The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers.

Most large universities (such as the University of California) are government agencies. But you're still right.

However, that also means that they can't honestly claim that letting one controversial speaker speak is a matter of intellectual or academic freedom, or offered in the spirit of exposing people to different ideas while denying others the venue because of similar controversy. They should just say "we find these ideas more acceptable to us so we give them more of a platform" if that is the case. Or "Berkeley feminist groups are politically more powerful in the UC system than Jewish groups at Columbia" or whatever the various real reasons are.

The shame I feel for universities is that they ever cave to blocking speakers (and they do it all the time) because some group doesn't like what the speaker will say. Or, even worse, has said some time in the past.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Universities are not government agencies. They don't need to be consistent or even fair in their decision on speakers. What they need to be is free to decided for themselves who/what should be heard on their campus. If we the people do not agree with their choices then we get to vent about it, withhold our alumni checks, not send our kids there, etc....

Interestingly, this is how it will play out. No one stopped him from speaking or tried to use some legal means to prevent him from being heard.

I've heard it theorized that the reason for the rather scathing introduciton was because of repurcussions from wealthy alumni who said they were going to withhold further contributions should he be allowed a forum from which to speak at Columbia.

I'm still mixed on the whole thing. The man proved himself to be an idiot (for example, about the holocaust, he wanted to know where the dead bodies were, and the more publicized gay comments), but he also gained a huge deal of stature in the Middle East because he dared to go into the "lion's den", as I've read.

[Snowflake]

Yet in another series of verbal gaffes, I felt the need to post it here, though minor, still humerous.

[scaeagles]

A few random thoughts -

Situations like Burma make it more and more evident to me that it probably isn't possible for populations that want freedom and/or democracy to get it. Dictators are too brutal and the technological differences in combat capabilities and weaponry make forcable revolution impossible. It is no longer like it was in the mid to late 1700s, when farmers were almost as well armed as the British military.

I find it humorous that in the MSNBC debate none of the candidates (or at least front running candidates) would commit to having all troops out of iraq even in 5 years. "We don't know what the situation will be", yet some, such as Obama, are campaigning on bring the troops home now and how we shouldn't be there and how it is completely hopeless to try. Is this not inconsistent? Hillary and Kucinich (sp?) seem to be the only consistent ones on the issues, though completely opposite.

Representative Dingle wants to add a 50 cent gas tax to combat global warming. I still don't get the whole carbon scare, when only 3.4% or carbon in the atmosphere is produced by man, and carbon represents only about 6% of the overall greenhouse gas. 3.4% of 6% is only .2% of greenhouse gas.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Situations like Burma make it more and more evident to me that it probably isn't possible for populations that want freedom and/or democracy to get it. Dictators are too brutal and the technological differences in combat capabilities and weaponry make forcable revolution impossible. It is no longer like it was in the mid to late 1700s, when farmers were almost as well armed as the British military.

We wouldn't have won without the help of the French, period. Things aren't that much different. Rarely has a suppressed population on its own with no outside help risen to win its freedom. However, equally rarely, has providing outside help to a population that has not instigated its own revolution resulted in freedom. Whatever those odds, a successful revolution depends on there being a critical mass of people willing to, of their own accord, put their life on the line despite the risks and odds.

[Alex]

First, the base numbers in final sentence appear to be made up but have taken root among the popular press for those opposed to the idea of man made global warming. The correct number is not 3.4% but between 9% and 30%.

Also, the underlying assumption that all greenhouse gasses are the same is patently false. Not mentioned by you, but the claim that generally goes along with the 3.4% number is that water vapor comprises 95% of greenhouse gasses and since 99.9999% of that is natural no other cause can be seen as significant.

However, adding 1 million tons of water vapor to the air and 1 million tons of carbon do not have the same effect. Because water vapor does not cause global warming, it maintains it. Carbon dioxide, however, causes it. The amount of water vapor in the air is primarily a result of average global temperature and if too much gets in for a given temperature it will precipitate out and if too little more will evaporate and by this mechanism helps maintain the status quo.

But when something else forces an increase in warming the water vapor will adjust and help maintain that new equilibrium.

So, put a million tons more water in the air and you get a short term rise, some extra rain and then things settle back down. Put a million more tons of carbon (obviously these numbers are just made up for demonstration) and you get an increase in temperature, more evaporation, and a new equilibrium temperature.

