Climate change, part 2

Posted by on

Isaac Newton once said, “What we know is a drop, what we don’t know is an ocean.” He had a point. Some aspects of civilization had progressed considerably. But, despite advances in understanding of some fundamental principles, science was still in the Dark Ages.

But what would Sir Isaac say now? What we now know is a few drops, a bucket full perhaps, or maybe a puddle or a pond, but surely not an ocean? No doubt he would marvel at our technological advances – imagine watching objects fall and providing an explanation of gravity, only to see gravity defied with ease. But, for all the drops that we now know, are we able to combine them into a larger body of water, something that has a bigger, broader, more universal meaning? This is clearly one of the major challenges in the future.  ( Journal of Cell Science)

It is ironic that, just as we are making progress towards a fuller understanding of the universe, a unified theory of physics, we are busy insisting on pouring CO2 into the atmosphere and then denying that we have any responsibility for the mass starvation, displacement, war and death that we are wishing on our grandchildren. Why? Because man-made climate change is going to swamp whole cities, make marginal land unliveable in, cause mass migration and, consequently, bloodshed.  On top of all this there will be disease and a failure of water supplies. Climate change denial is a gigantic failure of the imagination.  And all of this with a world population of about 11 billion by the end of the century!  Epicurean peace of mind will be in short supply.

Perhaps we should prepare a “memorial before death” to the hard and self- absorbed people now profiting from CO2 emissions and standing in the way of action.  They should be memorialised so that the surviving world knows will know who they were. The Climate Change Wall of Infamy?

Global climate change: the Obama plan

Posted by on

Obama’s  plan to tackle climate change includes  a commitment to slash CO2 emissions from US power stations by a third within 15 years, imposing CO2 limits on the country’s 1,000 fossil fuel-fired power plants. These account for 32% of US carbon emissions.

Predictably, the  proposals triggered an immediate political and legal backlash. Having previously resisted any cut-back in emissions, people, like the Heritage Foundation, cynically hired to discredit climate change are now saying,  “We accept that mankind is adding to the effects of natural climate change, but Obama’s proposals are a  drop in the bucket and will only damage investment and profitability” (note the weasle words).   Their names and those of their paymasters will go down in history as the authors of ecological disaster.  Great job, fellows!    So here are some facts:

–  Arctic ice could have vanished within a decade or two.  Loss of Greenland ice alone could add a metre to sea levels.  Some estimate a sea level rise of 7 metres, and others estimate as much as 12 metres, drowning large areas of land and whole cities.  If humans are unwilling to restrain their population the planet will do it for them.

–   The weather is already more extreme than forecast. Warming was expected to boost food production, but food prices are rising rapidly with extreme weather, confounding forecasts.  Fishing may soon be confined to fish farms.

–  The planet absorbs about half of the excess CO2 at present, but no one knows how long it can continue to do so.

–   The half life of CO2 is about a hundred years. If we stopped now, completely, the CO2 levels would start to reduce in the next century and maybe return to reasonable levels within 200 years. This is an astonishing thing.  We will cause an quite unnecessary “mass extinction” that in geological terms could correct itself in a twinkling of an eye.  Alas, too late for millions of people!

The fact is that if China and the United States seriously reduced their emissions it would make a real difference.  Climate change is probably the greatest threat to ataraxia (peace of mind) in human history; Epicureans have to be on the side of the angels.

 

“So”

Posted by on

To The Daily Telegraph

“A grammatical plague that has serious implications for political discourse in the media is the use of the conjunction “so” at the beginning of an answer to an interviewer’s straight question. This usage is illogical, as it implies the interviewee is continuing a chain of argument from a previously stated position (the equivalent of “therefore”).

Secondly, it avoids a direct answer to the interviewer’s question. (We can’t have politicians doing that!)

Thirdly, it allows the answer to be presented as an established conclusion that there is no call to justify”.   (Chris Emlyn-Jones, emeritus professor of classical studies at the Open University, Oxford)

These verbal ticks come and go.  The use of “like”, for instance, is valley-girl-speak, which has regrettably found its way into the speech of  reasonably educated people.  This morning the deputy manager of a political campaign sent an email asking me to contribute “because, like, it matters”.  Usually “like” is used out of laziness – starting a sentence without knowing what you are going to say, and buying time with blather.  I zapped the email.

Were he alive today Epicurus, a wise and thoughtful philosopher, might counsel us to keep very quiet until we have worked out what we think and what we wish to say.  He might add that attention seeking is sometimes at the root of all this, and attention seeking isn’t very pleasant for others to deal with. On the other hand Epicurus might tell us to relax and tune out. Whatever.

Bernie Sanders and the American Presidential election campaign

Posted by on

Epicurus warned us about getting involved in politics.  Ignore politicians, he said.  But I would nevertheless like to draw your attention to some interesting figures about Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, supplied by Owen Bell, who comments regularly on this blog.

Poll data  from Fox News (see web address below) suggest that Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by 49% to 30% respectively. But amongst white people, Sanders leads Clinton by 43% to 37%. He also leads amongst men 41% to 38%. Clinton only has a 1% lead with those making more than $50000 a year, and her lead is smaller with college graduates than those without a degree. Somewhat paradoxically, despite being the older candidate, Sanders is 1% more popular amongst the under-45s, with the 45+ overwhelmingly going for Clinton.

At this point Sanders seems to be doing best amongst young white rich and educated men, despite that group being arguably the most privileged.

Why should this be?  People tend to vote against a candidate rather than for one.  Bernie probably hasn’t a hope of winning against the ruthless power brokers and multi- millionaires, but he is perceived to be uncorrupt, honest and to have the interests of the country at heart.  The poll is a “vote” against corporatocracy and an undemocratic, gerrymandered system dominated by huge sums of money whose provenance is dubious.  If Bernie continues his run, look for a campaign painting him as something to the left of Stalin and Mao and even a supporter of ISIS.  Come to think of it, Epicurus had a point.

(Fox News survey:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/)