The excuse "China does whatever it wants in terms of carbon emissions so why can't we?" can no longer be used.
The plan, released by the State Council, China’s cabinet, filled in a broad outline that the government had issued this year. It represents the most concrete response yet by the Communist Party and the government to growing criticism over allowing the country’s air, soil and water to degrade to abysmal levels because of corruption and unchecked economic growth.
It's only a matter of time now before the rest of the world realizes how bad climate change due to carbon emissions is for economic stability.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Amen, Soldier
Check out the soldier that comes in to this video at about the 5 minute mark. A true hero...
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Making Natural Gas out of Thin Air
Mark's post about the people of Boulder challenging Xcel Energy's power generation monopoly and replacing coal with with renewables and natural gas finally prodded me into writing a post I'd had on the back burner for a while.
Here's the question: What if you could use wind power to literally generate natural gas out of thin air?
People in the energy industry invariably criticize "tree-huggers" as naive about the vagaries of power generation. Renewable energy sources are too unreliable, the old argument goes. What do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? You have to keep power generation and consumption balanced or the grid collapses. Often, they claim, sun and wind generate too much electricity when you don't need it, and since you can't store it it just goes to waste.
First off, the excess power argument is flat wrong with solar. Solar generates the most power when we need it the most: at peak load times during the heat of the day. Solar is perfect for places like the American West, which get a lot of sun and use massive amounts of air conditioning.
Wind power -- and hydro for that matter -- do generate a lot of electricity during off-peak hours, and in places like the Dakotas that are distant from major population centers.
The question is how to store that energy for later use. If you could save it for later and use it for load balancing, the argument against wind completely falls apart.
Battery technology isn't up to snuff: too expensive and too small-scale. So there have been grand suggestions to use the excess electricity to compress air into vast underground caverns or pump water uphill into reservoirs, which could be used to turn turbines to generate electricity later. These solutions take a lot of space and have negative environmental and safety considerations.
But there's something else you can do with electricity: make hydrogen. A company in Germany is building a pilot plant to do exactly this. Their plan to pump hydrogen into natural gas pipelines seems a bit odd, but the basic idea is quite interesting.
Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis, which uses electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. This hydrogen could simply be burned against to make electricity (producing water), or to power fuel cells. These fuel cells can be used to generate electricity directly (which is what NASA did on the Space Shuttle Apollo moon missions), or they could be used to power cars that run on fuel cells (remember that song and dance from the George W. Bush days?). The International Space Station also uses electrolysis to generate oxygen (they vent the excess hydrogen into space).
One problem with hydrogen is that there isn't a lot of infrastructure for storing, transporting and distributing it. However, we do have a lot of infrastructure for natural gas (methane). So we could take this one step further, and produce methane.
Using what's called the Sabatier process hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) can be combined to produce methane and water:
Here's the question: What if you could use wind power to literally generate natural gas out of thin air?
People in the energy industry invariably criticize "tree-huggers" as naive about the vagaries of power generation. Renewable energy sources are too unreliable, the old argument goes. What do you do when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? You have to keep power generation and consumption balanced or the grid collapses. Often, they claim, sun and wind generate too much electricity when you don't need it, and since you can't store it it just goes to waste.
First off, the excess power argument is flat wrong with solar. Solar generates the most power when we need it the most: at peak load times during the heat of the day. Solar is perfect for places like the American West, which get a lot of sun and use massive amounts of air conditioning.
Wind power -- and hydro for that matter -- do generate a lot of electricity during off-peak hours, and in places like the Dakotas that are distant from major population centers.
The question is how to store that energy for later use. If you could save it for later and use it for load balancing, the argument against wind completely falls apart.
Battery technology isn't up to snuff: too expensive and too small-scale. So there have been grand suggestions to use the excess electricity to compress air into vast underground caverns or pump water uphill into reservoirs, which could be used to turn turbines to generate electricity later. These solutions take a lot of space and have negative environmental and safety considerations.
