Global Warming or Nuclear Apocalypse? Why Not Both?!

Nuclear Apocalypse or Global Warming? Why not Both?!

An article in the Guardian says that global warming is so bad that in just over 10 years we're going to have massive flooding, incredible droughts, and so much upheaval that the world is going to turn to nuclear weapons. Oh, and England's going to be in a Siberian climate. This is all from a supposed secret report given to the president from the Pentagon. The Guardian claims to have this report in their possession.

I'm wondering if this was a worst, worst, worst case scenario that the Pentagon is trying to be ready for? What % of probability is required before the Pentagon writes a report and tries to setup a system minimizing the risk to the U.S.? I'm hoping it is a vanishingly small %, and this report is proven quite wrong.

Should things like this start to come to pass, I will be the first person to say that I was wrong. No, wait, I'll just blame it on Bush. I'll say he lied to me so that I can complain like a child proven wrong but not able to admit his/her mistake. This way I can maintain my impeccable sense of moral superiority.

Global Warming and Me

Call me a freakin' idiot. Say I have my head in the sand. Call me a shill for oil interests. I do not sit awake at night worrying about global warming...

There, I said it. Why would an otherwise intelligent person say that global warming is anything less than the most serious issue man has ever faced? I say it because people are freakin' stupid. And by stupid people, I purposefully include scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of science. Hypotheses tested time and again is what gives us the ability to predict and act on those predictions. So far with global scale weather systems we've coerced massaged data into looking like what we've experienced in the past, we have no definitive ability to predict future weather. Don't get me wrong, I have great admiration for science, it is what has transformed man from prehistoric cave dwellers to enlightened pioneers, probing every aspect of the natural world, trying to gain an understanding of the beauty around us.



I try to keep an open mind as much as I possibly can, and I honestly believe that human action is, at least in part, causing a warming of the world. I do not think it's catastrophic, and I'm not entirely convinced that what we are experiencing is any worse than some of the weather changes which have occurred in man's history. There is only one universal constant, change. The Earth's climate is and always will be changing. We can and will deal with it.

What really gets my goat though is people blaming anything and everything on global warming.

Please check all bad things that are caused/exacerbated by global warming:

• Droughts...CHECK!
• Floods...CHECK!
• Stronger Hurricanes...CHECK!
• Weaker Hurricanes...CHECK!
• More Hurricanes...CHECK!
• Fewer Hurricanes...CHECK!
  
• Unmanagably catastrophic sea level rise...CHECK!
• Very modest sea level rise...CHECK!
• Polar caps irreparably melting...CHECK!
• Polar caps thickening...CHECK!
• Increased global inequality...CHECK!
• Kitten stomping...CHECK!
• Britney Hilton's inability to wear underwear...CHECK!
  
• Guilt for anything/everything...CHECK!

I have not read the International Panel on Climate Change Report in its entirety, but I'm not arguing against the science. I'm sure whatever analysis were used do indeed point to us being (at very least a component of) the problem. From the report: since 1850 global water level rose less than 20cm (7.9") and global mean temperature increased less than 1 deg. Celsius (less than 1.8 deg. F). If we shut everything in the world down, and emit no more greenhouse gases (everyone holding their breathe included, as that's a source of CO2), we would still increase in temperature 1 deg. C in the next 100 years (not 150 years like stated above). If we were to be draconian ni our crack down on GHG (greenhouse gas), temperatures could still increase (according to the IPCC) by 2 deg C with the top range of that scenario being at 3 deg C. Worst case looks like 4 deg. C increase with the top range being 6 deg. C (this worst case involves tripling greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years, seems a stretch to me). There is no definitive evidence what the increase in water level would be at best case scenario, but at worst they're estimating just over 20". So if GHG emissions triple in 50 years, in 100 years we could see the water go about about 1 and 1/3 foot. I had better go buy oceanfront property in Kansas...

