I work in a library. My job mostly consists of walking around, shelving books, making sure books are where they should be, putting away documents. Not entirely mindless work, but almost. If you didn't love books, you'd certainly shoot yourself, because this is not exciting or particularly meaningful work.
Recently, I discovered what may be a saving grace to get me through the hours. Amazon.com has launched a new counterpart, Audible.com, which specializes in downloadable audiobooks. You sign up for a membership at $7.50 per month, and each month you receive 1 credit, which allows you to download one audiobook for free (or for the $7.50, depending on how you look at it). Beyond that, you can download whatever you want, and your membership qualifies you for a 30% discount on every download.
I've never listened to audiobooks before. Never really had the time. Some people spend a lot of time in their cars, and it makes sense for them. I never have, and when I'm in the car I always want to rock n roll anyway.
But now I've got the time. I've got precisely 19 hours a week of time. And the boss doesn't have a problem with employees walking around with an iPod.
When you open an account, you automatically get two free downloads. I decided to go with some 19th century literature, big books that I have a hard time slogging through on paper: Charles Dickens' "Bleak House" and Mark Twain's newly released "Autobiography."
I've been listening to "Bleak House," and I find this format is amazing. I can wander and listen and take in the story, and the 19th century style, instead of becoming a drag as it can on the page, becomes a great strength when read aloud. Especially in the case of Dickens, whose rhythm and mastery of the language are fully grasped when heard by the outer-ear and not merely in one's own inner monologue.
There are drawbacks, for sure. It is harder to mark off passages you might want to come back to. And if you are a writer, you cannot (obviously) see the structure of the writing on the page itself, and thus it is harder to learn from.
However, there is also great advantages. First, as I said, is hearing the story spoken. Great literature ought to sound great when read aloud. If it doesn't, there's something wrong. One of the finest tests of a writer's mastery of language is the Read Aloud Test. This is where you can really sort the wheat from the chaff. The best examples of this test are the particularly charismatic sentence stylists such as Faulkner or Fitzgerald. Read aloud their syntactically light-footed sentences, and what becomes apparent is that their writing is perfectly pitched for the ear. The work of lesser writers, when read aloud, clangs and bangs, causing one to wince and moan.
The other great advantage is simply time. It would likely take me a month to finish "Bleak House." I would start out fast, but the book would slowly wear me down. I would enjoy it, but midway through I would be finishing ten to twenty pages a day, a pathetic and drudgey number.
Listening to the audiobook, I can finish the whole work in 33 hours. Or, a little under two weeks at work. At that pace, I could finish 24 "Bleak House's" per year!
Anyway, if you're a booklover, Audible.com is worth a look. The selection is huge. The prices are higher than what you'd pay for a new hardback (audiobooks always are), but the $7.50 per month gets you one book and the 30% discount makes the prices more reasonable. If you've got an iPod it's fantastic, but you can also download and burn them onto CDs. Or listen on your computer.
Check it out.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Everday Masterpieces
I just finished the brilliant and concise novel by Stewart O'Nan "Last Night at the Lobster." This beautiful little book is like a small heartbreak, one that leaves you incapacitated but from which you know you will recover. It's a blues song in prose, but laced with hope.
O'Nan, though named by Granta (the literary magazine) as one of the 20 Best American Writers Under Forty, remains little known. His one true bestseller is the book he co-wrote with Stephen King, "Faithful," about the Red Sox World Series-winning season (the one that ended the fabled Curse of the Bambino). It is, in a way, a sad estimation of O'Nan's incredible talent that this is likely his only book to reach a massive audience, especially considering that, in the future, it is likely to be his least remembered work (it will likely be remembered only by King fans, and even then only as an oddity).
The truth is that O'Nan is a major talent (for once, Granta got it right). And "Last Night at the Lobster" is no exception.
O'Nan is that rare writer--rare not because it requires more talent, but simply because it requires a very specific sensibility--who grounds his stories entirely in everyday events. His people are ordinary people. Their lives are ordinary lives. Nothing particularly stupendous or exemplary occurs. And yet out of the simplest materials O'Nan carves fiction that stirs something inside you, gut-checks you out of your complacency, sometimes breaks you.
His last novel "Songs for the Missing" is a fine example. It is a story about the disappearance of a teenage girl and how her family handles and copes with her disappearance. In the hands of different writers this story would take on varied dimensions. For Denis Lehane, this would be a crime novel ("Moonlight Mile"). For Joyce Carol Oates, it would be a tale of family disintegration and societal obsession ("My Sister, My Love").
But O'Nan does not take it in either grand direction. He simply details how we cope, or fail to cope, how we experience devastation, how ordinary lives are shattered by the rather ordinary tawdriness of living in America.
The truth is that O'Nan's novels should be boring. His approach should put you to sleep. Because he does nothing fancy. He refuses to stand out. And yet, instead of boredom one finds themselves enthralled, and perhaps this is why he has been compared to the great Russian short story master, Anton Chekhov. The comparison is apt, for they both make much out of little.
The only novel of O'Nan's that, on the surface, breaks the pattern, is his wonderful novella "The Night Country." It is a ghost story, but unlike any ghost story you've ever read. The ghosts are a group of teenagers who died in a car wreck last fall, and now they have returned come Halloween night.
But, in typical O'Nan fashion, these ghosts are, sadly but not disappointingly, ordinary. Sadly, because they are ghosts damnit, and they should be by their very nature different from the rest of us, but they're not. They are simply teenagers, hardly changed by the fact that they are dead. They narrate parts of the story, as they travel about town during Halloween night, following old friends, following old teachers, following the man who was at fault in the accident that killed them all.
It is a beautifully written piece that manages to haunt you long after it is over, a feat all the more impressive given that O'Nan's ghost do no "haunting."
Another impressive work is the major novel "Wish You Were Here." It is the story of a far-flung family coming together for one last vacation at their summer home on the lake. The family has slowly pulled apart over the years, but not necessarily to the breaking point. Rather, the myriad of little battles have merely left their scars, and everyone has spent time in the trenches.
O'Nan writes a nearly flawless examination of the way families work, of the intricacies of loyalty and betrayal, of the beauty and the heartbreak of marriage, of the bitterness of failure and the sometimes equally bitter quality of success. His prose is perfectly on-pitch, smoothly revealing the lives of young children, teenagers, middle-aged parents and the elderly, all believable, all engrossing.
Not many writers delve into their characters' lives in this way, showing not only joy, not only pain, but the way in which both these elements are held so continuously in tandem. O'Nan writes with a brutal honesty that deserves more attention, for it is only with this kind of emotional and intellectual honesty that we can, both as individuals and as a nation, hope to face the perils of our everyday lives. For they are perilous, and how we spend our days, how we think our daily thoughts, how we live and breathe moment to moment, these little bits add up and become our lives.
"Last Night at the Lobster" is a fine piece of writing. Give it a shot. It's a short read, an afternoon's attempt, really, at just under 150 pages.
You won't regret it.
O'Nan, though named by Granta (the literary magazine) as one of the 20 Best American Writers Under Forty, remains little known. His one true bestseller is the book he co-wrote with Stephen King, "Faithful," about the Red Sox World Series-winning season (the one that ended the fabled Curse of the Bambino). It is, in a way, a sad estimation of O'Nan's incredible talent that this is likely his only book to reach a massive audience, especially considering that, in the future, it is likely to be his least remembered work (it will likely be remembered only by King fans, and even then only as an oddity).
The truth is that O'Nan is a major talent (for once, Granta got it right). And "Last Night at the Lobster" is no exception.
O'Nan is that rare writer--rare not because it requires more talent, but simply because it requires a very specific sensibility--who grounds his stories entirely in everyday events. His people are ordinary people. Their lives are ordinary lives. Nothing particularly stupendous or exemplary occurs. And yet out of the simplest materials O'Nan carves fiction that stirs something inside you, gut-checks you out of your complacency, sometimes breaks you.
His last novel "Songs for the Missing" is a fine example. It is a story about the disappearance of a teenage girl and how her family handles and copes with her disappearance. In the hands of different writers this story would take on varied dimensions. For Denis Lehane, this would be a crime novel ("Moonlight Mile"). For Joyce Carol Oates, it would be a tale of family disintegration and societal obsession ("My Sister, My Love").
But O'Nan does not take it in either grand direction. He simply details how we cope, or fail to cope, how we experience devastation, how ordinary lives are shattered by the rather ordinary tawdriness of living in America.
The truth is that O'Nan's novels should be boring. His approach should put you to sleep. Because he does nothing fancy. He refuses to stand out. And yet, instead of boredom one finds themselves enthralled, and perhaps this is why he has been compared to the great Russian short story master, Anton Chekhov. The comparison is apt, for they both make much out of little.
The only novel of O'Nan's that, on the surface, breaks the pattern, is his wonderful novella "The Night Country." It is a ghost story, but unlike any ghost story you've ever read. The ghosts are a group of teenagers who died in a car wreck last fall, and now they have returned come Halloween night.
But, in typical O'Nan fashion, these ghosts are, sadly but not disappointingly, ordinary. Sadly, because they are ghosts damnit, and they should be by their very nature different from the rest of us, but they're not. They are simply teenagers, hardly changed by the fact that they are dead. They narrate parts of the story, as they travel about town during Halloween night, following old friends, following old teachers, following the man who was at fault in the accident that killed them all.
It is a beautifully written piece that manages to haunt you long after it is over, a feat all the more impressive given that O'Nan's ghost do no "haunting."
Another impressive work is the major novel "Wish You Were Here." It is the story of a far-flung family coming together for one last vacation at their summer home on the lake. The family has slowly pulled apart over the years, but not necessarily to the breaking point. Rather, the myriad of little battles have merely left their scars, and everyone has spent time in the trenches.
O'Nan writes a nearly flawless examination of the way families work, of the intricacies of loyalty and betrayal, of the beauty and the heartbreak of marriage, of the bitterness of failure and the sometimes equally bitter quality of success. His prose is perfectly on-pitch, smoothly revealing the lives of young children, teenagers, middle-aged parents and the elderly, all believable, all engrossing.