I won't assume that you took your numbers directly from the Fox News Junk Science column that sprouted this easily debunked idea across the internets but rather hopefully from a more reputable source that simply repeated it.

This is kind of like a claim that turning down the gas flame under your water heater won't make your bath cooler because 99% of the heat in the system at any given time is contained within tank water.

Also implicit in your post is that a large gas tax would only fight carbon emissions. It would do that directly by presumably reducing demand for gasoline (though I bet it wouldn't really) but ignores the fact that the government then has billions of dollars it can direct to fighting other pressures producing global climate change.

I'm skeptical of many of the grander claims made in the global warming argument, but both sides need to base claims on something demonstrably legitimate and I think the moderate voices of doom do a much better job of that on this particular issue.

[scaeagles]

OK - let's split the 9% and 30% and go with 19.5%.

6% of 19.5% is still only just over 1% of all greenhouse gases. Looking at carbon only, if we cut that by half to 10%, which would be an incredibly huge (and likely impossbile) undertaking, we still hardly touch the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

I find the whole concept of fighting global warming to be ridiculous, as I see global warming as not man caused and therefore not able to be remedied by man. Historically there have been major warming periods far before man burned his first fossil fuel.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

OK - let's split the 9% and 30% and go with 19.5%.

6% of 19.5% is still only just over 1% of all greenhouse gases.

You're missing the point. Not all greenhouse gasses cause warming if the amount present in the atmosphere increases. Water vapor, for example, does not cause long term warming. So when talking about factors changing the global temperature, if you can ignore water vapor then then remaining X percent of gasses are what you need to reduce if you want to try and prevent additional increases. And carbon is a very large percentage of the change causing gasses.

The source of your numbers is being willfully ignorant of the actual processes involved (and also using made up numbers).

Another analogy: a bacterial infection is causing a fever of 102 degrees. That is only a 3% contribution to the overall body temperature. Do you not fight the infection because the digestive system is responsible for 97% of the body's temperature?

Of course not, because even though it is small that 3% has huge repercussions. You're smart enough to know that increases in input do not necessarily produce linear increases in output and that closed systems can show large changes from minor perturbations.

So, why do you find it so hard to believe in this situation?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So, why do you find it so hard to believe in this situation?

First of all, it is portray as scientific consensus when it is far from it. There are plenty of brilliant minds that dispute the whole man caused theory.

There have been warming periods in the planets existance at regular intervals that have been far more intense than this, long before we burned one spec of fossil fuel.

I find it not coincidental that there is dramatic warming on Mars during this same time period. This would seem to logically point to solar activity as the main factor.

That's the basic gist of it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

First of all, it is portray as scientific consensus when it is far from it. There are plenty of brilliant minds that dispute the whole man caused theory.

There have been warming periods in the planets existance at regular intervals that have been far more intense than this, long before we burned one spec of fossil fuel.

I find it not coincidental that there is dramatic warming on Mars during this same time period. This would seem to logically point to solar activity as the main factor.

That's the basic gist of it.

Well now you're changing you're argument. Whether scientific consensus exists is a completely different issue than how reasonable the idea is that small changes in carbon can produce larger changes in climate.

You're also mistaken about the "dramatic" warming on Mars. The southern polar ice cap has decreased in size in recent years but that is a local phenomenon and there is no global evidence of increased temperature. Also, if you're going to put it on the sun, can you point to any increased energy output by the sun? No, you can not.

I know the Mars things has received a big boost recently because of an article that the "anti-consensus" side is eager to trumpet recently published in National Geographic. Here is how you will find such sources quoting the opening paragraph of that article:

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause...

That assumes they are even honest enough to use an ellipses. The full paragraph, with my bolding is:

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

If you're going to blame the sun for warming on Earth and Mars, then where is the warming on all of the other planets (particularly Mercury which is much closer and has no atmosphere to moderate temperature changes? Why isn't the moon warming if the sun in which it basks is emitting more energy?

And there really is a pretty strong consensus among scientists. That isn't to say there aren't detractors. Nor does it mean that the consensus is correct. That said, for the most part detractors are not scientists and have no actual evidence beyond appeals to "common sense" (which is frequently wrong) to support them. And lacking evidence all a person is doing is picking the answer they like best and then going out and finding people who agree that it is the most preferable answer.

For the most part the pro-anthropogenic global warming side has evidence. The anti-anthropogenic global warming side just doesn't like the answer.