So if absolute best case involves a moderate level of warming, and unbelievably high emissions may cause about double that level of warming over 100 years, I'd say we're fighting a losing battle already. It will not be possible to have everyone trade in their cars for bicycles (and semis for really big bicycles). So if, according to this report, warming is to be expected, then what problems could we be up against? I try to keep abreast of global warming news, and I especially liked this website's take on what would could be positive and what could be negative from Global Warming. Remember, though, this site is seriously dedicated to fighting Global Warming.

Top 5 bad things that could happen from Global Warming
5. Disease carrying insects will migrate further north
I'm not worried one bit from this. Other countries maybe, me no.

4. Warmer waters / more (and more intense) hurricanes
Intense hurricanes suck. On my list of worries, hurricanes and loss of life.

3. Increased probability and intensity of droughts / heat waves
Increased heat waves also suck. List of worries, food shortages from adverse weather.

2. Economic consequences of dealing with the effects
Worry: Paying out money to help those who're having problems growing food and those dealing with hurricanes.

1. Polar Ice Caps melting
Wait a second, IPCC said it's not that bad (20"+ at worst). Not a worry...

Top 5 Good things that could happen from Global Warming
5. Arctic ocean being clear year round means economic benefits of increased trade
Economic worry not all that bad, in fact there could be positives...

4. Fewer Hurricanes
What? Fewer? That's awesome. Hurricane worries off my list.

3. More Summer Fun (it'll stay hotter longer)
I don't think they're trying very hard. I guess summer's fun, no affect to worry list.

2. More Food due to better growing environments
So wait. We'll get more food. Okay, I'll scratch food shortages off my worry list.

1. Less dead people due to less intense winters
So the impact to human life will be a net positive, as fewer people will die from cold. I'll check dying off my worry list.

So people fighting Global Warming can't even get their consequences straight. Economic consequences are +/-, weather intensity could increase/decrease, we'll have more/less food, more people will die/live. What am I supposed to believe here? I guess I should just get back to my storm cellar guns cache. I really should just focus on protecting myself from holes in the ozone layer, acid rain, global population bomb / world-wide mass starvation, and let's not forget the ramifications of the crack-baby generation of the 80's.

"Wait," you say, "Don't hide out in your cellar yet. None of those things ever ended up being as bad as everyone thought..."

Sweatshops, How I Love Thee (Not Really, But Let's Argue)...

Let it be known, that I am disgusted by this picture. How can those people be smiling! The evil rich are taking advantage of them, and they think they're happy! Well we (upper-middle class guilty progressive) know better. We should force the evil rich (and by extension these smiling workers) out in the freaking gutter!

Why am I such a bastard when it comes to sweatshops? I see a group of people, going to a place of their own volition, and selling someone else their time. As long as these people are not intimidated from quitting, and are choosing to work (as opposed to being forced: slave labor), then I find it hard to fault anyone. Someone is holding out some money, someone else has time and skills. Both exchange what they have, and both (from my point of view) go home at night better off for their decision. Am I looking at this too simplistically?

I have heard it said that we have no moral right to impose our political will on another people. Is this the exception to the rule for the sole reason that in this instance we really know what's best for them (even if they don't know it themselves)? If a person wants to work in a "sweatshop", but cannot, what is their alternative? My guess is that they won't just find a McDonalds or cushy office to work at.

Have I been mislead into believing something inherently evil? Am I a sadistic elitist, wanting nothing more out of life than for the great unwashed masses to do my bidding?

Why don't we force them (those evil foreigners) to pay our equivalent of minimum wage? If not that amount, should we adjust it according to exchange rates, or should we take into account cost of living? People argue that child labor is something that we should rail against as well, because kids get taken advantage of, but I believe that's another article.

Does everyone hate me yet?

Immigration Debate

There's an article that appeared today in UCLA's student newspaper. It's a story of a girl going through life absolutely unaware that she was an illegal immigrant. Her parents told her of her status after 18 years of misleading her (it's assumed this was near or as she was graduating high school). She moved out of the house after high school and went out on her own. She's worked odd jobs and took college classes at UCLA whenever she could afford to. She is nearing graduation, but her future is uncertain. What kind of job can she expect given her status?