Not many writers delve into their characters' lives in this way, showing not only joy, not only pain, but the way in which both these elements are held so continuously in tandem. O'Nan writes with a brutal honesty that deserves more attention, for it is only with this kind of emotional and intellectual honesty that we can, both as individuals and as a nation, hope to face the perils of our everyday lives. For they are perilous, and how we spend our days, how we think our daily thoughts, how we live and breathe moment to moment, these little bits add up and become our lives.
"Last Night at the Lobster" is a fine piece of writing. Give it a shot. It's a short read, an afternoon's attempt, really, at just under 150 pages.
You won't regret it.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Lost American Writer
I've written here before about Don Robertson, the author of the Morris Bird trilogy, which includes "The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread," "The Sum and Total of Now," and "The Greatest Thing That Almost Happened." It is still my fervent belief that this trilogy is something special in American literature, a truly unique and utterly accurate portrayal of the coming of age of a young boy. The coming of age story is a classic structure, but few writers pull it off convincingly. Robertson seems to do so with ease, delving into truths and mysteries few writers dare to touch.
His trilogy is, I argue, better than the more highly lauded "Catcher in the Rye," and is without question the equal of "To Kill a Mockingbird." That Robertson's work is wholly ignored today, that he is a great "lost writer," is a sad and unfortunate circumstance.
I have recently finished another Robertson novel, "A Flag Full of Stars," which takes place almost entirely upon election day during the presidential election of Harry Truman. If anyone recalls their history, Truman, who was the incumbent president, was not merely supposed to lose to the challenger Dewey, but to be roundly and solidly whipped. Every single polling agency in the country predicted President Truman going down in flames and the Republican party taking over the government. In fact, Truman won, the Democrats won, and Dewey became but a footnote in history. It was one of the greatest upsets in American politics.
Robertson's novel follows a vast cast of characters, many of whom have loose ties with each other, their lives having swerved together and apart throughout the years. But few of these characters actually collide on election day. Instead, Robertson follows this panorama throughout the day, showing in detail the lives of his dozen-plus characters, all of whom will be touched in ways either great or small by Truman's election.
Robertson does not try and make a case for politics as transformation. Most of his characters undergo no "ah-ha!" moment when Truman is elected. Some, in fact, are nearly oblivious to politics in general, and Truman's election does not induce an overwhelming redirection in their lives.
Instead, Robertson aims to show how politics interweave into the everyday lives of ordinary people. How the hopes and dreams of normal Americans are subtly altered by the political world. More importantly, by juxtaposing national politics with everyday life, Robertson illustrates how all politics are local. How politics begin, and often end, inside the small community, inside the home, inside the bedroom, and inside the mind. Also, by choosing Truman's election, Robertson aptly focuses on a defining American moment when all eyes were turned in the same direction, and in doing so he shows us how, in spite of our differences, we are all Americans. There are few such moments: Pearl Harbor, September 11th, Kennedy's assassination...it is to Robertson's credit, I think, that he chooses not a travesty (unless, perhaps, you're a Republican) but a powerful, social moment devoid of tragedy. He could have written a similar panoramic novel around, say, Lincoln's assassination or the 1929 stock market crash, but the tone and result would have been vastly different.
Where Robertson excels is in getting you to care about his characters. He does so in old fashioned ways. He gives you tremendous detail and information, but always in a way that is entertaining and thoughtful. His humor is present throughout, as is his pathos. Even his most pathetic characters retain some level of dignity, and it is the sign of Robertson's mastery that he can keep you hanging on whether he is writing about a pregnant teenage girl running away from home to a shotgun marriage or a bitter middle-aged wife encouraging her cheating husband to run for office in the hope that he will lose.
Don Robertson is a great American writer. He is also, sadly, a nearly-forgotten American writer. I don't know that you will be able to find "A Flag Full of Stars." It is currently out of print, but you might be able to locate it through a library loan. If you can't, Robertson's Morris Bird trilogy has been re-issued and can be found at any major bookstore. I would urge you to start there. "The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread" is an out and out masterpiece.
Good luck.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
That Old Spooky Feeling
A week into my favorite month of the year, I feel it is high time to celebrate one of my favorite artists.
October often brings thoughts of Ray Bradbury, that master of fluttering fallen leaves and haunted gusts of wind, but there is another major American artist who deserves attention this time of year: Charles Addams.
Better known now for the movies made from his characters, The Addams Family, Addams' actual comics are sadly neglected. This is most unfortunate given that the films, while funny in their own right, turned Addams' biting, eerie humor into a form of ludicrous ham-it-up escapades. While the movies tickle the funny bone, Addams' comics jolt the gut. They are both funny...and churning.
It is often said that this artist or that is a "one of a kind," by which it is generally meant that an artist is talented, even though their may be a dozen other artists just like them. In Addams' case, the term fits rather well. There are other master cartoon series (I favor Dilbert, Garfield and The Far Side), there is no one who strikes the same balance of humor and queasiness that Addams achieves time and again.
For a taste, here are some of my favorites. If you like, check out Addams' collections Nightcrawlers and Monster Rally.
October often brings thoughts of Ray Bradbury, that master of fluttering fallen leaves and haunted gusts of wind, but there is another major American artist who deserves attention this time of year: Charles Addams.
Better known now for the movies made from his characters, The Addams Family, Addams' actual comics are sadly neglected. This is most unfortunate given that the films, while funny in their own right, turned Addams' biting, eerie humor into a form of ludicrous ham-it-up escapades. While the movies tickle the funny bone, Addams' comics jolt the gut. They are both funny...and churning.
It is often said that this artist or that is a "one of a kind," by which it is generally meant that an artist is talented, even though their may be a dozen other artists just like them. In Addams' case, the term fits rather well. There are other master cartoon series (I favor Dilbert, Garfield and The Far Side), there is no one who strikes the same balance of humor and queasiness that Addams achieves time and again.
For a taste, here are some of my favorites. If you like, check out Addams' collections Nightcrawlers and Monster Rally.
"Honestly, can't you do anything right?"
"George! George! Drop the keys!"
Friday, September 17, 2010
Please Set Me Free
Coming to the close of Jonathon Franzen's new and heavily lauded novel, I found myself reading B.R. Myer's review of Freedom in The Atlantic Monthly. It is the most incise and accurate description of the book I've read. There has been so much press surrounding Freedom and nearly all of it unabashedly, resoundingly--I hesitate only briefly to say weepingly--positive that one almost feels compelled to rush to the nearest bookstore, snatch the book off the shelf, and batten down inside the closest available bathroom to read this monument cover to cover.
But, alas...spare yourself.
It ain't worth it.
"But if Freedom is middlebrow," Myers writes, "it is so in the sacrosanct Don DeLillo tradition, which our critical establishment considers central to literature today. The apparent logic is that the novel can lure Americans away from their media and entertainment buffet only by becoming more 'social,' broader in scope, more up-to-date in focus. This may be the reason we get such boring characters. Instead of portraying an interesting individual or two, and trusting in realism to embed their story naturally in contemporary life, the Social Writer thinks of all the relevant issues he has to stuff in, then conceives of a family 'typical' enough to hold everything together. The more aspects of our society he can fit in between the books' covers, the more ambitious he is considered to be."
This is, I think, the finest summation not only of Freedom but of a whole swath of modern American fiction.
Interestingly, my experience with Franzen's novel was eerily the same as my experience with the other writer Myers name-drops, DeLillo. Underworld's prose dragged me swiftly along, shifting between periods when DeLillo really revs up and periods where the book is roughly on par, in terms of excitement, with watching cement dry (this, mind you, is the book that ranked number 2 in a recent poll of the greatest novels of the last thirty years). When I eventually tossed the book down, after 400 pages (the half-way point) it wasn't even primarily because it had become boring but because after all those pages absolutely nothing had happened (but then, maybe that is the definition of boring).
Freedom doesn't even have that much going for it. Nowhere do you really feel like Franzen is revving up. Mostly you wonder if someone will ever point him toward the runway. Strangely, though, he is not unreadable. In fact, quite the opposite. Franzen's writing is misleadingly swift, accessible, and compulsive; misleadingly, because it never leads anywhere.
It also, sadly, is full of hackneyed grammar and overburdened cliches, which, in their attempts to appear clever, have only that much further to fall.
Consider: "...stirred the cauldrons like a Viking oarsman," "...another overconsuming white American male who felt entitled to more and more and more: saw the romantic imperialism of his falling for someone fresh and Asian, having exhausted domestic supplies," "...the emptiness of her nest...now that the kids had flown."
American literary critics have yet to give justified explanation for why writers of commercially successful fiction can be condemned for such stilted, silly cliches but writers of mainstream garbage are given a free pass.
Indeed, it is not just a free pass that is often given, but high praise, awards, and money.
As it stands right now, Franzen's novel is the 2010 Oprah Book Club Pick (the irony here is sharp enough to draw blood). It is the number one and number two bestseller on Amazon.com (a miracle of marketing made possible by a separate, Oprah BC edition). Franzen will no doubt be up for a National Book Award or Pulitzer Prize (Pulitzer being more likely, as he won the NBA for his last novel). The movie rights have already been purchased. And Franzen made the cover of Time under the heading "Great American Novelist," with Freedom being compared to Tolstoy's War and Peace.
I rarely trash books...at least not publicly. And to be honest, I'm not that interested in trashing Freedom. It's not a horrible book. But it IS boring. And pointless. And, in the end, disappointing.
What disappoints most is that this is the literature the American literatti take seriously. This is what is held out to the world (and to our own society, to our children who struggle every day between choosing to read or choosing to watch movies) as the best we can do. If this is as good as our writers get, then we might as well stop trying. Because this isn't compelling literature.
There are a wealth of great writers in America. Unfortunately, Franzen isn't one of them.
If you want some better selections, take a look at the list to your left. These are the best books I read last year. All of them are worth your time.
But, alas...spare yourself.
It ain't worth it.