But there's something else you can do with electricity: make hydrogen. A company in Germany is building a pilot plant to do exactly this. Their plan to pump hydrogen into natural gas pipelines seems a bit odd, but the basic idea is quite interesting.
Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis, which uses electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. This hydrogen could simply be burned against to make electricity (producing water), or to power fuel cells. These fuel cells can be used to generate electricity directly (which is what NASA did on the Space Shuttle Apollo moon missions), or they could be used to power cars that run on fuel cells (remember that song and dance from the George W. Bush days?). The International Space Station also uses electrolysis to generate oxygen (they vent the excess hydrogen into space).
One problem with hydrogen is that there isn't a lot of infrastructure for storing, transporting and distributing it. However, we do have a lot of infrastructure for natural gas (methane). So we could take this one step further, and produce methane.
Using what's called the Sabatier process hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) can be combined to produce methane and water:
CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O
NASA is looking at using this reaction in the International Space Station to make a more closed life support system that recycles the CO2 that astronauts exhale into water, and to make propellant for the return from a Mars mission.
Though NASA's space applications sound distant, these processes aren't fancy pie-in-the-sky physics pushing the boundaries of engineering like thermonuclear fusion. They're basic, centuries-old chemistry that mirror the natural processes of respiration, photosynthesis and bacterial decay. This kind of power generation would give us the ability to balance loads as well as produce fuels for cooking and transportation, all with zero carbon footprint.
There's a certain amount of inefficiency generating natural gas this way. But even so, it's still more efficient than blasting off mountaintops to expose coal seams, using millions of gallons of oil to mine the coal, then millions more gallons of oil to restore the mountaintops, then millions more gallons of oil to ship the coal across country to run power plants that belch out CO2, carcinogenic particulates, sulfur dioxide and mercury.
When their backs are against the wall, climate change skeptics always retreat with, "Well, if the climate really is warming, we'll just adapt. Humans are amazingly inventive when pressed."
I agree, we are inventive. But isn't it better to adapt before the emergency becomes dire, resources become scarce, floods and droughts become endemic, Miami and New York are inundated, famine becomes widespread, and wars over dwindling energy resources suck up our the time, energy and money?
Though NASA's space applications sound distant, these processes aren't fancy pie-in-the-sky physics pushing the boundaries of engineering like thermonuclear fusion. They're basic, centuries-old chemistry that mirror the natural processes of respiration, photosynthesis and bacterial decay. This kind of power generation would give us the ability to balance loads as well as produce fuels for cooking and transportation, all with zero carbon footprint.
There's a certain amount of inefficiency generating natural gas this way. But even so, it's still more efficient than blasting off mountaintops to expose coal seams, using millions of gallons of oil to mine the coal, then millions more gallons of oil to restore the mountaintops, then millions more gallons of oil to ship the coal across country to run power plants that belch out CO2, carcinogenic particulates, sulfur dioxide and mercury.
When their backs are against the wall, climate change skeptics always retreat with, "Well, if the climate really is warming, we'll just adapt. Humans are amazingly inventive when pressed."
I agree, we are inventive. But isn't it better to adapt before the emergency becomes dire, resources become scarce, floods and droughts become endemic, Miami and New York are inundated, famine becomes widespread, and wars over dwindling energy resources suck up our the time, energy and money?
The Case Against Attacking Syria in Two and a Half Words
It's getting rather irritating for Americans to be lectured by despots and dictators. Earlier this week Bashar al-Assad appeared on American television telling us why invading Syria was bad. Now Vladimir Putin published an editorial in The New York Times saying the same thing.
These two tyrants have a point that can be summarized in two and a half words: George W. Bush.
George W. Bush blew all our credibility when he invaded Iraq based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Since then no one -- not even the American people -- will trust any American president when he claims that we must attack a murderous thug who has been gassing his own people.
