I have been following the global warming debate for a long time even if until recently it has been rather one sided. In the 1990s I believed that the potential for global warming as a result of the greenhouse effect was a real concern. The science seemed to make sense and it was evident that eventually it would become a problem. I must confess I am no longer so sure; therefore I thought it might be fun to look at global warming from all angles and see what we find.
Working through this topic is not going to be easy. The amount of information and data is not trivial. Consider for a moment the concept of measuring global temperatures. How many data points do you need and where do you take your measurements. Since you can not take measurements everywhere all the time you are forced to take a sample. Suppose you decide to take temperature measurements every hour at a thousand different stations. Would that be representative of the entire planet? Most of the earth’s surface is ocean so should most of our temperature measurements be made above the oceans? What I am leading up to is that before you can make any statements about your measurements, you have to prove that the method you use to make the measurements is valid. Then you have to prove that those measurements are representative of the entire planet within a margin of error small enough to detect significant differences over time with some degree of confidence. There is also bias to consider but I think we can let that go for another day.
The alarmists like to point to anecdotal evidence such as melting polar ice and destructive storms like Katrina to support their position. They predicted a horrific Atlantic hurricane season last year that never materialized. It would be very convenient to state that the melting ice proves global warming is occurring and equally convenient to state that the failure to correctly predict the hurricane season last year proves otherwise.
However, this is science and not politics. You can’t pick and choose the data you like or dismiss predictions that fail to happen. Science is a tough game and saying that the issue is settled because you have more people on your side is ludicrous. In the late 1800s the idea that the atoms in compounds like sodium chloride would dissociate into ions when dissolved in water was considered absurd. And yet, the 1884 thesis making this statement won its author Svante August Arrhenius a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1903.
I generally admire a person who supports their position with passion even if I disagree with them. Do I disagree with the idea of global warming? No. Do I disagree with global warming alarmists like Al Gore? Absolutely yes. When these zealots covered their ears with their hands and went, “La la la la…” to drown out those who disagreed with them I changed sides. What Al Gore and his followers is selling is not science. Some have called it socialism hidden in a cloak of environmentalism and maybe that is true. But that is not the issue here. What we need to sort out is the science part of global warming with neither the politics nor the religious fervor of the global warming activists.
If it turns out there is a problem then we think it through and try to find a solution that is both effective and affordable.
At the end of this exercise I may find myself doing a 180ยบ turn on this issue provided the numbers shake out that way. As Richard Feynman once said, “Nature can not be fooled”.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
First Amendment Rights
During a recent visit to our public library I was treated to a remarkable spectacle that illustrates how one can remain illiterate while surrounded by books. While navigating amongst the bookshelves in the library I observed three boys, perhaps 13 to 15 years old, huddled around a library supplied laptop computer in the reference section.
Curious about what could render three adolescent boys motionless for so long I walked over until I could clearly see that they were watching a video showing a woman performing oral sex on some guy. Cartoons and comics always depict boys watching pornographic images with a wide eyed stare; and I am here to tell you it is real. They were truly spellbound by the visual candy in front of them and oblivious to the rest of the world. The slack jaw on the youngest boy suggests that his more experienced and learned friends were providing him with an important part of his education. When he starts dating we certainly know what will be on his mind all evening.
When I mentioned this to the librarian while checking out my books she reacted as if I had told her that no one had dusted the windowsills recently. She said something about it being the parents’ responsibility, that there wasn’t anything they could really do, and besides, and here it comes, it is protected by the first amendment. Can you imagine James Madison, pen in hand, facing Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and asking, “Do you think we need a new amendment to protect pornography or do you think the first amendment pretty much covers it?”
You can’t help but wonder how adult men sworn to uphold the Constitution can give their seal of approval to McCain-Feingold, the type of law the first amendment was specifically designed to prevent, and still maintain a straight face as they justify their ruling that pornography, including virtual child pornography, deserves protection under the first amendment. If I sat on the Supreme Court and faced a case involving pornography I would point to the tenth amendment and throw the lawyers out of my court room.
As an aside even though I find flag burning to be far more offensive than pornography, I believe it is protected by the first amendment since it is a political statement. If someone is so passionate in their hatred of America that they feel a need to desecrate its flag they may do so without government interference. This can be a topic for another day; so let me get back to the original subject.
Within a week of this event the local newspaper carried a story about a teenage girl being inappropriately touched by a boy in the library. Now where do boys get such ideas? Parents would be wise to take note of how their children improve their minds in public libraries that give unlimited access to the internet. Most parents would probably agree that this is not the best utilization of library resources.
Given that pornography websites are notorious for carrying malware, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the library to block such sites since ultimately the taxpayer will be responsible for the cost of restoring a compromised system. If anyone feels the need for entertaining themselves with pornography they should do it on their own system and not a publicly funded one.
Curious about what could render three adolescent boys motionless for so long I walked over until I could clearly see that they were watching a video showing a woman performing oral sex on some guy. Cartoons and comics always depict boys watching pornographic images with a wide eyed stare; and I am here to tell you it is real. They were truly spellbound by the visual candy in front of them and oblivious to the rest of the world. The slack jaw on the youngest boy suggests that his more experienced and learned friends were providing him with an important part of his education. When he starts dating we certainly know what will be on his mind all evening.
When I mentioned this to the librarian while checking out my books she reacted as if I had told her that no one had dusted the windowsills recently. She said something about it being the parents’ responsibility, that there wasn’t anything they could really do, and besides, and here it comes, it is protected by the first amendment. Can you imagine James Madison, pen in hand, facing Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and asking, “Do you think we need a new amendment to protect pornography or do you think the first amendment pretty much covers it?”
You can’t help but wonder how adult men sworn to uphold the Constitution can give their seal of approval to McCain-Feingold, the type of law the first amendment was specifically designed to prevent, and still maintain a straight face as they justify their ruling that pornography, including virtual child pornography, deserves protection under the first amendment. If I sat on the Supreme Court and faced a case involving pornography I would point to the tenth amendment and throw the lawyers out of my court room.
As an aside even though I find flag burning to be far more offensive than pornography, I believe it is protected by the first amendment since it is a political statement. If someone is so passionate in their hatred of America that they feel a need to desecrate its flag they may do so without government interference. This can be a topic for another day; so let me get back to the original subject.
Within a week of this event the local newspaper carried a story about a teenage girl being inappropriately touched by a boy in the library. Now where do boys get such ideas? Parents would be wise to take note of how their children improve their minds in public libraries that give unlimited access to the internet. Most parents would probably agree that this is not the best utilization of library resources.
Given that pornography websites are notorious for carrying malware, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the library to block such sites since ultimately the taxpayer will be responsible for the cost of restoring a compromised system. If anyone feels the need for entertaining themselves with pornography they should do it on their own system and not a publicly funded one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)