"But if Freedom is middlebrow," Myers writes, "it is so in the sacrosanct Don DeLillo tradition, which our critical establishment considers central to literature today. The apparent logic is that the novel can lure Americans away from their media and entertainment buffet only by becoming more 'social,' broader in scope, more up-to-date in focus. This may be the reason we get such boring characters. Instead of portraying an interesting individual or two, and trusting in realism to embed their story naturally in contemporary life, the Social Writer thinks of all the relevant issues he has to stuff in, then conceives of a family 'typical' enough to hold everything together. The more aspects of our society he can fit in between the books' covers, the more ambitious he is considered to be."
This is, I think, the finest summation not only of Freedom but of a whole swath of modern American fiction.
Interestingly, my experience with Franzen's novel was eerily the same as my experience with the other writer Myers name-drops, DeLillo. Underworld's prose dragged me swiftly along, shifting between periods when DeLillo really revs up and periods where the book is roughly on par, in terms of excitement, with watching cement dry (this, mind you, is the book that ranked number 2 in a recent poll of the greatest novels of the last thirty years). When I eventually tossed the book down, after 400 pages (the half-way point) it wasn't even primarily because it had become boring but because after all those pages absolutely nothing had happened (but then, maybe that is the definition of boring).
Freedom doesn't even have that much going for it. Nowhere do you really feel like Franzen is revving up. Mostly you wonder if someone will ever point him toward the runway. Strangely, though, he is not unreadable. In fact, quite the opposite. Franzen's writing is misleadingly swift, accessible, and compulsive; misleadingly, because it never leads anywhere.
It also, sadly, is full of hackneyed grammar and overburdened cliches, which, in their attempts to appear clever, have only that much further to fall.
Consider: "...stirred the cauldrons like a Viking oarsman," "...another overconsuming white American male who felt entitled to more and more and more: saw the romantic imperialism of his falling for someone fresh and Asian, having exhausted domestic supplies," "...the emptiness of her nest...now that the kids had flown."
American literary critics have yet to give justified explanation for why writers of commercially successful fiction can be condemned for such stilted, silly cliches but writers of mainstream garbage are given a free pass.
Indeed, it is not just a free pass that is often given, but high praise, awards, and money.
As it stands right now, Franzen's novel is the 2010 Oprah Book Club Pick (the irony here is sharp enough to draw blood). It is the number one and number two bestseller on Amazon.com (a miracle of marketing made possible by a separate, Oprah BC edition). Franzen will no doubt be up for a National Book Award or Pulitzer Prize (Pulitzer being more likely, as he won the NBA for his last novel). The movie rights have already been purchased. And Franzen made the cover of Time under the heading "Great American Novelist," with Freedom being compared to Tolstoy's War and Peace.
I rarely trash books...at least not publicly. And to be honest, I'm not that interested in trashing Freedom. It's not a horrible book. But it IS boring. And pointless. And, in the end, disappointing.
What disappoints most is that this is the literature the American literatti take seriously. This is what is held out to the world (and to our own society, to our children who struggle every day between choosing to read or choosing to watch movies) as the best we can do. If this is as good as our writers get, then we might as well stop trying. Because this isn't compelling literature.
There are a wealth of great writers in America. Unfortunately, Franzen isn't one of them.
If you want some better selections, take a look at the list to your left. These are the best books I read last year. All of them are worth your time.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Still Waiting...But There's Hope
I snagged up the new book "Waiting For Superman," a collection of essays given the dubious subtitle "How We Can Save America's Failing Public Schools." It is a companion piece to the new documentary film which has been getting nothing but fantastic press and which, hopefully, will spark some new and innovative debate around this particularly important and continually problematic issue.
The debate over public education has existed in America since the beginning, but the modern debate intensified roughly forty years ago with the release of the Coleman Report and, some two decades later, the "Nation At Risk" report. Both studies were extensive and exhaustive examinations of national educational standards and results. Both came to the same conclusion: things were bad.
Rather bitingly, "Nation At Risk" declared "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." That was in 1983.
Sadly, little has changed between the 1966 release of the Coleman Report and today.
Well, actually, some things have changed. Such as money. In 1960, America spent $3,170 per pupil per year (this is adjusted to current dollar amounts). Today, we spend $11,674. A few other things changed as well. Today's teachers are now better educated, with well over half of current teachers holding masters degrees as opposed to only 23.5 percent in 1960. Median teacher experience levels have steadily increased. And, also generally considered a positive, class sizes have (in spite of what you've heard) decreased dramatically. In 1960, the average class size was 25.8 students per teacher. In 2007 it stood at 15.5.
What didn't change, though, was the quality of education.
Fifty years of heated public debate and a tripling of per pupil spending, literally billions of dollars increase in spending, have not shown any significant alteration in student test scores or, even more relevantly, in any other area of student performance.
In fact, the sad truth is American schoolchildren have fallen far, far from where they stood fifty years ago when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. It is a particularly distressing and depressing fact to ponder that America ranks 25 in math and 21 in science...out of 30. Worse, when the comparison is restricted to the top 5 percent of students, America ranks dead last.
Delving deeper into the statistics is only more depressing. I'll spare you here, but you can read all about them in the book.
What's more important, though, is that this book isn't about getting depressed. It's about getting excited and getting involved. It's about getting from where we've been and where we are to where we want to be. And it just happens to be one of those rare books I've read where the ideas about how to do so are not only realistic and proven but also cut beneath the surface of the debate to the deeper and more fundamental issues that make real differences.
For example, when people discuss changing public education, they generally address only surface inputs. Higher funding levels. Higher teacher standards. Smaller schools. Tests and accountability. They basically discuss the issues which can be easily addressed, easily quantified, and easily understood. These are the things which can be shown on paper.
They are also the things we've been addressing for some forty plus years. They are the changes we HAVE made. And they have all been ineffective.
It's not that we don't need better teachers. It's not that smaller class sizes aren't nice. It's not more experienced teachers aren't (generally, on average) better than brand new teachers.
It's simply that these factors do not translate into better overall education. They are not one-to-one factors. They are not the magic bullet.
The truth is there is no magic bullet, which is the major reason public education remains on the rocks. It isn't a simple system where if we simply pull one lever the whole thing starts to run smoothly again.
However, there ARE proven things which can be done to change the dynamics and improve education. They're just not what we've been doing for years. And they don't translate well into soundbites, which means our politicians aren't talking about them and our media aren't covering them.
A good example is the teacher's unions. The two major teacher unions are the largest political contributors in the country, more than the AARP, more than the NRA, more than BP or Exxon. They are, undoubtedly, part of the solution, but they are also part of the problem. It is infinitely more difficult to remove a mediocre teacher than it is to get rid of an unethical lawyer or a criminal doctor. Mediocre teachers are hurting our kids, but they are fiercely protected by the unions. But this is not a politically viable stance if you want to get into office. You can't run on the platform of being against teacher's unions.
"Waiting for Superman" addresses these issues, and many more. Ranging from how we design our school buildings to the many ways in which average people can become involved in schools to utilizing volunteer groups like Americorps to partnering with business experts to create industry specific education standards. There are many solutions, many small pieces of the puzzle that when brought together can equal success.
I suggest anyone interested in public education get this book. Even if you're not an educator or don't have children, there is a section at the end of the book covering a myriad of ways you can contribute to bettering America's schools. There are many possibilities, all of them worth checking out.
So take a look. And get involved.
The debate over public education has existed in America since the beginning, but the modern debate intensified roughly forty years ago with the release of the Coleman Report and, some two decades later, the "Nation At Risk" report. Both studies were extensive and exhaustive examinations of national educational standards and results. Both came to the same conclusion: things were bad.
Rather bitingly, "Nation At Risk" declared "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." That was in 1983.
Sadly, little has changed between the 1966 release of the Coleman Report and today.
Well, actually, some things have changed. Such as money. In 1960, America spent $3,170 per pupil per year (this is adjusted to current dollar amounts). Today, we spend $11,674. A few other things changed as well. Today's teachers are now better educated, with well over half of current teachers holding masters degrees as opposed to only 23.5 percent in 1960. Median teacher experience levels have steadily increased. And, also generally considered a positive, class sizes have (in spite of what you've heard) decreased dramatically. In 1960, the average class size was 25.8 students per teacher. In 2007 it stood at 15.5.
What didn't change, though, was the quality of education.
Fifty years of heated public debate and a tripling of per pupil spending, literally billions of dollars increase in spending, have not shown any significant alteration in student test scores or, even more relevantly, in any other area of student performance.
In fact, the sad truth is American schoolchildren have fallen far, far from where they stood fifty years ago when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. It is a particularly distressing and depressing fact to ponder that America ranks 25 in math and 21 in science...out of 30. Worse, when the comparison is restricted to the top 5 percent of students, America ranks dead last.
Delving deeper into the statistics is only more depressing. I'll spare you here, but you can read all about them in the book.
What's more important, though, is that this book isn't about getting depressed. It's about getting excited and getting involved. It's about getting from where we've been and where we are to where we want to be. And it just happens to be one of those rare books I've read where the ideas about how to do so are not only realistic and proven but also cut beneath the surface of the debate to the deeper and more fundamental issues that make real differences.
For example, when people discuss changing public education, they generally address only surface inputs. Higher funding levels. Higher teacher standards. Smaller schools. Tests and accountability. They basically discuss the issues which can be easily addressed, easily quantified, and easily understood. These are the things which can be shown on paper.
They are also the things we've been addressing for some forty plus years. They are the changes we HAVE made. And they have all been ineffective.
It's not that we don't need better teachers. It's not that smaller class sizes aren't nice. It's not more experienced teachers aren't (generally, on average) better than brand new teachers.
It's simply that these factors do not translate into better overall education. They are not one-to-one factors. They are not the magic bullet.
The truth is there is no magic bullet, which is the major reason public education remains on the rocks. It isn't a simple system where if we simply pull one lever the whole thing starts to run smoothly again.
However, there ARE proven things which can be done to change the dynamics and improve education. They're just not what we've been doing for years. And they don't translate well into soundbites, which means our politicians aren't talking about them and our media aren't covering them.
A good example is the teacher's unions. The two major teacher unions are the largest political contributors in the country, more than the AARP, more than the NRA, more than BP or Exxon. They are, undoubtedly, part of the solution, but they are also part of the problem. It is infinitely more difficult to remove a mediocre teacher than it is to get rid of an unethical lawyer or a criminal doctor. Mediocre teachers are hurting our kids, but they are fiercely protected by the unions. But this is not a politically viable stance if you want to get into office. You can't run on the platform of being against teacher's unions.
