Climate change and energy independence are both matters of scale which can create a paradox if you let them. Maybe I have been reading to many statistical blogs, but the paradox thing fascinates me.
How much is too much can lead to a paradox if the definition of too much does not make enough sense to enough people. Too much can be defined overly precise so that people get lost in all the possibilities. It can also be too vague so that no action will seem logical to the majority of people. The weird thing is that climate change and energy independence both suffer from too precise and too vague definitions, which is a paradox of a paradox.
The matter of scale is a precision that confuses average people all the time that just adds to the problem. It makes it more difficult to simplify the understanding of the problems that lead to the perception of a paradox.
God awful big numbers and unfamiliar units, prefixes etc. immediately make understanding difficult. The bullshit detector has tools to help you grasp some of the basics needed to understand the situation, but most people really don't have the time to even brush up on the fair simple things we slept through in high school. So people tend to accept things they don't understand which leads to being mislead.
Nuclear energy suffers greatly from people being mislead. There are risks in every type of energy, but the more misunderstood risks are scary and so complicated to communicate, that people avoid them even if they are less risky. This sounds like double speak, but try to keep listening.
People think about the "China Syndrome" when the conversation turns to nuclear energy and oppose nuclear because of a movie. Some of those same people will play the lottery. The odds of winning the lottery vary, but 1 in 140 million is not usual for a few million dollar prize. The odds of a "China Syndrome" event are zero. The term was coined as what could be that absolute worst thing that could happen in a nuclear reactor, regardless of how improbable. A frustrated nuclear physicist said the core could burn all the way through the Earth and end up in China. You should note that he did not say that the core could explode like an a-bomb, because that is even more unlikely. So a chance in Hell may be larger than no chance in Hell. You have infinitely greater odds of winning the lottery than there being a "China Syndrome" event.
Are there risks in using nuclear energy that mean something? Of course and they range from no big deal to serious like anything else. It is just a technology that is unfamiliar to the majority of people.
Exposure to radiation is a risk with a high possibility of occurring. All radiation though is not created equal. I talked before about alpha and beta emitters. These are the two most likely types of radiation people near the reactor will be exposed to.
Alpha particles are the largest form of radiation particle that you might be exposed to. They are two protons and two neutrons like the core of a helium atom. The fuel used for the reactor is an alpha particle emitter. Just about anything will stop an alpha particle, a sheet of paper or a pair of gloves will shield you. You may have seen pictures of uranium pellets being held by someone with gloves. Television and movies have scary story lines where some bad guy is smuggling plutonium and they end up getting sick because they were stupid enough to smuggle the radioactive material in their briefcase. It is a fictional story meant to be entertaining not real though. You probably have some plutonium or Americium in your house. It is part of your smoke detector. Most of the dreaded nuclear waste is spent fuel which is an alpha particle emitter. Do you run in fear when you see a semi that may be loaded with smoke detectors?
Beta particles are smaller than the alpha particles. They are free electrons and more dangerous than alpha particles. Potassium 40 is a beta particle emitter. You can see the post on the banana radioactive scale for more information. Since electrons are smaller they are more difficult to stop. You are likely to be exposed to beta particles if you work around a nuclear power plant. Then you are exposed to beta particles every day. They are a part of nearly every thing you use, drink or eat. Old style television set emitted beta particles. That is why you use to be told not to sit too close to the television. The water you drink, the bananas you eat contain element that are a beta particle emitters. If you plan to smuggle some radioactive beta particle emitters you should buy one of the aluminum briefcases to shield yourself from the "BETA Rays"
I didn't mention Gamma rays because you are unlikely to be exposed to gamma rays working or living near a nuclear power plant. Unless you really get confused and walk into the containment vessel while the reactor is running. Power plants make that pretty hard to do.
Nuclear power plants are allowed to vent a small amount of radiation. The limits are much less than the background radiation you are exposed to every day. So there is nearly a 100% chance that working in a nuclear power plant you would be exposed to some radiation produced at the plant. I may later go into the risks of different accidents happening at a nuclear power plant, but for this post I will stop here.
