The Iron Yuppie

Coyote Blog: Not the Comfy Chair! (Updated)

I thought this was an interesting take on the whole Newsweek debacle. You know what my question is? Who told them that the story was false? Isn’t the only person who could confirm that the original anonymous source was wrong … the original anonymous source? Doesn’t that mean you have to believe him/her again? What if he's lying about lying the first time!?!

*my head a splode*

Updated: Corrected spelling.

Few interesting articles recently on the environment. First, to ANWR:

Pump Dreams from the New Yorker

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, on Alaska’s North Slope, is the new hope. The Prudhoe Bay oil field, one of the world’s biggest reservoirs, is just sixty miles west of the refuge. Surveys carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that ANWR may contain about ten billion barrels of recoverable oil. If this estimate turns out to be reliable, and if exploration starts next year, in 2025 anwr could be generating about a million barrels of oil a day. This is a lot of fuel, but it dwindles next to our energy requirements. By 2025, according to the Department of Energy, Americans will be consuming almost thirty million barrels a day. With luck, an ANWR oil field operating at full capacity could satisfy perhaps three or four per cent of that total, meaning that most of the oil we use would still have to be imported.

I have to say sometimes it seems like no one is doing the math on this stuff. It really seems that the only reason to go into ANWR (is that all caps or what... it's an abbreviation, right?) is to try and keep oil cheap. But if that's the only goal we had, then a lot of things would be cheaper. For example, we should just clear cut the forest right next door, rather than getting all that wood from the middle of nowhere. I do not think that's what we're optimizing for. It's a very interesting article overall, I highly recommend it. I finished reading it and wasn't exactly sure why we're not drilling the hell out of Russia rather than dealing with the Middle East at all.

But with global warming, I got into a very interesting discussion over mail recently which I'll replicate here (and ultimately led me to edit my "facts" from yesterday's post).

It started with two opinion pieces in the Telegraph:

Leading scientific journals are censoring debate on global warming

and

Global warming generates hot air

Ok, to the first, I think we can all agree that censorship in any form is much badness. Specifically with the above, I think the right thing to do would be to expose the items not selected for review, a link to the article and the reason for lack of publication. This is the Internet age, after all, and total transparency is easy! Then let the readers decide. I guess this means you get one attempt to publish and then you're done, since a cause for rejection is having your points "widely dispersed on the [I]nternet", but the author could decide that as well.

As to the follow up opinion, I disagree with a few points in there:

1) This comment is wrong:

Six such individuals have just published a paper arguing that cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving recent climate change. They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting some modest cooling over the next couple of years, as cosmic ray activity increases cloud cover. Since the conventional - sorry, consensus - wisdom says we are on a rising temperature curve to disaster, a couple of cool years would deal a serious blow to the anthropogenists.

It’s not global warming that is the problem; it’s fundamental climate change exacerbated by increases in reflective IR. Cool years/warm years don’t help or hurt the long term theory; it is the variation from the norm that's the problem, even if that variation is only local (a specific region being particularly hot or cold, as an example). Unfortunately, this can be difficult to distinguish from normal extreme variations in temperature or climate, but I think a good indicator are the numbers associated with weather-related costs (such as the increase from $3.9 B in direct losses in the 50's to $63 B in direct losses in the 90's (I do not know if these numbers are inflation adjusted or not)).

2) As to this point:

[The authors of the dissenting papers] are not nutcases, nor are they in thrall to the oil companies (even if they were, does anyone seriously believe that Big Oil wants to destroy the planet?).

No, no one would think that Big Oil would want to destroy the planet. I have no doubt that they are acting in a way consistent with their thoughts on what is best for their shareholders. But, simultaneously, Big Oil is near-sighted… and required to be so! If the board of Exxon cut all funding for projects for the next 10 years in hopes of building out their 15 year strategy, they’d be laughed out of the boardroom (and likely sued). It's simply not their responsibility to think long-term without economic guidance... this is why consumers (and to a lesser extent, government) need to set the social norms about how long a company should think and penalize companies that do not think that far ahead.

3) Even if I take the author’s position to be correct, that there are individuals who could be publishing papers which contradict the majority of positions out there, this comment seems odd:

But that hardly justifies Draconian measures that will make us poorer, unless the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

By the author’s own admission, there have been HUNDREDS (928 to be exact) of papers in 10 years which all agreed. Even if 10% of them were outright lying, or 1/3 of them were positive and the rest neutral (as the first paper suggests), that’d still be fairly overwhelming consensus for action, right?