"Waiting for Superman" addresses these issues, and many more. Ranging from how we design our school buildings to the many ways in which average people can become involved in schools to utilizing volunteer groups like Americorps to partnering with business experts to create industry specific education standards. There are many solutions, many small pieces of the puzzle that when brought together can equal success.
I suggest anyone interested in public education get this book. Even if you're not an educator or don't have children, there is a section at the end of the book covering a myriad of ways you can contribute to bettering America's schools. There are many possibilities, all of them worth checking out.
So take a look. And get involved.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Buy Shit, Sell Shit & Get Out of Dodge
Riding back to my apartment in Cheney from Chelan I was excited to finally put on the new album from Shooter Jennings called Black Ribbons. I wasn't entirely certain what to expect. Jennings billed it as a concept album which had come to him during his cross country trip with his family. Driving his mobile home along the highways of middle America in the dark hours of the morning, Jennings was struck by the short range radio shows he was picking up. These weren't major stations or even small town stations, but old timers broadcasting from their basements or their back porches or up on the top of a hill (are there hills in middle America?).
What touched Jennings was the note of despair and rage flung out over the airwaves by these deejays, men whose voices and words evoked a tone and tenor of Armageddon. This was the Bible-belt after all, but these deejays spoke not only of religion but of politics and culture, and they spoke directly to the listener, intimately in the night.
Jennings conceived of an album with this same effect. Music interwoven with deejay monologues, little bursts and rants and the music itself a hodge-podge of sounds and styles but always circling back to the theme the deejay had chosen. An album with range and scope, both musically and lyrically, but also an album which would harken back to an older school of music, one where the audience put on an album and listened to it all the way through. An older time when listening to music was not merely background or even for footstomping, but was, quite intentionally, an experience.
Which was why I had put off listening to Black Ribbons until I had a nice long drive ahead of me. I wanted to hear it all the way through, no distractions. I had three hours between me and Cheney, plenty of time to play the whole album and get the full experience.
First off, let me say a word about the packaging. The whole of the recording industry needs to take a page out of Jennings' book here, because this is, hands down, the coolest, most entertaining packaging I've ever seen for a musical album. The artwork is arresting, with a torn American flag wrapped around the CD casing. Then, flip it open and it is literally a pop-out arrangement.
Surprise!
A man in a suit wearing a plastic sheep mask covering his face (those ones held on by a string around your head) is handing a black box to a short, pre-pubescent girl in a cute blue skirt. The words to “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” are radiating out of the man's eyes and into the girl's head (for some reason, the man possesses are eerie resemblance to George Bush).
Another flip, four black crows pop out and you discover the CD itself with the bold declaration across its front: Killing For Peace Is Like Fucking For Chastity.
(If you're not having fun by now, I don't know what's wrong with you).
As a further gift, you get a special tarot card, slightly larger than your average playing card. Mine says Martyr. I don't know if there are others.
As for the album itself...
This IS an experience. Avid music fanatic that I am, I've had a fair share of musical experiences. Black Ribbons is one of the most unique, most interesting, and one of the most fun. Taken as a whole (and I really don't see how you can take it in pieces) the album weaves a fascinating narrative, telling a story both through the music and, compellingly, through the spoken interludes of the deejay.
To give you a taste, here is the first deejay rant, entitled on the back: “Last Light Radio 11:01 PM” :
From the center of nowhere, atop the shoulders of giants, above the creeping fog of disinformation that clouds the American Union this is Will O' the Wisp and this is the Last Light Radio, your last beacon of truth and defiance. I've always started my shows by saying that all ships lost in the night search for the lighthouse on the rock of the enlightened, but good truth-seekers out there the battery is fading and the light is dying. I see that freedom has failed us and with no light the night's gonna be a long one. Woody Guthrie said this land is your land, this land is my land. Great words, but this land is their land now.
This is the last time your ears and my voice will be getting together, because as of midnight tonight our previously public airways will be commandeered for government approved and regulated transmission. The last breath of free speech will blow itself out. What rises in its place is gonna be the wind of thought control. Bad guys win, folks.
You know, I don't always play a lot of music on the show. Most of it these days is processed, bubble-gum bullshit churned out by the overlords of doublespeak and meant to turn a gray world grayer. But tonight I won't go without leaving a message. Tonight I've chosen to play the one band the American fascicrats don't want me to play. Tonight I'm going off the air with the music of Hierophant. For those of you not familiar you'll get a taste of Hierophant's music tonight, their message, their light. I started you off with Wake Up, from their 2009 album Bohemian Grove, their first and most radical. Remember what the song says: don't let em get you down.
The most important truth is love. All you need and all you need to know, as the poet says. Or was that beauty? Ah, what's the difference? Love your family. Love your neighbor. Love your enemy as yourself. Go on loving, it's what humans do best and the one thing they can't kill. Got it?
This is Will O' the Wisp; the time now is no time; the temperature is cold; the news is blue. But for now the light still shines.
From the same album now is Triskadekaphobia. That's fear of thirteen, my sons and daughters. As in thirteen o'clock.
Your listening to the last night and the last light.
Which pretty much sets up the tone and thematic of the album. What is impressive from here is the range of material Jennings incorporates. Many of the songs are loud, raucous, growling and spitting and tearing, such as “Don't Feed the Animals,” which borders on what we used to call heavy metal (although never quite reaching the same level of metal's musical disjointment...Jennings, thankfully, always remains musically interesting). Some of it here is a type of garage punk, such as the crashing “Fuck You (I'm Famous),” but other songs are achingly tender ballads.
Particularly wrenching is the number title track, a sad acoustic country (broken) love song.
Man down, tie a ribbon round my soul
I'm in the black and I'm out of control
Like a ship that's lost in the night
No direction, no guiding light
Jennings' vocals send shivers up the spine, the kind of howl that comes from some deep, inner source of pain.
Other numbers like “The Breaking Point” and “All of This Could Have Been Yours” showcase Jennings musical versatility while still knocking on the doors of lost loves, missed chances and shattered dreams. More upbeat tunes like the top-down, wheel-tapping “California Via Tennessee” keep the mood, at least at times, lively:
I'm alright
Whatcha gonna do
I went to California to get away from you
I'm alright
I seen all I gotta see
I sleep in California to dream of Tennessee
And, of course, as the narrative night pushes on our deejay host continues to rant, to rave, to comment, and to let loose with bitter but humorous statements such as: “Tonight's commercial: Buy shit, sell shit and get out of Dodge.”
Black Ribbons is an impressive, powerful accomplishment. If I were Siskel & Ebert I'd give it the old Two Thumbs Way Up! Since I'm just me, I'll tell you it's one of the best things I've heard. As an album, as an experience, it's standing in my Top 20.
So, if you've got some time, if you can set aside an hour of your day (or better yet, your night) do yourself a favor and pick up Black Ribbons. If nothing else, you can enjoy the packaging.
Oh, and in case you miss it...the voice of Will O' the Wisp: that's Stephen King.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Comments on "Bush at War"
What strikes one most upon finishing Bob Woodward's Bush at War (for the reader today with the advantage of hindsight) is the overwhelming feeling of: How could it have gone so wrong?
Woodward's book covers the first 100 days after 9/11, an exacting blow by blow account of President Bush and his inner circle's reaction to the terrorist attacks, the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, and the planning and execution of the initial phase of that war. One of the most highly respected investigative journalists in history, Woodward was given unprecedented access to President Bush and his war cabinet (including the VP, Secretaries of State and Defense, the Directors of the CIA and FBI and the National Security Advisor...they were, respectively, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Robert Mueller, and Condoleezza Rice).
First, let me be clear about what this book is. This isn't a political book. It is a book about politics, certainly, but that is somewhat incidental. It is a book of reporting, and what it reports happens to be politics. Woodward makes almost no commentary throughout the book, and only interjects his personal opinion (maybe a total of half a dozen times) when he can not say for certain what someone was feeling (in which he might write: It seemed to me that...). Woodward is a journalist first and foremost, and he makes no effort to play historian or political commentator. If you want the political screaming match, there are plenty of books from the left and the right to satisfy your taste...but this book isn't it.
Woodward's account brings us directly into the meetings where the actual decisions were made. We get moment to moment details of the daily conferences where all the options were on the board and the most powerful decision makers in our country chose this direction or that one and left others by the wayside. We see exactly the principal players' feelings, opinions and ideas about terrorism and the following war and how those opinions and ideas shaped American policy. Where do we go to war? How do we wage war? For how long? With what resources? It's all here.
What is most interesting is noting that if you had read this book in the summer after 9/11, you would have most likely felt supremely confident in the American leadership and certain that whatever challenges they faced they were the best men to handle them. For in these first 100 days, Bush and his team do very little wrong. In fact, every major decision appears to be the right one.
As in all major undertakings, there are differences of opinion. We see clear delineations between the worldviews of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell. There are also bumps in the road and minor setbacks, but nothing derailing and nothing honestly caused by any wrongheaded decisions made by these administrators. Most of what might be called “bumps” are put down to strategic challenges of waging war in Afghanistan, and all of those challenges, at least initially, were met and overcome.
Out of these first hundred days, two men truly stand out: President Bush and Secretary Powell. It is the President who is the first to raise the issue of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and he does so within the first few meetings. He is also the one who hammers on the issue over and over again. It is the President who insists on a clear plan for victory in Afghanistan, who makes himself endlessly available to all his subordinates promising to meet any and every need they have to succeed, who demands a plan that is effective and not overly costly (I don't want to use million dollar missiles to blow up fifteen dollar tents), who clearly articulates time and again that he does not want American troops involved in nation building (insisting that America arm and aid the Afghan Northern Alliance instead of dropping a massive troop force which must stay in place for years on end), and who is continually concerned about building positive relations with the Afghan people. He is, in general, calm and collected, trusting of his staff and their plans, and the one seems to most understand from the beginning that the war against terrorism will be long and hard and they should not be deterred by the length of the endeavor or the criticism they will face. All in all, the majority of his decisions in these first 100 days are the right ones.