The paradox here is that misinformation and poor communications cause a valuable clean energy to be shunned. Explaining the actual risks and limits that should be assigned to the risks is nearly impossible. Explaining that the average on the job exposure to harmful radiation is four or more times greater for an airline flight crew than a nuclear power plant worker is lost because of irrational unfounded fears. There are real risks and precautions required for nuclear safety, but the conversation never gets there without basic understanding first.
Now, people will have to accept nuclear energy, but the additional unwarranted restrictions because of the unfounded fears will drive the cost much higher. The scale of the real risk is lost.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Why are Engineers Often Skeptics of Climate Change?
If you do a survey of the professions of skeptics of man made Climate Change you will find that there is a large number of engineers and statisticians that consider themselves skeptics or lukewarmers. I can't speak for them all, but engineers use proven science to do their jobs. They don't risk customers money on unproven designs. Some will push limits, but not without a reasonable margin of error or safety factor. It is bad for business to screw up. Limiting the probability and possible magnitude of your screw ups is sound engineering practice.
There is a lot of complex statistics involved in climate science, so there are many statisticians that are not only interested in climate science, but understand a great deal of the complexity of determining the degree of expected warming. Economists are also well versed in statistics and are interested in the economics and economic impact of climate change.
So convincing these professionals that will be most involved in dealing with various aspects of climate change, would seem to be an important issue for climate scientists. The climate scientists are not doing a very good job communicating their facts with these groups.
The worst thing a climate scientist can do in the eyes of these professionals is screw up their math and not deal with it logically and with some humility. Engineers and statisticians know about screw ups and good ones know how to deal with them. For some odd reason this is totally lost on most of the more outspoken climate scientists. They will NEVER earn the respect of these professionals attempting to baffle them with bullshit.
So if you know an engineer or statistician, you may want to ask their opinion on the climate change debate.
There is a lot of complex statistics involved in climate science, so there are many statisticians that are not only interested in climate science, but understand a great deal of the complexity of determining the degree of expected warming. Economists are also well versed in statistics and are interested in the economics and economic impact of climate change.
So convincing these professionals that will be most involved in dealing with various aspects of climate change, would seem to be an important issue for climate scientists. The climate scientists are not doing a very good job communicating their facts with these groups.
The worst thing a climate scientist can do in the eyes of these professionals is screw up their math and not deal with it logically and with some humility. Engineers and statisticians know about screw ups and good ones know how to deal with them. For some odd reason this is totally lost on most of the more outspoken climate scientists. They will NEVER earn the respect of these professionals attempting to baffle them with bullshit.
So if you know an engineer or statistician, you may want to ask their opinion on the climate change debate.
Climate Science Puzzle
Since there has been a renewed interest in Probability Puzzles, like Monty Hall, Boy Born Tuesday and the Letter Paradox. Also there has been the issue raised before the US Congress about unfalsifiable hypotheses, I decided to combine the two:
Here is the Dallas theory of Extreme Weather Events related to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The polar regions are more susceptible to the warming due to CO2 increases due to dryer air and more space for warming (i.e. it is colder at the poles, so they can warm more). The tropical regions are less susceptible to the higher CO2 concentration since water vapor is by far the dominate GHG in this region, so proportionally, much lower warming will be evident. The impact will be a reduced temperature differential between the poles and equator, which will reduce the strength of atmospheric oscillations, there by reducing the frequency of extreme weather events in the higher latitudes.
Tropical cyclones will become more limited to lower latitudes as the polar/equatorial differential decreases. By the year 2125, blizzards will become a rare and exciting event.
Without abusing the laws of thermodynamic too much, falsify my hypothesis. The comment thing should be working now.