Republicans have been claiming that Obama weakened the presidency by going to Congress to ask permission to retaliate militarily against Syria for using Sarin gas. Why is it weakness to obey the Constitution, which specifies that only Congress has the power to go to war? The truth is, Bush destroyed America's moral high ground when he fabricated evidence about Saddam's WMDs and lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
Since then Obama has been saddled with Bush's wars, Bush's domestic spying programs, Bush's torture, Bush's Guantanamo, Bush's indefinite detentions, and so on. As Republicans keep telling us, once a federal program is entrenched, it's all but impossible to get rid of it. To wit: President Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but Congress stopped him cold.
No matter what his personal convictions, the president becomes a prisoner of precedent and his predecessors' pecadilloes.
Bush's blunders have now made it all but impossible for us to get an international consensus for action against Syria. Our closest allies were burned (Britain in particular) over and over by Bush and Cheney's machinations, and no one else trusts a word we say.
We actually did this right once upon a time. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, George H. W. Bush got overwhelming international cooperation to oust him. By February 1991 Saddam's military was destroyed and he was ejected from Kuwait. It's ironic that that president's son and his secretary of defense learned absolutely nothing from this great success.
Conservatives like to say they'd rather be feared than liked. Now that the Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have burned out the American military, we're neither feared nor liked.
These two tyrants have a point that can be summarized in two and a half words: George W. Bush.
George W. Bush blew all our credibility when he invaded Iraq based on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Since then no one -- not even the American people -- will trust any American president when he claims that we must attack a murderous thug who has been gassing his own people.
Republicans have been claiming that Obama weakened the presidency by going to Congress to ask permission to retaliate militarily against Syria for using Sarin gas. Why is it weakness to obey the Constitution, which specifies that only Congress has the power to go to war? The truth is, Bush destroyed America's moral high ground when he fabricated evidence about Saddam's WMDs and lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
Since then Obama has been saddled with Bush's wars, Bush's domestic spying programs, Bush's torture, Bush's Guantanamo, Bush's indefinite detentions, and so on. As Republicans keep telling us, once a federal program is entrenched, it's all but impossible to get rid of it. To wit: President Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but Congress stopped him cold.
No matter what his personal convictions, the president becomes a prisoner of precedent and his predecessors' pecadilloes.
Bush's blunders have now made it all but impossible for us to get an international consensus for action against Syria. Our closest allies were burned (Britain in particular) over and over by Bush and Cheney's machinations, and no one else trusts a word we say.
We actually did this right once upon a time. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, George H. W. Bush got overwhelming international cooperation to oust him. By February 1991 Saddam's military was destroyed and he was ejected from Kuwait. It's ironic that that president's son and his secretary of defense learned absolutely nothing from this great success.
Conservatives like to say they'd rather be feared than liked. Now that the Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have burned out the American military, we're neither feared nor liked.
The Future of Renewable Energy
It's going to be interesting to see what happens in Boulder over the next few years. Something else that struck me about this video. Isn't the action of these residents, in no small way, a rally against big government? They are assuming local control of their power and shunning the government sponsored monopoly. Perhaps this is a way we could find some common ground in the renewable energy debate.
Time For A Change
This time of year brings with it reflection and a desire for change. When I started this blog eight years ago (after four years of it being an email list started on the day after the 9/11 attacks), September has always been when I have felt the most like shifting gears and trying something new. This year it's clear that the comments section is what is most in need of change.
One of the first things they tell you when you start your own blog is to engage in the comments section. With only 150-200 regular readers, it makes sense that most don't comment, given that only a few people comment on much larger hit sites. I've always tried to spur discussion but I've noticed that the posts that get the most hits are the ones without the long comments threads. This is largely due to the fact that the same 3-5 people leave comments. All of them are migrants from a right wing gun blog (the one that I was recently asked to leave by vote) and they...well...they are complete dicks. There's just no sugar coating it anymore. I've tried to be fair over the years with them but they play a never ending childish and dishonest game that has left me completely disgusted.