Secretary Powell comes away as one of the most confident, level-headed, mature and wise men in American politics. Certainly, out of all present in this book, he is the one who possesses these qualities to their fullest. Time and again one finds the thought creeping into the mind: This man should be president. In this instance, not generally because President Bush is doing a poor job, for he is not, but simply because Secretary Powell seems to be the man best suited to the job. By the end, what one comes to believe is that America may have lost the opportunity to elect one of its greatest presidents, for Powell would almost certainly have been one had he ever run for election.
Sadly, from where we stand now it is clear that something went wrong early in Bush's presidency. No matter where you sit politically, one can not deny certain facts: bin Laden was never captured, political stability was never achieved in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq has not gone well, America did engage in nation building, the economy collapsed, and the American people mostly turned against Bush and his policies. Judging from Woodward's book, it is hard to understand why.
One does see a few elements of this collapse. First is Iraq. President Bush and his council bring up Iraq from day one, but they quickly put it on the shelf. It is clear that toppling Saddam in Iraq is a clear goal from the very beginning of Bush's presidency, but the decision is made to take Afghanistan first and return to discuss Iraq later. Only Secretary Powell is against the invading of Iraq. As a former military general, he understands the full implications of such a mission, and as Secretary of State he understands the full political ramifications. In fact, Powell at one point asks Bush for a private meeting, two and a half hours long, to lay out exactly and specifically why they should not invade Iraq. His insight into this issue is (despite its length) concise, insightful, worldly and (as can be seen in hindsight now) entirely dead-on accurate.
It is chillingly telling to note that everything Secretary Powell warned against when invading Iraq happened: major logistical problems, long-haul standing army, breakdown of American/Middle Eastern relations, view of America as the Invader, subsequent rise in terrorism and terrorist recruitment, massive financial toll on American economy, destabilization of the Middle East, enormous increase in oil prices...Secretary Powell's reasoning reads like a laundry list of everything that went wrong in Bush's presidency.
There are a few unsettling elements of President Bush the man. First, his willingness to “go it alone” if needs be. This opinion is one he initially kept under control in the first 100 days, but one that we know now became a major issue for his presidency later on. Like it or not, going it alone was not a practical strategy, as Secretary Powell and other advisors pointed out. Superpower America may be, but it is quite simply not possible to execute a war on the other side of the world, to say nothing of two wars or a “global war on terror” without the cooperation and assistance of other countries. This is made vibrantly clear from the start, as the biggest challenge faced by America in the initial phase of the war in Afghanistan is simply getting permission by various countries to use their air bases as landing and launching points for the US Air Force. Without such permission, the US military literally could not launch a war (unless it wanted to invade multiple other countries, many of them allies).
Second, was President Bush's set belief that he was a president with a vision, a president who would change the world and alter history. This is not necessarily a bad quality for a president. Looking back, it would seem that many of our best presidents had it. However, in this case one can see how this belief in a grand and shining vision may have been President Bush's undoing. It would, one knows, lead him and his cabinet to make decisions based on that vision and not entirely on reality.
Finally, there is the continued feeling that certain members of President Bush's team, primarily Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, whose fervent desire to invade Iraq, go it alone, and use any and every means necessary would eventually come to dominate over the more level-headed and realistic viewpoint of members like Secretary Powell. One does not get so much the view that men like Cheney and Rumsfeld are evil, sinister and lusting for power (though perhaps they are, Woodward makes no such commentary), but rather that they are simply determined, single-minded and unwavering in their beliefs. It is their inability to see other points of view which will no doubt lead them down mistaken paths.
Woodward wrote four books on Bush's presidency. Bush at War is the first. The second, Plan of Attack, addresses the decision, lead up to and eventual invasion of Iraq. It is this second book that I am reading now.
Mostly when I write about books on this blog it is because I wish to share them with everyone else and recommend them for reading. Certainly, I think Woodward's book is worth your time. It is well written and insightful. However, it is not stunning in its language or particularly moving, though it is a fantastic piece of reporting.
No, my goal here is simply a kind of running commentary on my own deeper reading about the eight years of Bush's presidency and the lead up to the current political world we live in now. To understand the issues facing us today we must understand how we got to the place where we currently stand. Regarding the majority of the problems facing President Obama, one must have a deep understanding of President Bush's legacy.
Woodward's book covers the first 100 days after 9/11, an exacting blow by blow account of President Bush and his inner circle's reaction to the terrorist attacks, the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, and the planning and execution of the initial phase of that war. One of the most highly respected investigative journalists in history, Woodward was given unprecedented access to President Bush and his war cabinet (including the VP, Secretaries of State and Defense, the Directors of the CIA and FBI and the National Security Advisor...they were, respectively, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Robert Mueller, and Condoleezza Rice).
First, let me be clear about what this book is. This isn't a political book. It is a book about politics, certainly, but that is somewhat incidental. It is a book of reporting, and what it reports happens to be politics. Woodward makes almost no commentary throughout the book, and only interjects his personal opinion (maybe a total of half a dozen times) when he can not say for certain what someone was feeling (in which he might write: It seemed to me that...). Woodward is a journalist first and foremost, and he makes no effort to play historian or political commentator. If you want the political screaming match, there are plenty of books from the left and the right to satisfy your taste...but this book isn't it.
Woodward's account brings us directly into the meetings where the actual decisions were made. We get moment to moment details of the daily conferences where all the options were on the board and the most powerful decision makers in our country chose this direction or that one and left others by the wayside. We see exactly the principal players' feelings, opinions and ideas about terrorism and the following war and how those opinions and ideas shaped American policy. Where do we go to war? How do we wage war? For how long? With what resources? It's all here.
What is most interesting is noting that if you had read this book in the summer after 9/11, you would have most likely felt supremely confident in the American leadership and certain that whatever challenges they faced they were the best men to handle them. For in these first 100 days, Bush and his team do very little wrong. In fact, every major decision appears to be the right one.
As in all major undertakings, there are differences of opinion. We see clear delineations between the worldviews of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Powell. There are also bumps in the road and minor setbacks, but nothing derailing and nothing honestly caused by any wrongheaded decisions made by these administrators. Most of what might be called “bumps” are put down to strategic challenges of waging war in Afghanistan, and all of those challenges, at least initially, were met and overcome.
Out of these first hundred days, two men truly stand out: President Bush and Secretary Powell. It is the President who is the first to raise the issue of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and he does so within the first few meetings. He is also the one who hammers on the issue over and over again. It is the President who insists on a clear plan for victory in Afghanistan, who makes himself endlessly available to all his subordinates promising to meet any and every need they have to succeed, who demands a plan that is effective and not overly costly (I don't want to use million dollar missiles to blow up fifteen dollar tents), who clearly articulates time and again that he does not want American troops involved in nation building (insisting that America arm and aid the Afghan Northern Alliance instead of dropping a massive troop force which must stay in place for years on end), and who is continually concerned about building positive relations with the Afghan people. He is, in general, calm and collected, trusting of his staff and their plans, and the one seems to most understand from the beginning that the war against terrorism will be long and hard and they should not be deterred by the length of the endeavor or the criticism they will face. All in all, the majority of his decisions in these first 100 days are the right ones.
Secretary Powell comes away as one of the most confident, level-headed, mature and wise men in American politics. Certainly, out of all present in this book, he is the one who possesses these qualities to their fullest. Time and again one finds the thought creeping into the mind: This man should be president. In this instance, not generally because President Bush is doing a poor job, for he is not, but simply because Secretary Powell seems to be the man best suited to the job. By the end, what one comes to believe is that America may have lost the opportunity to elect one of its greatest presidents, for Powell would almost certainly have been one had he ever run for election.
Sadly, from where we stand now it is clear that something went wrong early in Bush's presidency. No matter where you sit politically, one can not deny certain facts: bin Laden was never captured, political stability was never achieved in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq has not gone well, America did engage in nation building, the economy collapsed, and the American people mostly turned against Bush and his policies. Judging from Woodward's book, it is hard to understand why.
One does see a few elements of this collapse. First is Iraq. President Bush and his council bring up Iraq from day one, but they quickly put it on the shelf. It is clear that toppling Saddam in Iraq is a clear goal from the very beginning of Bush's presidency, but the decision is made to take Afghanistan first and return to discuss Iraq later. Only Secretary Powell is against the invading of Iraq. As a former military general, he understands the full implications of such a mission, and as Secretary of State he understands the full political ramifications. In fact, Powell at one point asks Bush for a private meeting, two and a half hours long, to lay out exactly and specifically why they should not invade Iraq. His insight into this issue is (despite its length) concise, insightful, worldly and (as can be seen in hindsight now) entirely dead-on accurate.
It is chillingly telling to note that everything Secretary Powell warned against when invading Iraq happened: major logistical problems, long-haul standing army, breakdown of American/Middle Eastern relations, view of America as the Invader, subsequent rise in terrorism and terrorist recruitment, massive financial toll on American economy, destabilization of the Middle East, enormous increase in oil prices...Secretary Powell's reasoning reads like a laundry list of everything that went wrong in Bush's presidency.
There are a few unsettling elements of President Bush the man. First, his willingness to “go it alone” if needs be. This opinion is one he initially kept under control in the first 100 days, but one that we know now became a major issue for his presidency later on. Like it or not, going it alone was not a practical strategy, as Secretary Powell and other advisors pointed out. Superpower America may be, but it is quite simply not possible to execute a war on the other side of the world, to say nothing of two wars or a “global war on terror” without the cooperation and assistance of other countries. This is made vibrantly clear from the start, as the biggest challenge faced by America in the initial phase of the war in Afghanistan is simply getting permission by various countries to use their air bases as landing and launching points for the US Air Force. Without such permission, the US military literally could not launch a war (unless it wanted to invade multiple other countries, many of them allies).
Second, was President Bush's set belief that he was a president with a vision, a president who would change the world and alter history. This is not necessarily a bad quality for a president. Looking back, it would seem that many of our best presidents had it. However, in this case one can see how this belief in a grand and shining vision may have been President Bush's undoing. It would, one knows, lead him and his cabinet to make decisions based on that vision and not entirely on reality.