Here is the Dallas theory of Extreme Weather Events related to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The polar regions are more susceptible to the warming due to CO2 increases due to dryer air and more space for warming (i.e. it is colder at the poles, so they can warm more). The tropical regions are less susceptible to the higher CO2 concentration since water vapor is by far the dominate GHG in this region, so proportionally, much lower warming will be evident. The impact will be a reduced temperature differential between the poles and equator, which will reduce the strength of atmospheric oscillations, there by reducing the frequency of extreme weather events in the higher latitudes.
Tropical cyclones will become more limited to lower latitudes as the polar/equatorial differential decreases. By the year 2125, blizzards will become a rare and exciting event.
Without abusing the laws of thermodynamic too much, falsify my hypothesis. The comment thing should be working now.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Predicting Future Climate - the Decade Version
Predicting climate decades and longer in the future is nearly impossible. Not that a rough estimate is impossible, but enough accuracy to be useful is not an easy job. There is enough unknowns to drive most people batty. While most on the skeptic side will disagree with me, there is some hope for regional climate predictions in longer terms. Versions of chaos mathematics do hold some promise for the future of climate prediction. Trust me, I am far from scratching the surface understanding how to use chaos math. If it is any consolation, most PhD's are in the same boat.
There are a few math geeks out there that understand Chaos Theory enough to make some sense out of what happens in our atmosphere. I use geeks, as an affection term, but face it you have to be pretty geeky to get chaos theory. A. A. Tsonis is one that really seems to be on the right track. I read my first Tsonis paper, A Dynamical Method for Predicting Climate Shifts, about three years ago. It has taken me most of that time to understand what the heck he was talking about. Basically, using a hybridized combination of network analysis and basic chaos theory he was able to use atmospheric pressure measurement from satellites to see synchronization of climate oscillations which triggered climate shifts. The paper is not definitive, but it is a good start. Good enough that other scientists are picking up the ball.
His results match pretty well what I thought was going on. I guess that makes me a geek too. So geeky, I actually understand more about the complex statistics involved in time series analysis that I ever cared to understand. One thing I avoided like the plague in college was statistics! No, I will never be anything close to a statistician, but do understand how easy it is to screw up and basic ways to see how bad you screwed up.
Anyway, I may just go back to some of my unfinished posts and update them with research from real scientists that are on the same page, just much better at it.
There are a few math geeks out there that understand Chaos Theory enough to make some sense out of what happens in our atmosphere. I use geeks, as an affection term, but face it you have to be pretty geeky to get chaos theory. A. A. Tsonis is one that really seems to be on the right track. I read my first Tsonis paper, A Dynamical Method for Predicting Climate Shifts, about three years ago. It has taken me most of that time to understand what the heck he was talking about. Basically, using a hybridized combination of network analysis and basic chaos theory he was able to use atmospheric pressure measurement from satellites to see synchronization of climate oscillations which triggered climate shifts. The paper is not definitive, but it is a good start. Good enough that other scientists are picking up the ball.
His results match pretty well what I thought was going on. I guess that makes me a geek too. So geeky, I actually understand more about the complex statistics involved in time series analysis that I ever cared to understand. One thing I avoided like the plague in college was statistics! No, I will never be anything close to a statistician, but do understand how easy it is to screw up and basic ways to see how bad you screwed up.
Anyway, I may just go back to some of my unfinished posts and update them with research from real scientists that are on the same page, just much better at it.
Ethics in Climate Science
As a blog writer and part time freelance writer, I guess I am more sensitive to plagiarism and other copyright infringement. I have a number of articles stolen. It kinda hacks me off. So I may be a bit of a Don Quixote tilting at ethical windmills. The situation below really hacked me off:
In, Can the United States Government Steal Your Intellectual Property, two points were tried to be made, the theft - copyright infringement and ethical misbehavior by government employed climate scientists. To reduce confusion we will separate the two:
The Theft
Anthony Watts a semi-retired meteorologist started a grass root effort to survey the condition and siting of the surface weather stations in the United States, believing that poor siting could produce significant errors in the temperature data used to evaluate global warming. Volunteers were used to collect data for the surfacestations.org survey. The collection site had properly maintained notice of copyright and published intent of use for the data collected. Toward the completion of the survey, the station data was used by scientists working for the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), a branch the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) before Mr. Anthony Watts, could publish his work. The actions of the NCDC employees constitutes copyright infringement, which a theft of intellectual property.