I've decided after a few long threads in the last couple of weeks that it is a waste of time to engage these people any longer. If anyone has been reading these threads (and my stat counter shows that it's the same 6 people, btw), it's painfully obvious that nearly all of their comments are ridiculously adolescent and employ troll tactics that would not be allowed on most message boards and blogs. Their primary goal is to insult, scream, mouth foam, and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them. When the facts don't, it's instant rage that would dwarf a teenage temper tantrum. I get the fact that they see blogs as a place they can "win" because their ideology certainly isn't winning in the real world (see: outside of the bubble) but their willful ignorance, granite intransigence, and moonbattery has gotten so bad lately that I have realized it's utterly pointless to have discussions with them. In so many ways, this is the very definition of the Right today.
Their comments range from dick to asshole to 12 year old bully to psychotic mouth foamer unmoved by facts and undeterred by new information. They are so insecure that they have to stick together (despite obvious disagreements) for fear of losing the purity of MARKWRONG, MARKLOSE, never once questioning each other and having any sort of real debate with multiple sides. Odd, considering they bemoan collectives. Yet they are the ones that buy into the myth (again, 12 year old bully) that more people against one means a "win."
More frustrating (and highly immature) is their refusal to accept that they are the ones at fault combined with their insistence that I am actually the problem. Honestly, it's like I'm talking to my seventh graders in every discussion now. One need only look at the comments after this post to illustrate this point. There will be cries of "chicken" and links to Brave Sir Robin videos as well as long paragraphs which essentially amount to "No, You are!" It's the same shit over and over again and I am terribly bored with it.
Now, I'll always allow comments to be open and will continue to allow people to post their views (minus spam, of course) but I'm pretty much done with leaving comments unless I see some change. I'd rather spend my time writing posts then put up with the crap from these 3-5 individuals. Another reason for this change is that whenever a long comments thread develops, my hit count for that post goes down. People just aren't interested in hearing what these asshats have to say. I don't blame them and I'd rather have more people read my blog.
I understand now why Nikto rarely comments. He has always told me in the past that it's a waste of time. Indeed. I love a good debate and have certainly grown from a few of these discussions but now it's time to move on. And maybe the comments section will as well. Maybe some new commenters will start leaving comments. Maybe these 3-5 commenters will change and leave something new and interesting in which case I will respond. I sadly doubt that will happen, of course, given their hostile fear of progress and total lack of people skills. Obviously, they don't get along well in the real world and that's why they spend so much time posting here.
Without me around, I'll admit that it will be mildly amusing to watch them yell at air, kind of like the guy on the street you see pushing a shopping cart, listening to his short wave radio and screaming about communism.
Isn't that where they came from anyway?
One of the first things they tell you when you start your own blog is to engage in the comments section. With only 150-200 regular readers, it makes sense that most don't comment, given that only a few people comment on much larger hit sites. I've always tried to spur discussion but I've noticed that the posts that get the most hits are the ones without the long comments threads. This is largely due to the fact that the same 3-5 people leave comments. All of them are migrants from a right wing gun blog (the one that I was recently asked to leave by vote) and they...well...they are complete dicks. There's just no sugar coating it anymore. I've tried to be fair over the years with them but they play a never ending childish and dishonest game that has left me completely disgusted.
I've decided after a few long threads in the last couple of weeks that it is a waste of time to engage these people any longer. If anyone has been reading these threads (and my stat counter shows that it's the same 6 people, btw), it's painfully obvious that nearly all of their comments are ridiculously adolescent and employ troll tactics that would not be allowed on most message boards and blogs. Their primary goal is to insult, scream, mouth foam, and denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them. When the facts don't, it's instant rage that would dwarf a teenage temper tantrum. I get the fact that they see blogs as a place they can "win" because their ideology certainly isn't winning in the real world (see: outside of the bubble) but their willful ignorance, granite intransigence, and moonbattery has gotten so bad lately that I have realized it's utterly pointless to have discussions with them. In so many ways, this is the very definition of the Right today.
