2006-09-19T23:15:00.000-07:00

So I'm browsing the net and I land on this site. It's basically some article about how the views of some scientist were not mentioned because they advocated global warmning and the President did not want working against his agenda. Fine - I guess I'm just used to that kind of crap from this administration...

But then you've got the whole discussion after it. People who're for global warming, people who're against it - you can't be for or against global warming in the same way that you can't be for or against gravity. Some guy takes a report about how we can't say that hurricanes are increasing in their intensity and frequency and uses it to advocate that there is no such thing as global warming.

And so I had to reply because of all the ignorance:

#27: Analyzing the IPCC report and your argument, I think that your train of thought is as follows:

- According to the IPCC report, there is not enough evidence to claim that tropical storm intensity has been increasing over the last few years.

- Tropical storm intensity and frequency would only be increasing if global warming were occurring.

- As there is no way to prove that tropical storm intensity and frequency have been increasing, there is consequently no way to justify global warming.

- Hence, global warming does not exist.

There are, of course, logical and factual fallacies in your train of thought and the one that the article attempts to spur in its readers minds. I would like to start out by quickly pointing out that the report states there is not enough evidence to justify that the recent increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms is part of a long-term pattern. It does attempt not link such a possible increase to global warming, nor does it deny the existence of global warming. These are all conclusions that you and others have reached by yourselves, albeit not of any fault of your own. I believe that the tone and style of the report have been engineered so as to direct you toward these kinds of ideas.

To begin with, in stating that there is not enough evidence to justify a long-term increasing trend in the severity and frequency of tropical storms, the article does imply that there has been such an increase, at least in the “short” term. Using a platform of scientific debate, it is of course hard to prove that there has been such an increase and that this increase is part of a long term trend, especially in a system as complex as that of tropical storms. After all, what is enough evidence? Do we need to record trends over the last 5 years or maybe last 100? What kind of scale should we be using? One related to human activity or geological activity? And how likely does it have to be that hurricanes tomorrow will be more intense and frequent than those last year? 80, 90 or 99 percent? Such questions are fundamentally linked to the fact that systems like tropical storms are rely on interactions between so many factors that we cannot currently understand them at a very precise and accurate level. We are therefore forced to use statistical tools and interpret tropical storms as tweaked random systems.

Because statistical models only give us figures that we are forced to interpret for ourselves, we are allowed to reach our own set of conclusions through different interpretations. As such, it can be hard to reach a conclusion that people agree upon through statistics– especially when people who are actively engaged in discrediting global warming use extremely biased and faulty assumptions to reach their own ends. Moreover, these individuals can also use this fact to give themselves the liberty to criticize other studies for their interpretations - most of which are perfectly reasonable. You can subsequently see that studies that have looked at trends in a human scale are criticized for not taking into account a timescale that takes into account the history of the earth. In turn, those which have are said to not focus enough on the present. In short: it is therefore very simple for these to manipulate the subjective terms for “sufficient evidence” so as to justify existing data and classify it as "insufficient".

Though most importantly, the fact that the report backs its “insufficient proof” argument up with a strongly negative tone makes it seem as if there is actually no increase at all. This is not a mistake; it is just malicious writing. Again, on a scientific platform, the writers could definitely not state that there is no increase – by their own standards of proof, this would require them about as much evidence as someone else would need to show them that there is an increase. Nevertheless, by rejecting the certainty of an increase in the long term, they can adopt a negative tone and suggest that there is none at all. In truth, however, short term data definitely suggests a dramatic increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms. And in the long term, all we can say is that there is some uncertainty that stems from the statistical analysis: for all we know, there can be an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms in the long term; we are just unable to prove it by playing their game.

Also consider the fact that we may not actually be able to afford the luxury of adequate scientific proof in this case. What if there is really an increasing trend in tropical storms? Can we really just wait another 100 years to prove it? Can we really take such a risk when everything we have lived through in the last decade suggests that tropical storms are increasing in their frequency and intensity are destroying towns around the world and the United States? Should we not, instead, avoid the risk by taking at least a few measures? Remember that measures do not have to fight against global warming (although this is probably the smartest thing to do), they can focus on building levies, increasing awareness and fostering a response teams.