Scientists at NCDC stole the data and a scientist, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) believes there was no theft because data is not protected by copyright once published.
Should Mr. Watts have any expectation of protection of his unique research from employees of the United States Government?
“In the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compilation work such as a database must contain a minimum level of creativity in order to be protectable under the Copyright Act.” [1]
This ruling differentiated protected versus unprotected databases like the telephone white pages (unprotected) and the yellow pages (protected). So what is a minimal level of creativity for a database to legally be considered a “creative database”? Inclusion of graphics of any kind is enough to make the database creative. Graphics have a separate distinction in copyright law.
Mr. Watts' creative database was a pictorial survey of the weather stations. Each photograph is afforded copyright protection. The collection of the photographs in the survey form a creative database that the supreme court has ruled is protected under the Copyright Act. Even without a copyright notification on the site, the creative data and each photograph is protected since the United States joined in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. [2]
While the database has copyright protection there are “fair use” rules that allow educators, journalists and others, limited rights to uses portions of copyright protected works. From Wikipedia, “While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas.” [3] The NCDC could have assumed their use was allowable as “fair use”.
Since Mr. Watts' compilation was creative he should have expected legal protection for database. Some of Mr. Watts' survey was used by the NCDC under fair use and what Mr. Watts assumed was an agreement in principal to publish a joint paper. Mr. Watts protested that use after the NCDC published a paper that came as a surprise to Mr. Watts.
“The appearance of the Menne et al 2010 paper was a bit of a surprise, since I had been offered collaboration by NCDC’s director in the fall. In typed letter on 9/22/09 Tom Karl wrote to me:
“We at NOAA/NCDC seek a way forward to cooperate with you, and are interested in joint scientific inquiry. When more or better information is available, we will reanalyze and compare and contrast the results.”
“If working together cooperatively is of interest to you, please let us know.” “[4]
Mr. Watts offered to include the NCDC as collaborator in his (Watts et al.) paper:
“On November 10th, 2009, I sent a reply letter via Federal Express to Mr. Karl, advising him that we would like to collaborate, and offered to include NCDC in our paper.. In that letter I also reiterated my concerns about use of the preliminary surfacestation data (43% surveyed) that they had, and spelled out very specific reasons why I didn’t think the results would be representative nor useful.
We all waited, but there was no reply from NCDC to our reply to offer of collaboration by Mr. Karl from his last letter. Not even a “thank you, but no”.[4]
Fair use would not apply in this case since the Menne et al could not be considered a criticism as there was no published paper to critic. Teaching, scholarship and research would not have benefited from the Menne et al paper unless their paper was intended to show an extreme example of poor academic conduct. Stealing data prior to the publishing of a scholarly paper is not fair use if the stole data is used to preemptively publish a scholarly paper. That would be the antithesis of fair use!
Dr. Roger Pielki, Sr. wrote a post on his blog, Climate Science: Dr. Roger Pielki, Sr., containing the following:
“The publication of the Menne et al 2010 paper violates the professional courtesy that is standard practice by other scientific groups. We had even offered them co-authorship on our papers, so that we can benefit from their scientific expertise and they can benefit from ours. They refused.
This failure by NCDC to honor professional standards is just another example of the lack of accepted professional standards at this federal climate laboratory. They should have joined us in a paper, or, as an appropriate alternative, waited until we published and then complete their analysis.” [5]
The NCDC continued to use Mr. Watts copyright protected data despite the valid protests lodged concerning the Menne et al 2010 paper. More Dirty Pool by NCDC's Karl, Menne and Peterson, was posted by Mr. Watts on September 23, 2010 over more violations of copyright. [6]
Mr. Watts complained of use and attribution was added after the fact by Menne et al. Mr. Watts stated on his blog, “Of course I could have been a jerk about it and demanded all sorts actions via formal complaints, copyright claims, etc. But I didn’t. It simply didn’t rise to that level.”[7]
Had Mr. Watts not been so kind, the courts would have had the final say as to how “fair” NCDC's interpretation of fair use actually is. Can the United States Government Steal Your Intellectual Property? Yes, at least until the courts straighten out NCDC employee's warped understanding of the Copyright Act of 1976.