This story is an obvious heartstring puller. My take is a little different though, because I would feel the same if she knew her whole life that she was illegal. She's hardworking and is doing nearly anything in her power to better herself. We need this type of person in our country. We need to get motivated people here and encourage them to no end.

The recent attempt at immigration reform (S. 1348, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007) was roundly rejected by staunch conservatives. Conservative talk radio lambasted the idea from all sides (except Michael Medved). The current situation we have is not good, and for some reason has recently dropped off of everyone's radar. Building a fence is great, we should enforce our border with unabashed strictness, however we need to open our doors much wider. I cannot think of any good reason why we don't want to encourage intelligent, motivated, (sometimes quite educated) immigrants to come to the U.S., the land of opportunity.

I am disheartened by the stories (as well as my person experiences) of laziness and general malaise for anything not popular culture. I shudder from the fact that we make laws, but don't enforce them. If we believe the laws are unjust, repeal them. If we believe they are just, enforce them. As a people we need to "man-up" and realize that our healthcare system is being strapped by our inability to deny care to anyone at any time. People are being taken advantage of through lower than minimum wages and unsafe work environments because they don't dare to report their employer (for fear of deportation).

My over simplistic course of action involves the following...

• We need to make it known far and wide that we are going to make immigration reform a priority (and then do so!). We must increased enforcement and re-evaluation of our laws). Illegal immigrants must know that they cannot continue as they are, but they must have hope for someday becoming a true U.S. citizen. With no hope they will continue hiding, trying to just mind their own business.
• We must force them to pay a penalty for the fact that they have indeed broken U.S. law (as well as paying any necessary back taxes for a period). There are plenty of laws that, when broken, incur no prison time, but require a fine as a penalty, I see this as a very valid application of such punishment.
• They must go through a legal immigration process that doesn't reward their illegal status (i.e. putting them at the head of the line). This would only encourage others to come illegally just to become a citizen faster than they could normally.
• We must help and encourage people to go through this process. This will relieve their burden and society's burden form the fact that they're living outside the system, and thus illegally. This is an extremely important point, because I certainly don't believe everyone wants things to just keep going as they are.

I know I am thinking too simplistically, but I think no action is a terrible thing. The process sucks right now, and we cannot continue to tacitly allow 12-14 million (some say 7-20million) to continue living in violation of established law.

I empathise for illegals, but to me that means nothing. I believe emotion greatly skews decision making (quite often with terrible unintended consequences). I see illegals' motivation to better their lives as a force that will do nothing if not help the U.S.

Comic From: WeTheRobots



I like this comic a lot. We should never teach our kids to do things just for the sake of doing them. I say this without having any kids of my own yet.

Anecdotally we hear that the kids causing the most trouble in school are the ones who are either way ahead and bored out of their gourd, or are way behind and feel like acting out is a way of sidestepping their supposed shortcomings. There are serious issues with our education system nowadays, and I think one of them is age stratification.

A child's mind goes through various developmental steps, beginning with basic tracking skills, understanding that the shapes they're seeing are "things", and understanding that when something is out of view it does indeed continue to exist. Another important step for a child is learning how to speak and converse. Looking back at the development of a child it does not atter one bit, at exactly what age these skills are masters (within reason obviously). If we are not in argument on this point, how are we to say that all children who will turn 7 between August 30, 2008 and August 30, 2009 must learn all of their shapes, numbers, and letters by May 5, 2009? This same line of logic goes for reading, mathematical, and memorization skills.

The Montessori method of teaching is not easy because it flies in the face of most everything we've been spoonfed growing up (at least if you went to a "traditional" school). From what I gather kids learn at their own pace and pursue areas of study agreed upon by student and teacher. Of course there will be subjects students may want to shy away from, but that is to be expected when dealing with true individuals.

This sounds great on paper, and I'm sure there are homeschooled people who would advocate such a system, but I wonder how difficult it is to run a school with this type of mentality? Would it require a tremendous increase in the teaching staff, or would the teachers be there to guide and not spoonfeed the information? There's a Montessori school nearby, I may have to stop by sometime to ask questions.