The truth is, we probably should not wait and probably should not take that risk. As a nation, the United States does not do things that way. Yet, the government and its “scientific” organizations require so much proof on an issue like this simply because it is related to global warming and works against their agenda. Ironically, these are the very same people who were relatively easygoing in terms of their “evidence” when it came to war against Iraq – what many today consider a waste of effort and billions and billions of tax dollars. My point in writing all of this is that there has been so much debate about global warming recently and that it is not doing us any good. Even an everyday report like this one, which focuses on tropical storms, is being used so as to credit or discredit global warming. The truth is that global warming is not a debatable subject - whether you are conservative or liberal, from Alaska or from California, it is truth and it affects us all. So read some articles, take some classes, understand the process (because it really, really, really makes sense), see how the entire scientific community universally agrees on the subject, see how U.S. government officials are so careful about their claims or learn from how this report is so malicious. If you don’t want to, then open your eyes, go outside and feel how hot it is during the summer, see how irregular the seasons have become and visit some of the colder regions of the world to see how fast the glaciers are melting. Whether you ignore it or you accept it, the way things are going it will soon be undeniable and unavoidable and affect us all. Hopefully, by then, the U.S. government will be as determined and generous nation it was only a few years ago during the War on Iraq. Hopefully by then, it will use its influence as a world leader to pave the path for other nations, like China, India and Brazil to follow in its footsteps.

2006-08-27T21:15:00.000-07:00

Credits go to Aron Bothman of the Daily Californian :)

2006-08-26T00:51:00.000-07:00

So my new suitemate forces me to watch Fox News with him the other day... And though I refuse because I've heard so much crap about it, I agree - like him - to sit down and laugh at the news anchors. You'd think I'd be laughing, but I'm so appalled, I'm just cringing in disbelief.

I recently talked about Fox News as the Republican version of Michael Moore. Looking back, I think that Michael Moore did do some respectable things in his documentaries; despite the blatant and possibly unfounded Bush bashing of Fahrenheit 911, Bowling for Columbine was somewhat focused and reasonable. Fox News in comparison is unbelievable - I mean talk about the hype that the channel receives. And for what? There is no reason, no fact, no fairness associated with it... It's almost painful to think about the people who listen to this crap everyday and are actually affected by it.

In the 30 minutes or so that I actually watched the programs, I noticed - well - bias. Fine. Bias is alright with me. Bias makes things interesting and it offers an alternative viewpoint. Perhaps, it isn't really possible to write without bias. But Fox News hammers its biased, unfounded viewpoint onto its fans through on so many different levels that it just spells out propaganda. Take, for example, the "Charismatic Republican Talk Show Host vs. Goofy Democrat Strategist" platform - they force the democrat to answer yes or no to political equivalents of chicken or egg questions, they prevent him from speaking his mind, let alone properly explaining certain facts or arguments, they end up forcibly cornering him into a point with some of their quick, flaming statements.

I am a liberal and as a liberal, I believe that everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Sure, be conservative, tell me what you think and why you think it. But I mean come talk to me with reason, don't fight against me, don't belittle my opinion and favour your viewpoints, especially not when you're doing it by shooting some controversial, red, white and blue shit in my face. It definitely isn't good politics. Far from it, it definitely isn't good journalism: it's lies and it's manipulation - all of it organized to appeal to the largest possible audience in the easiest possible way...

Those watching Fox News often realize that the media often tends to split everything into a Republican vs. Democrat war where there is no middle ground, no room for compromise or agreement. My opinion is that such a trend within modern news culture encourages people to split up between themselves to a point where they can barely agree on any issue. Arguments nowadays are hardly ever settled, it's either one view or another, and you're wondering who has the final say? Well it's those who have the power to do so: the rich, the popular, the Republican Congress, the President - you name it. At the end of the day, our decisions are made by a majority that encounters some significant but ultimately futile opposition; there is little democracy in America.

Idees Perdues