[1] http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
[4] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
[5] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center
[6] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/more-dirty-pool-by-ncdcs-karl-menne-and-peterson/
[7] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/how-to-solve-attribution-conflicts-in-climate-science/
In, Can the United States Government Steal Your Intellectual Property, two points were tried to be made, the theft - copyright infringement and ethical misbehavior by government employed climate scientists. To reduce confusion we will separate the two:
The Theft
Anthony Watts a semi-retired meteorologist started a grass root effort to survey the condition and siting of the surface weather stations in the United States, believing that poor siting could produce significant errors in the temperature data used to evaluate global warming. Volunteers were used to collect data for the surfacestations.org survey. The collection site had properly maintained notice of copyright and published intent of use for the data collected. Toward the completion of the survey, the station data was used by scientists working for the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), a branch the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) before Mr. Anthony Watts, could publish his work. The actions of the NCDC employees constitutes copyright infringement, which a theft of intellectual property.
Scientists at NCDC stole the data and a scientist, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) believes there was no theft because data is not protected by copyright once published.
Should Mr. Watts have any expectation of protection of his unique research from employees of the United States Government?
“In the case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a compilation work such as a database must contain a minimum level of creativity in order to be protectable under the Copyright Act.” [1]
This ruling differentiated protected versus unprotected databases like the telephone white pages (unprotected) and the yellow pages (protected). So what is a minimal level of creativity for a database to legally be considered a “creative database”? Inclusion of graphics of any kind is enough to make the database creative. Graphics have a separate distinction in copyright law.
Mr. Watts' creative database was a pictorial survey of the weather stations. Each photograph is afforded copyright protection. The collection of the photographs in the survey form a creative database that the supreme court has ruled is protected under the Copyright Act. Even without a copyright notification on the site, the creative data and each photograph is protected since the United States joined in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. [2]
While the database has copyright protection there are “fair use” rules that allow educators, journalists and others, limited rights to uses portions of copyright protected works. From Wikipedia, “While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas.” [3] The NCDC could have assumed their use was allowable as “fair use”.
Since Mr. Watts' compilation was creative he should have expected legal protection for database. Some of Mr. Watts' survey was used by the NCDC under fair use and what Mr. Watts assumed was an agreement in principal to publish a joint paper. Mr. Watts protested that use after the NCDC published a paper that came as a surprise to Mr. Watts.
“The appearance of the Menne et al 2010 paper was a bit of a surprise, since I had been offered collaboration by NCDC’s director in the fall. In typed letter on 9/22/09 Tom Karl wrote to me:
“We at NOAA/NCDC seek a way forward to cooperate with you, and are interested in joint scientific inquiry. When more or better information is available, we will reanalyze and compare and contrast the results.”
“If working together cooperatively is of interest to you, please let us know.” “[4]
Mr. Watts offered to include the NCDC as collaborator in his (Watts et al.) paper:
“On November 10th, 2009, I sent a reply letter via Federal Express to Mr. Karl, advising him that we would like to collaborate, and offered to include NCDC in our paper.. In that letter I also reiterated my concerns about use of the preliminary surfacestation data (43% surveyed) that they had, and spelled out very specific reasons why I didn’t think the results would be representative nor useful.
We all waited, but there was no reply from NCDC to our reply to offer of collaboration by Mr. Karl from his last letter. Not even a “thank you, but no”.[4]
Fair use would not apply in this case since the Menne et al could not be considered a criticism as there was no published paper to critic. Teaching, scholarship and research would not have benefited from the Menne et al paper unless their paper was intended to show an extreme example of poor academic conduct. Stealing data prior to the publishing of a scholarly paper is not fair use if the stole data is used to preemptively publish a scholarly paper. That would be the antithesis of fair use!