The Onion News Network

The Onion has always been a good standby for ridiculous newspaper style stories. Now they're also putting videos online under the name The Onion News Network. I have one word for you, "funny-as-hell".


Representative to Rid Congress of Gang Members:


The Onion: Live From Congress-The Skull Fucking Bill Of 2007


I love politics...

Are We Still Guilty if There's No Free Will?

Ruminations on the Reason Article (by Ronald Bailey: If There Is No Free Will, Is Everything Permitted?

Ronald Bailey discusses an article in the New York Times, by Eric Nagourney, which brings to light a study published in Psychological Science which posits a potential link between determinism (simply: no free will) and the propensity for study subjects to cheat.

I think this study quite plainly shows that determinism or free-will people cheat more when they think they can get away with it. I would argue also that there is the potential that a statement like, "Smart people say that free will is an illusion, " and, "It's not okay to cheat, but people cheat every day regardless," could have arguably the same result. Both seem to be a tacit approval of cheating behavior, this will be accentuated even more when people believe they can really get away with it (which was a definite part of the experiment). If it is through fate or if it is free-will that causes people cheat less when there are negative consequences and policing of cheating behavior, then it all works to the same end doesn't it? No, we're not let off the hook if we're just piles of predictable chemical reactions.

But let's talk about determinism some more, it's intriguing.

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) is well known for espousing the idea that we're just moist robots. He believes that quantum matter/interactions could end up being quite orderly (we just don't understand how yet). If quantum interactions are predictable and solely based on physical laws and causal relationships it could be inferred that all chemical and electrical interactions should be predictable as well. If you follow that line of thinking, our brains are just giant globs of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, whose end result is no more alterable than gravity itself. Given this extreme, we have no free will, as the end is already predetermined (so to speak).

The idea blows my mind. Everything in the world is indescribably complex and interconnected, yet when you get down to brass tacks, most everything behaves reasonably. There's no reason to believe that suddenly in 2008 we've hit the brick wall and nothing else will be figured out in the world of quantum mechanics. This general optimism leads me to believe that we'll uncover heretofore unimaginable complexities of matter that, in my opinion, will eventually be determined as orderly.

What's really cool about this idea is that, since the big bang, I have been destined to write this post. You have been destined to read this post. And I am destined to bang your mom tonight...

Making it in America

Building a Life on $25 and a Gym Bag a story of how Adam Shepard does in fact show that hard work alone can lead to a sustainable lifestyle regardless of starting with no money, no car, no job skills, and no house/apartment.

This recent college grad's success flies in the face of a book I was forced to read in college: Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. In this book, Barbara Ehrenreich's posits that people cannot pull themselves out of the middle/lower class as easily as one might think. Her book is about her living the life of a lower class working person, and trying to make due (similarly to Adam's experiment, only she started with $1300 and a car). She also did not rely on her academic background or job skills, working generally menial labor type positions.

This is a popular book in lower level sociology classes (I had to read in college), and my guess is that professors are trying to expose their well-off students to the dark dingy world of the lower class via required reading. With my near obsessive bias towards self reliance, I saw this book as a masturbatory exercise in pity, defeat, and self-loathing. She was never able to make a sustainable living despite the fact that she started her project with her car and $1300 in savings.

Thank Xenu that someone finally took a dump on "Nickel and Dimed". I have been complaining about this book to a number of my friends for some time. I hate the idea that there is absolutely nothing someone can do to improve their lot in life. Despite the fact that everyone is born with different skills, I argue that everyone has the ability to work hard and gradually increase their standard of living. Granted, on minimum wage I doubt you'll have your own apartment with cable and internet, but given the right mindset and reasonable spending habits, there is no reason why nearly anyone (short of serious medical debilitation) should be able to be self sufficient.

Tell me what you think. Did Adam prove a decent point in working up from nothing decent living in 10 months? Is Barbara right in thinking that there is no help for the lower class beyond increasing minimum wages out of our sense of good will? Is it good or bad for a society to have a system ni which someone can live comfortably and not work?