinkable.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