Their comments range from dick to asshole to 12 year old bully to psychotic mouth foamer unmoved by facts and undeterred by new information. They are so insecure that they have to stick together (despite obvious disagreements) for fear of losing the purity of MARKWRONG, MARKLOSE, never once questioning each other and having any sort of real debate with multiple sides. Odd, considering they bemoan collectives. Yet they are the ones that buy into the myth (again, 12 year old bully) that more people against one means a "win."
More frustrating (and highly immature) is their refusal to accept that they are the ones at fault combined with their insistence that I am actually the problem. Honestly, it's like I'm talking to my seventh graders in every discussion now. One need only look at the comments after this post to illustrate this point. There will be cries of "chicken" and links to Brave Sir Robin videos as well as long paragraphs which essentially amount to "No, You are!" It's the same shit over and over again and I am terribly bored with it.
I understand now why Nikto rarely comments. He has always told me in the past that it's a waste of time. Indeed. I love a good debate and have certainly grown from a few of these discussions but now it's time to move on. And maybe the comments section will as well. Maybe some new commenters will start leaving comments. Maybe these 3-5 commenters will change and leave something new and interesting in which case I will respond. I sadly doubt that will happen, of course, given their hostile fear of progress and total lack of people skills. Obviously, they don't get along well in the real world and that's why they spend so much time posting here.
Without me around, I'll admit that it will be mildly amusing to watch them yell at air, kind of like the guy on the street you see pushing a shopping cart, listening to his short wave radio and screaming about communism.
Isn't that where they came from anyway?
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
12 Years
I've gone back and forth between putting something up on this 9/11 anniversary and not putting something up. There's something contrived and shallow marking this day simply because of ceremony. It should be from the heart, right? Not out of some sort of civic obligation. The people that died that day deserve more than just going through the motions. And I'm certainly not going to stop talking about the issues that are important to this country because of what religious extremists did to our country 12 years ago especially considering that we have our own religious extremists to deal with at home (hence, the post previous to this one).
The film below changed my mind about putting up a post about the 9/11 attacks. Like many Americans, the jumpers out of the World Trade Center have always haunted me. Who were they? What was their story? Would I have done the same thing? That is the subject matter of this 71 minute documentary which I highly recommend watching today.
It's an excellent tribute.
UPDATE:
The video above has been taken down from YouTube for copyright infringement. For more information on this film, click here.
The film below changed my mind about putting up a post about the 9/11 attacks. Like many Americans, the jumpers out of the World Trade Center have always haunted me. Who were they? What was their story? Would I have done the same thing? That is the subject matter of this 71 minute documentary which I highly recommend watching today.
It's an excellent tribute.
UPDATE:
The video above has been taken down from YouTube for copyright infringement. For more information on this film, click here.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Making The Case
I thought the president made a compelling case tonight in why strikes against Syria might be necessary. Since it appears that Assad is caving, we might not have to act after all. My big takeaway from the speech is how this president is adamant about protecting children. Whether it's domestic policies aimed at curbing gun violence or protecting Syrian children from future chemical weapons attacks, he is firmly on the side of the children.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming days. Will Syria give up their chemical weapons and put them under UN control?
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming days. Will Syria give up their chemical weapons and put them under UN control?
Change Up
It looks like there is a distinct possibility that a strike against Syria may be delayed or even not happen at all. A conversation between the president and Vladimir Putin at last week's G20 meeting sparked a Russian overture to the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons to be placed under UN control or possibly destroyed all together. Taken with a grain of salt, this is good news.
Assuming they allow such a thing to happen, this would head off an attack by the US and might actually start the country back towards stability once again. If the UN is allowed in for this purpose, it might be able to spread its influence around the country and be able to be our eyes and ears on the ground in Syria. We can monitor what Assad is up to and gauge our response accordingly.
This also gets Congress off the hook from having to make a very tough vote. Now they can back to the business of being silly about the budget, health care, and immigration.