Finally, there is the continued feeling that certain members of President Bush's team, primarily Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, whose fervent desire to invade Iraq, go it alone, and use any and every means necessary would eventually come to dominate over the more level-headed and realistic viewpoint of members like Secretary Powell. One does not get so much the view that men like Cheney and Rumsfeld are evil, sinister and lusting for power (though perhaps they are, Woodward makes no such commentary), but rather that they are simply determined, single-minded and unwavering in their beliefs. It is their inability to see other points of view which will no doubt lead them down mistaken paths.
Woodward wrote four books on Bush's presidency. Bush at War is the first. The second, Plan of Attack, addresses the decision, lead up to and eventual invasion of Iraq. It is this second book that I am reading now.
Mostly when I write about books on this blog it is because I wish to share them with everyone else and recommend them for reading. Certainly, I think Woodward's book is worth your time. It is well written and insightful. However, it is not stunning in its language or particularly moving, though it is a fantastic piece of reporting.
No, my goal here is simply a kind of running commentary on my own deeper reading about the eight years of Bush's presidency and the lead up to the current political world we live in now. To understand the issues facing us today we must understand how we got to the place where we currently stand. Regarding the majority of the problems facing President Obama, one must have a deep understanding of President Bush's legacy.
Monday, February 8, 2010
For Reme
Reme,
Just got done reading your response below. And...was impressed.
You're right about people not reading long posts. I agree (we might be the only two reading our back and forth here...oh, and a friend of mine who doesn't agree with me either and thinks I'm being an ass...so you're not the only one who feels that way). One of the great problems of the internet, and this debate in general, is the unwillingness of the average joe to put the time into going deep into the debate.
Perhaps you're right about my not having it both ways with the IPCC. That does seem, to use your phrase, cherry picking. While I don't think they get everything wrong, I do think they make a lot of mistakes. Still, if I'm going to tear on them I'll try in the future not to use them as a measuring stick.
Ah, but regarding their predictive adjustments...can you get me some numbers on how their predictions have changed from report to report? If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall they have lowered their predictions over time, not increased them, as the real world has not been heating up as quickly as they imagined. I'll look for those numbers myself while I'm at it.
Finally, I honestly admire the way you stick to your guns on this debate. While I haven't mentioned it thus far, it is something that does not escape me. Reading your posts, it isn't difficult to detect your passion, your anger, your frustration, as well as a host of other emotions. What stands out more than these (at least in my mind) is your dogged determination not to back down.
I respect that. Whatever else we may disagree on here, I genuinely respect and admire that quality in you.
Stick to it.
Ty
Just got done reading your response below. And...was impressed.
You're right about people not reading long posts. I agree (we might be the only two reading our back and forth here...oh, and a friend of mine who doesn't agree with me either and thinks I'm being an ass...so you're not the only one who feels that way). One of the great problems of the internet, and this debate in general, is the unwillingness of the average joe to put the time into going deep into the debate.
Perhaps you're right about my not having it both ways with the IPCC. That does seem, to use your phrase, cherry picking. While I don't think they get everything wrong, I do think they make a lot of mistakes. Still, if I'm going to tear on them I'll try in the future not to use them as a measuring stick.
Ah, but regarding their predictive adjustments...can you get me some numbers on how their predictions have changed from report to report? If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall they have lowered their predictions over time, not increased them, as the real world has not been heating up as quickly as they imagined. I'll look for those numbers myself while I'm at it.
Finally, I honestly admire the way you stick to your guns on this debate. While I haven't mentioned it thus far, it is something that does not escape me. Reading your posts, it isn't difficult to detect your passion, your anger, your frustration, as well as a host of other emotions. What stands out more than these (at least in my mind) is your dogged determination not to back down.
I respect that. Whatever else we may disagree on here, I genuinely respect and admire that quality in you.
Stick to it.
Ty
Friday, February 5, 2010
Why I'm A Condescending Jerk
Reme,
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on Mann's data. While I agree Mann has “fought back” and other scientists have supported him, I think the most damning statement about the validity of his work is the IPCC's rejection of his data. If the scientific community was truly behind his work, I would imagine the IPCC would still be displaying it.
I am fully aware that you believe the data supports man-made global warming. And, yes, I agree with you that man has damaged the planet and that much of that damage is detrimental and irreversible. Where we disagree regards the concept that man has caused massive global warming that will be the end of life as we know it.
You are arguing we have. I am arguing we have contributed slightly to global warming and that the majority of that change is natural, out of our control, and will not kill us.
However, because you brought the debate to the table and said you wanted to lay out your case, I have merely commented on your information, attacked your reasoning, and shown data to contradict yours only when necessary. I have done this because I felt it was your case to prove, not mine. If we are playing prosecutor and defense, the burden rests on you to prove your case, not on me to prove mine.
For this reason, I have provided data only when I thought it truly necessary. You seem to think I am “cherry-picking” data, but I think this is a stretch. There is a wealth of data I could present, but I am working my posts as responses to yours. You are presenting your case for global warming, while I am showing you where your case needs work.
Also, I don't think it's fair to say I'm “cherry-picking” particular portions of data, either. I believe I emphasized clearly that Solanki's own conclusion about his data differs from mine. If I'd wanted, I could have left that out altogether. It would have been disingenuous of me to withhold such information, because it would have made it seem that Solanki was against global warming, but I could have left it out of my post. Doing so would have made my case stronger.
But I didn't. I told the truth.
Yes, it no doubt seems I am being condescending. And, no doubt, it rubs you the wrong way. Could I do a better job of being nice? I could.
There are two reasons for my tone. First, you can do better. When I tell you your logic is sloppy it's because you are capable of sharper, clearer and more focused thinking. If I thought sloppiness was all you were capable of, I wouldn't bother. You're smart. Damn smart. Watching you wade through logical fallacies as if they were holy truths tries my patience because I recognize you have greater potential.
Probably it seems as if I am constantly attacking you, as an individual. I have tried to keep the focus of my attacks on your argument, on your logic. I have done so because this is an area where you can improve. I have largely acknowledged the facts you present, because facts are not debatable (only their interpretation).
My approach serves two purposes: First, it should help you to strengthen your own argument. I am pointing out flaws, and I am pointing them out roughly, but to point them out delicately makes it likely you will ignore them altogether. If you can put aside your anger at being treated poorly, you will find the ways in which to make your argument stronger. Second, it also gives you the option of changing my mind. My mind is not closed, although to some it may seem to be. I argue forcefully, but that does not mean I am not open to new ways of seeing the world. I focus on your arguments because they are weak. Go back and examine your facts and present a strong logical argument...and you may just alter my perception.
Finally, I give you rough treatment because, quite frankly, global warming advocates piss me off. Understand for a moment how I view this: Your entire argument is a fundamental attack on the principles of science and democracy. That's what I see. GWAs use pseudo-science and false logic to distract and frighten millions of people, and in doing so they undermine the two most vital systems in our nation: our science and our democratic government. That's my viewpoint.
That burns me in a place very close to my core. Therefore, you get the rough treatment.
Understand something else. When you start to make a solid argument and start taking into account all the data, you will discover my anger goes away. I am not angry at you, per se. I am not angry at your conclusion. It is a mistake to think so. I am angry with your method, which in my view is unsound and manipulative.
To try and illustrate what I mean, to be clear, let me give you some examples.
You bring up the issue of feedback loops. This is good. I like talking about feedback loops. This is a scientific place to start, a scientific debate. Excellent.
Feedback loops can play a particular role in a wide range of issues, but here of course we are focusing on changes in the climate which have effects which reinforce their initial causes, creating a “loop,” from which, at least in theory, there is no escape.
No doubt you've seen arguments for cooling loops in regards to ice ages. Temperature drops. We get more ice. More ice means more sunlight bounced off the planet. Which means cooler temperatures. Which means more ice.
On and on as you say.
In the example you give, we have a rise in temperature. Which causes ice to melt. Which releases methane. Which increases a rise in temperature. Which causes ice to melt.
A loop.
I'm still with you, and so far I'm still happy.
But you leave it there. I would assume that you would argue that such feedback loops will lead to extreme global warming and the end of life (or, at least, mass destruction). That is the general global warming argument.
And that is all you say. Which is where I start to get angry.
See, you've acknowledged feedback loops, but you've only acknowledged them as far as they support your argument. You didn't point out that there is a fundamental flaw in the overall feedback loop theory, which is that feedback loops are not iron traps. They change.
(this should be an obvious point, given that the Earth has gone through regular, periodic alterations between warm and cool)
Furthermore, in order to present information in a way that only supports your argument, you simplify it and ignore the greater complexity, and you do so specifically because if you acknowledged that complexity it would undermine your argument.
Example:
A study published in March 2001 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society presented data showing a correlation between higher sea surface temperature of cloudy regions and fewer clouds. The data showed that a one degree Celsius increase seemed to cause twenty-two percent fewer upper-level clouds.
In other words, when the temperature increases the clouds dissipate, allowing more infrared cooling, and thus resisting changes in tropical surface temperature.
Since clouds account for the greatest influence on global temperature, this is key. In regards to the IPCC report that was out at the time this data was published, the IPCC had indicated a predicted change in temperature of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius in roughly the next century. The data published in the Bulletin took into account their research (the IPCC cloud variation models were, by their own admission, drastically uncertain) and found a readjusted projection of .64 to 1.6 degrees Celsius.
The importance here is two-fold. First, to note that feedback loops are not immutable. The earth's climate adjusts naturally to alterations in temperature. Which means that claiming that a rise in CO2 will cause warming which will cause melting which will cause warming...on and on...is a model which does not take into account the way the world works.
Second, it points out the reason we need to acknowledge this complexity. Because it will dramatically alter our projections.
And, now, you see, I'm really quite pissed off. Because the GWA argument is built very carefully, very selectively, so as to present only one narrow little view, and that view only works if it ignores whole realms of data, common sense and logic.
This is what I can't stand.
I commend your correction of my analysis regarding why we would not see a spike in temperature until the 1970/80's. Indeed, the natural world has adjusted to an increase in CO2, much of which is absorbed by the oceans.
