Doctor Who and the Vanishing Bees

Where have our bees gone? Honey bees, bumble bees... you name it, they're disappearing faster than Pooh Bear's honey. Now, I thought maybe there were some fairly simple explanations for this worrying phenomenon, like the damaging effects of Pestilential Pesticides or the loss of wildflowers due to intensive agriculture.

But I was wrong. I now know that the bees have gone off to their mother planet out in space because the Earth is about to be stolen by Daleks and hidden one second in the future along with twenty-six other planets so that Davros and his band of tinpot baddies can take over the universe.

It's a much more satisfying explanation altogether, and it fits the general Dr Who approach to our current eco-woes. What? you may be thinking. Surely Dr Who is just a fanciful adventure series - no one really believes that the bees are from outer space, do they? Do they? I don't know. But Dr Who has always reflected the fears of the age, and in this series the images of apocalypse (the stars going out, unknown terrors coming from the sky) seem to mirror our very real anxieties about climate change and its effects.

Dr Who is great. It's scary and fantastic. But the thing about the bees is keeping me awake at night. The disappearance of bees isn't part of some grand conspiracy of aggressive oversized saltpots. It's much closer to home than that. It's our problem, and one we could maybe solve if we put in the sort of time and effort it takes to make a TV series.

The trouble is, we're not going to get ten million people glued to the sofa of a Saturday evening for bees. Are we?

Sunshade World? No! No! No!

Now and again people send me press releases they think I'll find interesting, but this one made me want to run upstairs and hide under the bed. Actually, to start with I thought this report, from a respected university not a million miles from my door, must be an April Fool that had got lost somewhere in the www. It began:

Sunshade World - a global warming solution?

I read on, and it became clear that this was no joke. Instead, a team of scientists had just devoted hatfuls of time and energy to creating computer models designed to help us understand what the world would be like if a giant sunshade were placed between us and the sun. Apparently such a scheme could be put in place in 25 years or so for so many trillions of pounds, so obviously we need to know what it will be like.

The good news is that, compared to the 'sky falling in' doom-monger's scenarios of runaway climate change, life under the sunshade would be quite pleasant. A bit less ice at the poles than at present. Rather drier in the topics. Possible catastrophic effects on plankton with potential global repercussions.

As I read and digested this, I tried to imagine these scientists going about their work, chatting over coffee and comparing notes, then I thought about all the other scientists all over the world who spend their time modelling futures and extrapolating data, which then gets turned into fabulous stories by the media and so makes its way into our tiny brains, where we try and come to terms with it.

And no doubt somebody, somewhere, is busy monitoring all these scientists, studying their carbon footprints and coming up with ingenious ways to make their future-mongering more efficient. And these people also issue reports telling the world how vitally important their work has been in cutting the climate impact of the climate impact studiers. And after a while someone says, you know, this Sunshade World really sounds pretty good, and then we're all in trouble.

You know what they say: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

A Few Words from Mr Angry (or is that Ms?)

It's always nice to get a little feedback, and this morning a message arrived from someone bravely identifying themselves as Anonymous. Describing me as a **** idiot, my correspondent went on to explain that I knew nothing about anything and, in particular, that by mentioning the possibility of oil becoming more expensive I was effectively acting as a mouthpiece for the great liberal global warming conspiracy.

To back up their argument that I am a **** idiot (which I no doubt am, at least some of the time), Mr or Ms Angry pulled out an old chestnut called the abiogenic theory of petroleum formation. This theory, which was put forward in the nineteenth century and has since been rejected by everyone except a couple of rogue Russians and an astrophysicist, suggests that oil and gas are not fossil fuels, but that they derive from magma squeezed up through cracks in the earth's crust and transformed by complex chemical processes into oily hydrocarbons.

In other words, in the view of Anonymous, supplies of oil and gas are continually being replaced from below, and will never run out. There is no evidence for this whatsoever, but that doesn't matter with this sort of bogus science. Which would be funny except that people who know even less about the subject than I do tend to grasp at theories like this and cling on to them, and we don't need people's heads to be full of muddled ideas. We need people to be well-informed, and to think carefully about subjects like wind energy, nuclear power and so on.

The earth is rich with many forms of energy. Let's think about this in more interesting ways, not just make stuff up.