Assuming they allow such a thing to happen, this would head off an attack by the US and might actually start the country back towards stability once again. If the UN is allowed in for this purpose, it might be able to spread its influence around the country and be able to be our eyes and ears on the ground in Syria. We can monitor what Assad is up to and gauge our response accordingly.
This also gets Congress off the hook from having to make a very tough vote. Now they can back to the business of being silly about the budget, health care, and immigration.
Monday, September 09, 2013
George Zimmerman Back in the News Again. And Again. And Again...
Since being acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman has not kept a low profile.
He visited a gun factory, was stopped for speeding in Florida and Texas, and was sued for divorce by his wife of six years. Shellie Zimmerman recently pleaded guilty to perjury for lying about the PayPal account that held money people sent Zimmerman.
Now Zimmerman has apparently punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened his wife with a gun:
Zimmerman appears to be a violent and arrogant man, who has learned how to manipulate the system, perhaps due to his close association with the law (his father is a judge). He has proved that he can literally get away with murder.
Is Zimmerman arrogant enough to think he's so clever that he can pull the same trick again, or will he simply self-destruct in a very public and messy way? The real question is how many other innocent victims he'll take with him.
Does it really make sense for guys like this to be able to run around with guns at will?
He visited a gun factory, was stopped for speeding in Florida and Texas, and was sued for divorce by his wife of six years. Shellie Zimmerman recently pleaded guilty to perjury for lying about the PayPal account that held money people sent Zimmerman.
Now Zimmerman has apparently punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened his wife with a gun:
Shellie Zimmerman, who has filed for divorce, initially told a 911 dispatcher that her husband had his hand on his gun as he sat in his car outside the home she was at with her father. She said she was scared because she wasn't sure what Zimmerman was capable of doing. But hours later she changed her story and said she never saw a firearm, said Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell.I think Shellie Zimmerman knows exactly George Zimmerman is capable of, and that's why she changed her story -- she doesn't want to get him too riled up. It's ironic that of the two of them, she is the only one to pay a price for the killing of Trayvon Martin: she is on probation and community service; Zimmerman got off scot-free.
Zimmerman appears to be a violent and arrogant man, who has learned how to manipulate the system, perhaps due to his close association with the law (his father is a judge). He has proved that he can literally get away with murder.
Is Zimmerman arrogant enough to think he's so clever that he can pull the same trick again, or will he simply self-destruct in a very public and messy way? The real question is how many other innocent victims he'll take with him.
Does it really make sense for guys like this to be able to run around with guns at will?
Back In Session
Congress comes back this week from summer vacation with a veritable schmidt load of items on their agenda. First up is whether or not to strike Syria. As of right now, support looks pretty thin in the House. Shocking, that the House GOP would use any means to fuck over the president. My oh my how the hawks have become doves...
Of course, the president is getting much support on the left either so his address to the nation better be a home run tomorrow night otherwise he won't get the vote. Contrary to the media hysterics, if he loses the vote, this will not be the end of his presidency. Congress did not support FDR during the 1930s regarding Hitler's march across Europe. Congress did not support President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Anyone remember who those people were?
The budget is probably the next item on the list to tackle and we are already hearing signs of playing chicken again with the debt limit. It seems we will have a large group of people that don't understand that it's money we have already spent. Worse, far too many still haven't grasped the concept of the difference between individual debt and government debt. I'm sure we'll be hearing the anti-spending old ladies out in full force over the next few weeks.
Immigration is likely to take a back seat which is really a drag as reform could solve many of our other economic problems. I was impressed with Marco Rubio and his fellow Senators for coming up with a great bill to address this issue. Unfortunately, it has now come to the short wave radio listening Civil War reinactors in the House so that means it's going nowhere.
Oh, and doesn't the ACA roll out on October 1?
This is going to be one exciting fall!
Of course, the president is getting much support on the left either so his address to the nation better be a home run tomorrow night otherwise he won't get the vote. Contrary to the media hysterics, if he loses the vote, this will not be the end of his presidency. Congress did not support FDR during the 1930s regarding Hitler's march across Europe. Congress did not support President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Anyone remember who those people were?