However, I'm also confused by your clarification. You argued before that the climate is extremely delicate, and that even slight amounts of alteration can lead to drastic consequences. Except here, in your clarification of my point, you seem to be arguing that the natural world has been able to handle our CO2 dumping for decades and decades, which would suggest it is not as delicate as you first stated.
I don't really think you can have it both ways.
Below this post you will find my specific argument in the CO2 debate, in a separate post.
The CO2 Debate
Reme,
First, thank you for your patience. It's been a busy week for me, multiple papers, multiple mid-terms, a group project and prepping for a James Joyce presentation (you think arguing global warming is difficult...try explaining Joyce).
I said earlier I wanted to address the CO2 argument, which I will do in this post. I realize your own post regarding CO2 also covered other topics, including feedback loops, which I would like to comment on as well, but will do so at a later date.
This post here is actually the same post I threw up a year ago when we were having this same debate then. I have gone back only to cut it down where it isn't relevant (direct commentary to questions not related to CO2).
While the point of this post should be clear, what I want to emphasize from the start is the complexity of what we're talking about and the danger of over-simplifying it.
In your post you explained the basic argument I hear from all Global Warming Advocates (GWAs as they will be referred to in this post), and I find that argument naively simplified. It works well in convincing an uneducated public to say that the earth is a greenhouse and CO2 heats it up, but by ignoring the vast complexity of a system like global climate GWAs are, at best, clouding the issue, and, at worst, being willfully, manipulatively dishonest.
My hope here is to engender at least a small sense of how the simple CO2 explanation given by GWAs is only a minute glimpse of a much larger picture, and to furthermore emphasize how GWAs have blown that glimpse far, far out of proportion.
Here we go.
If I’ve got it right, the general, popular global warming argument goes like this: Mankind has drastically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere, thus causing an ever-increasing Greenhouse Effect because the CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. The result is Earth’s temperature rises and rises, eventually spiraling out of control.
This entire argument rests on the assumption that Earth’s atmosphere acts exactly like a greenhouse, so let us begin there.
A greenhouse raises temperature within it by controlling convection (the circulation of the air). Sunlight comes in through the glass, warms the ground inside, the ground warms the air, the air rises but cannot escape, and thus the temperature simply continues to rise. When you need to cool a greenhouse, you open a window on the roof and a door below, creating a convection current, and the air circulates and cools.
The Earth’s system, however, does not operate in this manner (the big giveaway should be the lack of a giant window in the sky). The Earth does employ a “greenhouse effect,” but it does so through modulating radiation, which is not the way an actual greenhouse works.
The importance of this distinction is that “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere do not behave like the glass ceiling of a greenhouse, preventing all the heat from leaving. This is a common misunderstanding.
To understand the Earth’s own “greenhouse effect,” we must first understand the larger system of energy exchange. The drastic oversimplification of this system is this:
The Sun sends out strong, shortwave radiation. This radiation moves through our atmosphere and is absorbed, and then a portion of it is emitted back as longwave radiation (this is because the Earth isn’t as hot and energetic as the sun). This longwave radiation moves back through the atmosphere and escapes into space.
The more complex reality includes other factors:
The atmosphere is a series of layers and includes clouds and other gases. Not all of the radiation from the sun reaches the surface; indeed much of it bounces off the atmosphere and never enters Earth at all. Radiation leaving the surface must also pass back through many stages, thus encountering another complicated journey.
What should be immediately clear is that the general belief that our atmosphere acts as a barrier, “trapping” heat inside the system is a myth. Radiation enters and leaves continuously, and while radiation may be slowed down on its journey back and forth, it is never fully “trapped” within the system. No matter how many layers it has to pass through, it will eventually exit the system.
Again, the difference we need to fully grasp is the difference between a convection system, which fully traps air, and the Earth’s radiation system, which allows flow of radiation in and out.
Now, with that understanding, let us address the “greenhouse effect” that actually occurs on Earth, and in the process abandon our earlier misunderstanding of a glass ceiling.
First, it is critical to grasp that while the Earth’s “greenhouse effect” has been given a bad rap, it is vital for life on our planet. Minus out the “greenhouse effect” and we don’t exist.
This critical system works like this:
A portion of the radiation emitted back from the Earth is absorbed by water vapor and greenhouse gases before then being emitted once again, which allows the surface and atmospheric temperature to rise. This interplay within the system is what keeps our planet at a hospitable temperature.
If you could remove this mechanism, the temperature would drop by 35 degrees, well below the freezing point of water.
Obviously then, while we can discuss the fluctuations of this “greenhouse effect,” it is a serious mistake to believe that our goal should be to remove it altogether.
The core issue GWAs raise at this juncture is that C02 in the atmosphere acts as a major force within the system, causing massive fluctuations in temperature by absorbing major quantities of radiation and bouncing it back to the surface.
To figure out if this is true, we must first know what the atmosphere is made of and how much C02 is currently there.
The composition of Earth’s atmosphere is comprised of the following gases: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Water (in the form of vapor), Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide, Xenon, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Iodine, Carbon Monoxide, and Ammonia. I have ordered them from largest quantity to smallest quantity.
Nitrogen makes up 78.08% of the atmosphere. Oxygen 20.95%.
That means over 99% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen.
C02, which GWAs spend so much focus on, makes up .0383% of Earth’s atmosphere.
That is less than half of one percent.
Surely then, C02 must be an incredibly powerful “greenhouse gas,” so incredibly powerful that the amount of radiation it can absorb can simply overpower the effects of over 99% of Earth’s atmosphere.
This is a pleasant fantasy GWAs would like to believe. In reality, C02 is one of the weakest absorbents of heat in the atmosphere (Methane is capable of absorbing 21 times the amount of heat of C02, Nitrous Oxide 310 times). Also, since neither Nitrogen nor Oxygen is a “greenhouse gas”, even if we added all the “greenhouse gases” together we’re still talking about less than 1% of the atmosphere.
In fact, only one item on the list can truly be called a major player:
Water vapor.
Water vapor, especially in the form of clouds, accounts for between 90% and 95% of Earth’s “greenhouse effect,” a fluctuation that is never entirely stable at one number because the water in the atmosphere is constantly changing (due to elevation, temperature, wind, etc.). Clouds are the single most important and determinant “greenhouse gas,” absorbing more and emitting more radiation than anything else in the system.
To go further, one must recognize that all gasses can only absorb radiation within a narrow bandwidth of the light spectrum (C02 absorbs longwave, infrared and far-infrared radiation only in three narrow bandwidths, at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers...which means only 8% of the Earth’s emitted radiation can be absorbed by C02 at all), and that each of the “greenhouse gasses” is, for lack of a better metaphor, in competition with the rest for the chance to absorb radiation. And all of these gasses are effected by an atmosphere that is not static…it is constantly in motion, as is the air, the ocean currents, the Earth itself, everything.
So…to come back to the central argument.
Of all of the radiation from the Sun the Earth can possible take in, roughly half reaches the surface. Of that half, only some 15% is absorbed into the atmosphere when emitted from the Earth.
Of the 100% composition of Earth’s atmosphere that will absorb that 15% energy, C02 makes up a slight .0383%.
And that .0383% of C02 is only physically capable of absorbing 8% of the emitted radiation.
These are the numbers. They are plain and simple numbers, and you may interpret them how you choose.
GWAs offer us the interpretation that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere is responsible for all of the temperature fluctuation of the last century, and that this less than half of one percent of the atmosphere will cause the end of mankind as we know it.
GWAs offer that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere plays a larger and more powerful role than 99% of the atmosphere, and that it outweighs the effects of water vapor and clouds, which are admitted by climatologists to play the largest role in Earth’s “greenhouse effect.”
GWAs offer that this minuscule amount of carbon is more important than all other factors, from natural interglacial warming to urban sprawl to the effect of the Sun itself.
Now, I imagine that you are probably saying to yourself that even if this amount is so small, human beings have already added to it, and will keep adding to it, and so there will be more and more C02 in the atmosphere, wreaking more and more havoc, so that we need to ACT NOW OR ELSE.
Which would be logical if humans accounted for the majority of carbon emissions into the atmosphere (we don’t…human activity accounts for roughly 3.4% of annual carbon dioxide emissions…the other 96.6% is entirely natural) and if the accumulation of C02 didn’t have a logarithmic effect (except it does…which means that the more C02 you add, the less effect the additional gas has…imagine putting up window blinds, and then another set of blinds behind those, and then another set, on and on…each successive set has less effect than the one before it). Actually, the truth is that advocating for a massive C02 reduction would mean advocating for the destruction of the natural world producers of C02…kind of ironic, I think.
Still, you could argue that cutting out the major sources of human production of C02 emissions would lessen the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, thereby DOING OUR PART to help keep the planet at its current temperature. This would at least be making an effort.
Which would be logical if the major sources of human production of C02 (factories and cars) didn’t also produce aerosols, which act as a cooling mechanism in the atmosphere, thereby canceling out the effect of C02 in the first place (cooling mechanisms are actually an entire focus GWAs try to ignore, both natural and man-made)
The truth, my friend, is that the GWAs concentration on C02 emissions is based upon bad science, misinterpretation and fundamental misunderstandings of the way our world works.
And, to put it rather bluntly, folks still making this argument simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
First, thank you for your patience. It's been a busy week for me, multiple papers, multiple mid-terms, a group project and prepping for a James Joyce presentation (you think arguing global warming is difficult...try explaining Joyce).
I said earlier I wanted to address the CO2 argument, which I will do in this post. I realize your own post regarding CO2 also covered other topics, including feedback loops, which I would like to comment on as well, but will do so at a later date.
This post here is actually the same post I threw up a year ago when we were having this same debate then. I have gone back only to cut it down where it isn't relevant (direct commentary to questions not related to CO2).
While the point of this post should be clear, what I want to emphasize from the start is the complexity of what we're talking about and the danger of over-simplifying it.