Dr. Roger Pielki, Sr. wrote a post on his blog, Climate Science: Dr. Roger Pielki, Sr., containing the following:
“The publication of the Menne et al 2010 paper violates the professional courtesy that is standard practice by other scientific groups. We had even offered them co-authorship on our papers, so that we can benefit from their scientific expertise and they can benefit from ours. They refused.
This failure by NCDC to honor professional standards is just another example of the lack of accepted professional standards at this federal climate laboratory. They should have joined us in a paper, or, as an appropriate alternative, waited until we published and then complete their analysis.” [5]
The NCDC continued to use Mr. Watts copyright protected data despite the valid protests lodged concerning the Menne et al 2010 paper. More Dirty Pool by NCDC's Karl, Menne and Peterson, was posted by Mr. Watts on September 23, 2010 over more violations of copyright. [6]
Mr. Watts complained of use and attribution was added after the fact by Menne et al. Mr. Watts stated on his blog, “Of course I could have been a jerk about it and demanded all sorts actions via formal complaints, copyright claims, etc. But I didn’t. It simply didn’t rise to that level.”[7]
Had Mr. Watts not been so kind, the courts would have had the final say as to how “fair” NCDC's interpretation of fair use actually is. Can the United States Government Steal Your Intellectual Property? Yes, at least until the courts straighten out NCDC employee's warped understanding of the Copyright Act of 1976.
[1] http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
[4] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
[5] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/professional-discourtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center
[6] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/more-dirty-pool-by-ncdcs-karl-menne-and-peterson/
[7] http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/how-to-solve-attribution-conflicts-in-climate-science/
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Lables - What's in a Name?
Every debate seems to boil down to the label of the debaters. Whether real or perceived, the labels get in the way of agreement. What label I feel best applies to me is not the label most often applied to me. It really confuses the issue.
Personally, I feel I am a realist. Most often I am considered conservative, republican or sometimes libertarian. Independent was once my preferred label, but H. Ross Perot, was not someone I wished to be associated with. Nothing person, I just don't get into the paranoia scene.
Politically, I tend to vote for gridlock. With no mandate, politicians generally can do less damage. I did not vote for Obama because the junior senator from the great state of Illinois did not impress me. Illinois, like Louisiana, doesn't inspire political integrity in my thinking. People with limited political clout are generally beholding to people with political clout should they win office. So who pulls Obama's strings is my question, not his race, education or religion. Since he has similar experience as Sarah Palin, there was no good choice this last election.
Presidents though get both more credit and blame than they deserve. This country has survived more than one president that discovered the Peter principal while in office and will undoubtedly survive more. Occasionally, circumstances converge and the US does incredibly wonderful or stupid things. Currently, climate change, energy resources and economic reality are converging to force action that will fall into one of those categories.
When that happens, labels should be more clearly defined or stupidity will win the day. Environmentalists, conservationists, naturalists and pragmatists all have common goals, but different approaches to reaching those goals. If they join forces under one label, realist, they can effect positive change. Environmentalists generally despise conservationists that include hunters. Hunters though have put their money where their mouth is and helped preserve and rebuild natural habitat for the game animals they pursue. Environmentalists have used passive and not so passive resistance to obtain their goals without realizing their work only opened other equally objectionable options for their cause. They are often passionate people driven by their hearts instead of their minds. The Penn and Teller Di-hydrogen monoxide skit clearly shows that heart is no replacement for rational thought.
Any group can cite cases of another group's futility as long as they can keep the blinders on to avoid seeing their own limitations. Realists have to remove those blinders and honestly look at all the facts not just the comfortable ones. Perhaps our political society needs a twelve step program to overcome their addiction to self? I know that my country will never obtain political perfection, but can strive for political progress.