I don’t know how grim things are/will be, and forecasts are never going to be that good. But here are the (updated) facts as I see them:

• Fact 0: H20 & CO2 reflect infrared better than N2 and O2 (and other trace gases in the atmosphere).
• Fact 1: As the % CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of IR reflected back to the Earth's surface increases.
• Fact 2: We have more CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times and are putting out CO2 faster than ever before in man's history.

Likely hypothesis? Our CO2 output is affecting the reflected IR and thereby affecting the climate. Follow up hypothesis? Affecting the climate is a bad thing.

I’m not saying Draconian measures are necessary, but certainly taking us down a path to get us closer to the way the atmosphere was before substantial human effect is probably a good thing (tm).

D

PS3 Three Times Faster Than Xbox 360? : Kotaku

Speaking of marketing, here's a little hint on how to detect that something is a lie. #1, base one part of a two part statement on something that has no possible way of being true or false because you have yet to produce or even see a real implementation of the thing you are talking about. #2, base the second part of a two part statement on something that has no possible way of being true or false because you have yet to produce or even see a real implementation of the thing you are talking about.

I guess that's pretty much it.

Old Foes Soften to New Reactors - New York Times

I am a BIG fan of nuclear power. Well, first and foremost, I'm a big fan of conservation, but if I have to go with a power source, I'd like to go with one that has a known and highly regulated system and produces less radiation over the course of its life than coal, and the only thing that goes into to the atmosphere is water vapor (and heat). I feel that too many people are using perfection as the enemy of the next best thing. Sometimes the next best thing is what you have to go with.

Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank

Ok, first a disclaimer, I own XOM. Second, I'm about to own AIG. Third, I'm a big fan of the theory that things that humans are doing are causing climate change.

Now, onto the witty commentary. Look people, this is what the free market is all about. I would wager that the majority of these articles are based on theories which can be reasonably deduced from the facts. You may not agree with the deductions, but that's what science is all about. You get a hypothesis. You look for a bunch of facts. You prove (or disprove) your hypothesis. What I do not understand is why more companies are not doing this. I would LOVE insurance companies to start funding think tanks proving that climate change is going to increase the cost of insuring real estate and global instability due to scarce third-world resources will increase the cost of doing business with societies that are strongly dependent on their own food source generation. This has already started... "Property damage [due to climate change] is rising very rapidly, at something like 10 % a year." - Dr. Dlugolecki of CGNU. The fact is that I agree with neither the interpretation nor the tone of the majority of pieces that think tanks that Exxon funded put out. Example:

Global warming, for instance, which remains speculative and based on incomplete computer models rather than on demonstrated science, might cost man and nature a great deal if we rush to impose dramatic limits on fossil-fuel use in a misguided attempt to solve a problem that may not even exist. Just twenty-five years ago, some of the current proponents of global warming were warning us about global cooling.33

The single footnote there is to a second book which was an analysis of the scientific community's reaction to interpretations of the facts as global cooling. But there were no facts there either! It's just pure marketing! I love facts. Fact 0: H20 & CO2 reflect infrared better than N2 and O2 (and other trace gases in the atmosphere). Fact 1: As the % CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of heat reflected back to the Earth's surface increases. Fact 2: We have far more CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times and are putting out more CO2 than ever before in man's history. Likely hypothesis? Our CO2 output is affecting the average temperature of the Earth. Discuss.

My major problem with many environmental movements is the complete lack of attempting to use market forces and MARKETING to their advantage. If this stuff is so wrong, shouldn't there be a hundred other think tank pieces for every one we see here? And further, if this is going to affect us so terribly, tell corporations in language that makes sense to them... ROI and cost of doing business. Please people, this is like block and tackle.

Joel on Software - Making Wrong Code Look Wrong

Every time I come across Joel's essays, I'm always astounded both with how simple yet resonant they are. This piece is about the essence of good coding practices to make it super clear where things are wrong without trusting the compiler to do the work. Not that the compiler cannot help, but beyond the most basic checking (types, overflows, etc), the compiler will not know what you are trying to do. The beauty of this particular note is how it can apply to so many things. A screwdriver can be made to have a torque sensor so that you do not strip it, but it becomes so much more useful when the screw is color coded with the place it needs to go. I’d love it if more companies provided the help and feedback built right into the action that you are currently performing. Not just technology! It is extremely rare to come across anything that could not benefit from a feedback loop or "built in" help so that you know if what you’re doing is what and how the manufacturer intended you to do it.

