Water Vapour

A friend comments on the role of water vapour in climate change. Unfortunately he has comments turned off, but in case he wanders by I thought I’d post a link in response that acknowledges the major role of water vapour, and points out the impact that greenhouse gases have on water vapour. I am sure that the jury is still out on the exact impact, and how much of a contribution we make over normal mechanisms and variations, but I think it goes some way to answering the question that my friend poses. It also does so by reference to studies, rather than assertions (the originally linked article mixed statements without support and statements based on assertions into its mix of supported facts, which is often a sign of unreliability).

Incidentally, my friend speculates that global warming is a hoax. On that, surprisingly, he’s right; I well remember that blessed day when I got my call-up papers, and while I’m scarcely even a foot soldier in the astro-turf campaign to scare the entire population for the financial gain of a handful of the elite, I…wait, I’ve forgotten if I’m talking about climate change or the Republican party now. Ah well.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

Provocation

For our honeymoon my wife and I spent some time in Thailand, including a memorable few days in Khao Sok National Park. The fact that it is a man-made reservoir didn’t alter the beauty of the area, and we had a great couple of nights sleeping in a small floating hut, followed by a night sleeping 50 feet up a tree while every primate in the park stopped by and had sex on our roof.

While we were there we went on a walk through the jungle. Aside from the creepy leeches that, despite lacking any apparent sensory organs, would unerringly hunt us down wherever we stopped, one of the highlights was seeing a tarantula spider in its natural habitat. Our guide evidently felt that our enjoyment of said arachnid would be enhanced if he poked it with a stick. This seemed ill-advised to me, and while I hadn’t at that time started to use Californian surfer-speak in the post-ironic way I now do, had it been available to me a hearty “Dude! You’re poking the deadly venomous spider!” would have fairly represented my thoughts.

Thinking back, I’m inspired by our guide’s spirit of adventure (though I still feel obliged to point out that he was, like, totally poking a poisonous spider with a stick!) And having read a fair amount about environmentalism, and also a certain amount about both Christianity and Christianism, it feels time to make a bold assertion that I can try to follow up in later posts.

Before I do that, though, a little reasoning. My understanding of Christianity is that the core concept is to believe that salvation can be found only through belief in God as manifested through his son, Jesus Christ. Forgive the questionable wording there, it’s the idea that counts. Many things I’ve read suggest to me that this idea is literally it, that you could theoretically do anything you wanted, however vile, and so long as you still held this belief you would be welcomed into the presence of God. But at the same time, if you do truly believe this idea then certain activities become essentially untenable. It’s almost the reverse of the ‘No True Scotsman‘ fallacy; it’s not that a ‘true’ Christian wouldn’t commit some depraved act, rather that it’s almost impossible to contain a true belief in Christ alongside the desire to do such things (we’ll ignore for a moment the fallen nature of man).

So there are certain things that could reasonably be expected of a Christian, even though there isn’t an absolute mandate for any one of them. A significant one of these, perhaps one of the central teachings of Jesus, was taking care of those less fortunate than you. This caring can take many forms, and there is very legitimate debate about how much an individual could be expected to do. For example, it’s not expected that all Christians sell all their possessions and wander forth to minister to the common man, but neither should they live as they wish without a thought for others.

Clearly that gives us a lot of leeway, and that’s before we get to political and economic ideas about what actions actually benefit the less fortunate best (trickle-down economics, socialism, libertarianism, etc.) But it’s clear that there is a line somewhere, however blurry and indistinct, beyond which a Christian should not stray. As a fun effort to define that line, therefore, I hereby assert that if you own a Hummer you are not a Christian.

Intelligent Design Climatology

While reading an article on the Beeb about “clear evidence of climate change caused by human activities”, I had one of my rare thoughts. The article says:

The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said trends seen over the last 50 years “cannot be explained by natural processes alone”.

Now the Design Institute (no link, we don’t want to encourage them) claims that the inherent complexity of life can’t be explained by chance, hence God. If that’s true (clue: it isn’t, but let’s go with it for a moment) then a statement like the above proves that we are messing up the climate; if we can’t explain it, then God.

Or in this case, us.

Strategorizing the Petroleum Reserve

18 months ago I wrote with praise for President Bush as he made clear that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was intended to protect against the sudden shocks of war. It appears I may have spoken too soon:

President Bush will order the Department of Energy to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve “in order to get more fuel on the market and help reduce rising gasoline prices.”

In September 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for proposing to use the strategic oil reserve in response to high prices:

The Strategic Reserve is an insurance policy meant for a sudden disruption of our energy supply or for war. Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security.

Today, Bush did precisely what he criticized President Clinton for five-and-a-half years ago.

Law and Sausage

The Supreme Court took a look yesterday at the hidden discussions between The White House and the energy industry on the government’s energy policy. Andy has pointed out that a) we don’t have a (new/good) energy policy, and b) there are things happening that suggest we should, and that the fact we don’t is…interesting.

Slate has an overview of the legalities of the case, one of the more interesting aspects being that the White House believes they are being asked to do something unconstitutional, and is therefore refusing and appealing to anyone who’ll listen. Compare and contrast with various districts that rightly received a judicial smackdown for trying to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples because they felt that not doing so was unconstitutional. I say rightly because believing something to be unconstitutional is a great reason to go to court, but taking action outside of the court is unlawful until decided otherwise. Anyway…

Gregg Easterbrook made the point last year that the devious, snidely, underhand way the government put together its energy policy is not really important. The plan was published. You can look for every reckless, foolish, irresponsible paragraph and clause in the final document. Presumably the White House stands behind every word of the plan, so if there are plans to clean power plant emissions by using baby lungs as filters, or creating fluffy kitten-powered generators, then we’ll know it. And we’ll know it’s Bush’s fault, personally, whether the idea was dreamed up by Ken Lay or some intern.

This doesn’t alter the fact that knowing how such plans are created is very interesting. It can help us understand the President’s motivations, his obligations, and even his abilities. Those things are important for voters making a choice (correction: they should be important), and are hugely important for opposition parties trying to find things to beat a President with. But, right or wrong we don’t get to find out the scheming that is done in the White House, or the headquarters of the GOP or DNC. Like a purveyor of fine sausages, we should judge politician’s outputs first, and if as voters we eventually show even the slightest competence at that level it might be time to worry about process. As Bismarck said,

Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.