Universal health care is a wonderful goal. It can be obtained by expanding sliding scale health programs like the rural and community health networks. These health networks combine public, corporate and private support with reduced user fees, to provide reasonable quality health care. Expanding and improving an existing system is much more cost effective that attempting wholesale change of existing systems. That is realism.
Energy independence can also be obtain by expanding on existing systems with improvements in efficiency and blending improved technologies in as they prove their worth. Radical wholesale change is ineffective and costly. That is realism.
Perhaps twelve step program to help restore their realism based on the twelve steps for Climaholics?
Climaholics Anonymous Twelve Steps to Recovery
1. We admitted we were powerless over the climate change debate—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Statistical Method greater than own could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Statistics as we understood Them.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our hypotheses.
5. Admitted to Statistics, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our misunderstandings.
6. Were entirely ready to have Statistics remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Statistics to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed with abuse of Statistics, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure their or other's scientific credibility.
10. Continued to take personal Statistical inventory and when we were spurious promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through blogs and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Statistics as we understood Them, blogging only for knowledge of Their will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a Statistical awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to Climaholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Personally, I feel I am a realist. Most often I am considered conservative, republican or sometimes libertarian. Independent was once my preferred label, but H. Ross Perot, was not someone I wished to be associated with. Nothing person, I just don't get into the paranoia scene.
Politically, I tend to vote for gridlock. With no mandate, politicians generally can do less damage. I did not vote for Obama because the junior senator from the great state of Illinois did not impress me. Illinois, like Louisiana, doesn't inspire political integrity in my thinking. People with limited political clout are generally beholding to people with political clout should they win office. So who pulls Obama's strings is my question, not his race, education or religion. Since he has similar experience as Sarah Palin, there was no good choice this last election.
Presidents though get both more credit and blame than they deserve. This country has survived more than one president that discovered the Peter principal while in office and will undoubtedly survive more. Occasionally, circumstances converge and the US does incredibly wonderful or stupid things. Currently, climate change, energy resources and economic reality are converging to force action that will fall into one of those categories.
When that happens, labels should be more clearly defined or stupidity will win the day. Environmentalists, conservationists, naturalists and pragmatists all have common goals, but different approaches to reaching those goals. If they join forces under one label, realist, they can effect positive change. Environmentalists generally despise conservationists that include hunters. Hunters though have put their money where their mouth is and helped preserve and rebuild natural habitat for the game animals they pursue. Environmentalists have used passive and not so passive resistance to obtain their goals without realizing their work only opened other equally objectionable options for their cause. They are often passionate people driven by their hearts instead of their minds. The Penn and Teller Di-hydrogen monoxide skit clearly shows that heart is no replacement for rational thought.
Any group can cite cases of another group's futility as long as they can keep the blinders on to avoid seeing their own limitations. Realists have to remove those blinders and honestly look at all the facts not just the comfortable ones. Perhaps our political society needs a twelve step program to overcome their addiction to self? I know that my country will never obtain political perfection, but can strive for political progress.
Universal health care is a wonderful goal. It can be obtained by expanding sliding scale health programs like the rural and community health networks. These health networks combine public, corporate and private support with reduced user fees, to provide reasonable quality health care. Expanding and improving an existing system is much more cost effective that attempting wholesale change of existing systems. That is realism.
Energy independence can also be obtain by expanding on existing systems with improvements in efficiency and blending improved technologies in as they prove their worth. Radical wholesale change is ineffective and costly. That is realism.
Perhaps twelve step program to help restore their realism based on the twelve steps for Climaholics?
Climaholics Anonymous Twelve Steps to Recovery
1. We admitted we were powerless over the climate change debate—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Statistical Method greater than own could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Statistics as we understood Them.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of our hypotheses.
5. Admitted to Statistics, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our misunderstandings.
6. Were entirely ready to have Statistics remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Statistics to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed with abuse of Statistics, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure their or other's scientific credibility.
10. Continued to take personal Statistical inventory and when we were spurious promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through blogs and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Statistics as we understood Them, blogging only for knowledge of Their will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a Statistical awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to Climaholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The War of the Posers?