The budget is probably the next item on the list to tackle and we are already hearing signs of playing chicken again with the debt limit. It seems we will have a large group of people that don't understand that it's money we have already spent. Worse, far too many still haven't grasped the concept of the difference between individual debt and government debt. I'm sure we'll be hearing the anti-spending old ladies out in full force over the next few weeks.
Immigration is likely to take a back seat which is really a drag as reform could solve many of our other economic problems. I was impressed with Marco Rubio and his fellow Senators for coming up with a great bill to address this issue. Unfortunately, it has now come to the short wave radio listening Civil War reinactors in the House so that means it's going nowhere.
Oh, and doesn't the ACA roll out on October 1?
This is going to be one exciting fall!
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Friday, September 06, 2013
Climate Change Update
There have been several interesting pieces about climate change over the last few weeks. The first is the draft summary of the next United Nations report on climate change which states with a higher level of certainty the effects that human beings are having on the rise global temperature. They also address the adolescent "n'yah n'yah" of the recent slowdown of warming which is interesting.
NASA has a nice list up of why climate change is settled science, thus torpedoing the notion that there is conflict not consensus in the scientific community.
And Time magazine put a piece last month about why more people aren't acting on climate change even though more people accept that the earth is warming.
For some, the answer lies in cognitive science. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, has written about why our inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired. Gilbert describes four key reasons ranging from the fact that global warming doesn’t take a human form — making it difficult for us to think of it as an enemy — to our brains’ failure to accurately perceive gradual change as opposed to rapid shifts. Climate change has occurred slowly enough for our minds to normalize it, which is precisely what makes it a deadly threat, as Gilbert writes, “because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.”
Recalling our times as cavemen, most people don't act until they are on fire. Essentially, it needs to be personal.
NASA has a nice list up of why climate change is settled science, thus torpedoing the notion that there is conflict not consensus in the scientific community.
And Time magazine put a piece last month about why more people aren't acting on climate change even though more people accept that the earth is warming.
For some, the answer lies in cognitive science. Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, has written about why our inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired. Gilbert describes four key reasons ranging from the fact that global warming doesn’t take a human form — making it difficult for us to think of it as an enemy — to our brains’ failure to accurately perceive gradual change as opposed to rapid shifts. Climate change has occurred slowly enough for our minds to normalize it, which is precisely what makes it a deadly threat, as Gilbert writes, “because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.”
Recalling our times as cavemen, most people don't act until they are on fire. Essentially, it needs to be personal.
Thursday, September 05, 2013
Hey Kids...Want Some Candy?
It's hard for me to imagine the gun community being even bigger dicks than they are but this idea really sucks.
The group is working on educational pamphlets in advance of the event. Reed said some gun owners may pass out candy to neighbor kids.
I wonder how many people are actually going to turn out and, if they do, what happens if there is some sort of accident? And how can we tell if they are "good guys?" It seems to me that some "bad guys" might try to take advantage of this...
Well, anyway, there goes the small amount of concern that I had that the bloviating gun rights folks would be taken seriously for a significant amount of time. Maybe they should hand out the candy from tinted vans...
The group is working on educational pamphlets in advance of the event. Reed said some gun owners may pass out candy to neighbor kids.
I wonder how many people are actually going to turn out and, if they do, what happens if there is some sort of accident? And how can we tell if they are "good guys?" It seems to me that some "bad guys" might try to take advantage of this...
Well, anyway, there goes the small amount of concern that I had that the bloviating gun rights folks would be taken seriously for a significant amount of time. Maybe they should hand out the candy from tinted vans...
The Syria Explanation
The president did a great job yesterday explaining why we need to attack Syria and why it's not really his ass on the line. Check out the video below. My only gripe with it is he used the word "unpack" in reference to an idea which is bullshit seminar speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)