Xbox 360 compatibility not yet decided

I have to completely agree with the author here... how is it possible that a product which is about to see the light of day does not have a fundamental design decision made? This really feels like a decision that actually DID get made and people are not willing to take the (brutal) press over it.

I keep meaning to pass on responses to posts in the text, but I never seem to get around to it... well that stops right now!

Whether you like private accounts or not, you've got to admit that there's something fundamentally wrong with investing long term in a zero beta investment. Isn't THE fundamental rule of savings to move from risky to non-risky investments as the individual approaches retirement? Combined with the fact that the SS Administration is theoretically managing a retirement portfolio for a hugely diversified population, wouldn't this allow us to take on even greater risks?

I'll rub your face in a nice concept you posted here once: "What would it take for you to change your mind on this issue?"

ACK, hoisted on my own petard! Actually, no, I'm a huge fan of personal private accounts; I have an IRA, a 401(k) as well as my own private (fully taxed) account. Further, managed risk is exactly the idea behind savings; again, I must totally agree with you.

My only problem with the whole solution being proposed was that it would solve (in some way) the SS shortfall, which it cannot. Further, there does seem to be something impossible to it. If it was that easy to get higher returns, wouldn't everyone do it? Anyhow, my net is that I think we already have a number of methods to offer private accounts; I have no (non-cynical idea) why the Bush Administration is pushing yet another one.

For Bush's plan to eliminate the SS deficit overall, I love it! Yes, it's kind of a socialist redistribution of weath thing over time, but I honestly think it's the right thing to do. If you make enough money to be saving extra anyway, SS payments do not factor in as much to your retirement income as it does for the average worker. Since I can say that I'll be in that top category, I can say (as a clearly representative member of the top category since it appears that I'm so in synch with the rest of my top category folks (</sarcasm>)) take the extra money and give it to someone who needs it. I'm pretty comfortable with that.

D

Powerseed: An Electronic Eating Coach via Medgadget via FutureFeeder

How cool is this!

Basically it beeps or changes color or something when you're supposed to take a bite. I so need one of these... I used to eat so slowly, now I eat like someone is going to steal it. I remember when I broke my leg about four years ago, it was a huge pain even leaning forward on the couch to get my food. The nice part was that it was about 5 minutes in between bites, and the food always tasted so good. I've tried eating slowly since, but I'll tell you, it's harder than it looks. I love the tast of food so much, it just kind of sneaks up on you and boom, your plate is clean. Which is why I'm never going to tell my kids to clean their plate. If they stop eating, fine I'll put it in the fridge and if they get hungry later they can eat that. But cleaning your plate is just so absolutely arbitrary. With a device like this, I'd like to think I can get myself a little better tuned to when I'm actually full.

Oh, and FutureFeeder is a great read! (Subscribed!)

Reading Chooky's Blog and a recent visit with my girlfriend and her family to an excellent exhibit of Lewis and Clark maps have certainly dulled my opinion of myself. Chooky talks about three fellas - Erastosthenes, Aristarchus, and Anaxagoras - who happened to come up with the size, shape and relative distances before they knew the Earth and Sun were anything else than big flat platters being carried around on the chariots of Gods. Fine, they knew about pi but they certainly did not have any kind of confirmation about the shape of the Earth. Talk about novel thinking!

And Lewis and Clark, while not working from the same dearth of scientific knowledge, basically walked out into the world with absolutely no idea what was out there. I loved looking at those maps because I cannot think of another area where you would be the only person to put pen to paper and actually record the very first instance of something. (For those who would like to say the Native Americans were there first, I do not deny this, but they certainly did not cover as wide a scope as Lewis and Clark and did not affect all of the rest of the population of the US in the same way. Now if you want to bring up the Polynesian folks who sailed from Indonesia to Hawaii in basically a canoe, that's another story!).

Any how, I'm not quite so pessimistic as John Horgan declaring the end of all discovery, but it certainly feels like I am a lot further away from discovering anything that would affect our fundamental understanding of the universe. One may, semi-convincingly, argue that it is that process of discovery that truly identifies the geniuses. Yet what's left to discover without having multi-doctorates in high energy physics? It's not like I can just reach out any more and just discover gravity. It's there all the time! They don't even bother to turn it off on weekends...

D