There are a lot of climate change and alternate energy blogs. Few really show both sides of the War of the Posers. I call it posers because with so much uncertainty, posed solutions to posed problems, pose more problems. Dr. Judith Curry's Climate Etc. blog turns into a free for all with posers of different levels of understanding fighting over tidbits.
Changing to a Utopian world is not going to happen. Everyone can't be right nor get their way. Something has to give. Her latest post, Long Death (?) of Environmentalism is developing into an excellent example of the problem.
The speech she references is a pretty pragmatic summation of the situation. It has both sides disagreeing which means it is right on point. There will be no warm and fuzzy solution to the problems real or perceived. If a solution is reached, it will be the greatest compromise of all time. I honestly believe that.
I have been promoting alternate energies in a way I feel is pragmatic. The authors of the speech seem to share my thoughts. A good many rational people share these thoughts to varying degrees as well. A blend of technologies, reasonable expansion of mass transit and and economically sound policy.
Whether you understand the real debate and can filter out the nonsense or not, as a voting member of the human race you should accept that change has to be made. Some of that change you will agree with and some you will not.
If you are a fan of wind energy, you have to realize that wind cannot replace coal totally. It has current limits and future limits that vary depending on policy decisions. Solar power has greater current limits and varying future limits. Some day solar could be a major player, but it is far from a perfect solution. Nuclear power has fewer current limits and varying future limits. Natural gas, coal, hydroelectric, electric cars and biomass all have limits.
To meet the needs of a coming 9 billion world population, change will be coming, hopefully changes that doesn't make everyone extremely unhappy, but undoubtedly changes that will not make everyone happy. The best we can hope for is equally dissatisfied. The great compromise.
That is not going to stop me from pushing hydrogen. Hydrogen and fuel cells make sense. It is less likely that hydrogen will be big anytime soon, since natural gas and gasification of coal, shale and other things are more acceptable to society as a whole, but hydrogen production is virtually unavoidable. It will be used, but not necessarily where I feel it makes the biggest bang for the buck, as a transportation fuel. I can dream though.
Anyway, try to set aside your personal bias for a moment and read the Curry post and the comments.
Changing to a Utopian world is not going to happen. Everyone can't be right nor get their way. Something has to give. Her latest post, Long Death (?) of Environmentalism is developing into an excellent example of the problem.
The speech she references is a pretty pragmatic summation of the situation. It has both sides disagreeing which means it is right on point. There will be no warm and fuzzy solution to the problems real or perceived. If a solution is reached, it will be the greatest compromise of all time. I honestly believe that.
I have been promoting alternate energies in a way I feel is pragmatic. The authors of the speech seem to share my thoughts. A good many rational people share these thoughts to varying degrees as well. A blend of technologies, reasonable expansion of mass transit and and economically sound policy.
Whether you understand the real debate and can filter out the nonsense or not, as a voting member of the human race you should accept that change has to be made. Some of that change you will agree with and some you will not.
If you are a fan of wind energy, you have to realize that wind cannot replace coal totally. It has current limits and future limits that vary depending on policy decisions. Solar power has greater current limits and varying future limits. Some day solar could be a major player, but it is far from a perfect solution. Nuclear power has fewer current limits and varying future limits. Natural gas, coal, hydroelectric, electric cars and biomass all have limits.
To meet the needs of a coming 9 billion world population, change will be coming, hopefully changes that doesn't make everyone extremely unhappy, but undoubtedly changes that will not make everyone happy. The best we can hope for is equally dissatisfied. The great compromise.
That is not going to stop me from pushing hydrogen. Hydrogen and fuel cells make sense. It is less likely that hydrogen will be big anytime soon, since natural gas and gasification of coal, shale and other things are more acceptable to society as a whole, but hydrogen production is virtually unavoidable. It will be used, but not necessarily where I feel it makes the biggest bang for the buck, as a transportation fuel. I can dream though.
Anyway, try to set aside your personal bias for a moment and read the Curry post and the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)