In your post you explained the basic argument I hear from all Global Warming Advocates (GWAs as they will be referred to in this post), and I find that argument naively simplified. It works well in convincing an uneducated public to say that the earth is a greenhouse and CO2 heats it up, but by ignoring the vast complexity of a system like global climate GWAs are, at best, clouding the issue, and, at worst, being willfully, manipulatively dishonest.
My hope here is to engender at least a small sense of how the simple CO2 explanation given by GWAs is only a minute glimpse of a much larger picture, and to furthermore emphasize how GWAs have blown that glimpse far, far out of proportion.
Here we go.
If I’ve got it right, the general, popular global warming argument goes like this: Mankind has drastically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere, thus causing an ever-increasing Greenhouse Effect because the CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. The result is Earth’s temperature rises and rises, eventually spiraling out of control.
This entire argument rests on the assumption that Earth’s atmosphere acts exactly like a greenhouse, so let us begin there.
A greenhouse raises temperature within it by controlling convection (the circulation of the air). Sunlight comes in through the glass, warms the ground inside, the ground warms the air, the air rises but cannot escape, and thus the temperature simply continues to rise. When you need to cool a greenhouse, you open a window on the roof and a door below, creating a convection current, and the air circulates and cools.
The Earth’s system, however, does not operate in this manner (the big giveaway should be the lack of a giant window in the sky). The Earth does employ a “greenhouse effect,” but it does so through modulating radiation, which is not the way an actual greenhouse works.
The importance of this distinction is that “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere do not behave like the glass ceiling of a greenhouse, preventing all the heat from leaving. This is a common misunderstanding.
To understand the Earth’s own “greenhouse effect,” we must first understand the larger system of energy exchange. The drastic oversimplification of this system is this:
The Sun sends out strong, shortwave radiation. This radiation moves through our atmosphere and is absorbed, and then a portion of it is emitted back as longwave radiation (this is because the Earth isn’t as hot and energetic as the sun). This longwave radiation moves back through the atmosphere and escapes into space.
The more complex reality includes other factors:
The atmosphere is a series of layers and includes clouds and other gases. Not all of the radiation from the sun reaches the surface; indeed much of it bounces off the atmosphere and never enters Earth at all. Radiation leaving the surface must also pass back through many stages, thus encountering another complicated journey.
What should be immediately clear is that the general belief that our atmosphere acts as a barrier, “trapping” heat inside the system is a myth. Radiation enters and leaves continuously, and while radiation may be slowed down on its journey back and forth, it is never fully “trapped” within the system. No matter how many layers it has to pass through, it will eventually exit the system.
Again, the difference we need to fully grasp is the difference between a convection system, which fully traps air, and the Earth’s radiation system, which allows flow of radiation in and out.
Now, with that understanding, let us address the “greenhouse effect” that actually occurs on Earth, and in the process abandon our earlier misunderstanding of a glass ceiling.
First, it is critical to grasp that while the Earth’s “greenhouse effect” has been given a bad rap, it is vital for life on our planet. Minus out the “greenhouse effect” and we don’t exist.
This critical system works like this:
A portion of the radiation emitted back from the Earth is absorbed by water vapor and greenhouse gases before then being emitted once again, which allows the surface and atmospheric temperature to rise. This interplay within the system is what keeps our planet at a hospitable temperature.
If you could remove this mechanism, the temperature would drop by 35 degrees, well below the freezing point of water.
Obviously then, while we can discuss the fluctuations of this “greenhouse effect,” it is a serious mistake to believe that our goal should be to remove it altogether.
The core issue GWAs raise at this juncture is that C02 in the atmosphere acts as a major force within the system, causing massive fluctuations in temperature by absorbing major quantities of radiation and bouncing it back to the surface.
To figure out if this is true, we must first know what the atmosphere is made of and how much C02 is currently there.
The composition of Earth’s atmosphere is comprised of the following gases: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Water (in the form of vapor), Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide, Xenon, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Iodine, Carbon Monoxide, and Ammonia. I have ordered them from largest quantity to smallest quantity.
Nitrogen makes up 78.08% of the atmosphere. Oxygen 20.95%.
That means over 99% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen.
C02, which GWAs spend so much focus on, makes up .0383% of Earth’s atmosphere.
That is less than half of one percent.
Surely then, C02 must be an incredibly powerful “greenhouse gas,” so incredibly powerful that the amount of radiation it can absorb can simply overpower the effects of over 99% of Earth’s atmosphere.
This is a pleasant fantasy GWAs would like to believe. In reality, C02 is one of the weakest absorbents of heat in the atmosphere (Methane is capable of absorbing 21 times the amount of heat of C02, Nitrous Oxide 310 times). Also, since neither Nitrogen nor Oxygen is a “greenhouse gas”, even if we added all the “greenhouse gases” together we’re still talking about less than 1% of the atmosphere.
In fact, only one item on the list can truly be called a major player:
Water vapor.
Water vapor, especially in the form of clouds, accounts for between 90% and 95% of Earth’s “greenhouse effect,” a fluctuation that is never entirely stable at one number because the water in the atmosphere is constantly changing (due to elevation, temperature, wind, etc.). Clouds are the single most important and determinant “greenhouse gas,” absorbing more and emitting more radiation than anything else in the system.
To go further, one must recognize that all gasses can only absorb radiation within a narrow bandwidth of the light spectrum (C02 absorbs longwave, infrared and far-infrared radiation only in three narrow bandwidths, at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers...which means only 8% of the Earth’s emitted radiation can be absorbed by C02 at all), and that each of the “greenhouse gasses” is, for lack of a better metaphor, in competition with the rest for the chance to absorb radiation. And all of these gasses are effected by an atmosphere that is not static…it is constantly in motion, as is the air, the ocean currents, the Earth itself, everything.
So…to come back to the central argument.
Of all of the radiation from the Sun the Earth can possible take in, roughly half reaches the surface. Of that half, only some 15% is absorbed into the atmosphere when emitted from the Earth.
Of the 100% composition of Earth’s atmosphere that will absorb that 15% energy, C02 makes up a slight .0383%.
And that .0383% of C02 is only physically capable of absorbing 8% of the emitted radiation.
These are the numbers. They are plain and simple numbers, and you may interpret them how you choose.
GWAs offer us the interpretation that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere is responsible for all of the temperature fluctuation of the last century, and that this less than half of one percent of the atmosphere will cause the end of mankind as we know it.
GWAs offer that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere plays a larger and more powerful role than 99% of the atmosphere, and that it outweighs the effects of water vapor and clouds, which are admitted by climatologists to play the largest role in Earth’s “greenhouse effect.”
GWAs offer that this minuscule amount of carbon is more important than all other factors, from natural interglacial warming to urban sprawl to the effect of the Sun itself.
Now, I imagine that you are probably saying to yourself that even if this amount is so small, human beings have already added to it, and will keep adding to it, and so there will be more and more C02 in the atmosphere, wreaking more and more havoc, so that we need to ACT NOW OR ELSE.
Which would be logical if humans accounted for the majority of carbon emissions into the atmosphere (we don’t…human activity accounts for roughly 3.4% of annual carbon dioxide emissions…the other 96.6% is entirely natural) and if the accumulation of C02 didn’t have a logarithmic effect (except it does…which means that the more C02 you add, the less effect the additional gas has…imagine putting up window blinds, and then another set of blinds behind those, and then another set, on and on…each successive set has less effect than the one before it). Actually, the truth is that advocating for a massive C02 reduction would mean advocating for the destruction of the natural world producers of C02…kind of ironic, I think.
Still, you could argue that cutting out the major sources of human production of C02 emissions would lessen the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, thereby DOING OUR PART to help keep the planet at its current temperature. This would at least be making an effort.
Which would be logical if the major sources of human production of C02 (factories and cars) didn’t also produce aerosols, which act as a cooling mechanism in the atmosphere, thereby canceling out the effect of C02 in the first place (cooling mechanisms are actually an entire focus GWAs try to ignore, both natural and man-made)
The truth, my friend, is that the GWAs concentration on C02 emissions is based upon bad science, misinterpretation and fundamental misunderstandings of the way our world works.
And, to put it rather bluntly, folks still making this argument simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
Monday, February 1, 2010
As The Man Once Said...
Reme,
As the man once said: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
We seem to be misunderstanding each other. Which is unfortunate, and is also frustrating. I have tried very hard to be clear. I will try again.
This post will seek to clarify misunderstandings from the first portion of your post. I do not have the time today to address the second section of your post where you present your CO2 argument. I will come back that later in the week when I have more time.
I have not debated good, hard data proposed by organizations such as NASA or even the IPCC. Data, in the way of fact, is not debatable.
I have debated, rather, the conclusions of various scientists and agencies.
Let me draw that line once more: There is a difference between Data and Conclusion. One is Fact. The other is Analysis. They are not synonymous. They are not one and the same.
I point this out once again, because it seems to be a sticking point with you. You continue to mix up the two, assuming that because one has Data they also have an accurate Conclusion.
I have made much out of the issue of consensus, because I believe it is an important part of this debate. I will state here again: Consensus is not a basis for argument. This is not my opinion. It is one of the foundations of logical argument.
I mentioned before that Logic is a school of thought worth further investigation. You may want to start with Logical Fallacies (false logic) regarding Appeal to Authority, for this is one of your continued weaknesses.
Also, you are inaccurate when you say no one has published work which contradicts global warming. Solanki's work, which you just read, offers evidence contrary to global warming theory. Much of what is needed in this debate is fresh eyes to examine the data without preconceptions. Separate Solanki's conclusion from his data and examine his data alone. What does it show?
A rise in temperature corresponding with a rise in solar irradiation until 1980, after which there is a significant spike in temperature not related to solar irradiation.
That is the Data. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Everything after is Analysis.
The Data, here, in Solanki's work, contradicts various precepts of the global warming argument, mainly that the temperature increase spikes as a result of the industrial revolution. Solanki's data shows a spike, but much later, in 1980.
This raises the question of why there is no significant spike in temperature from the very beginning of the industrial revolution. If the balance of the atmosphere is as delicate as you suggest, we should see a spike right from the start. It also begs the question of why there is a spike from 1980 forward.
In regards to Mann's work: Mann serves as an example of how there are fallible scientists on both sides of the argument. That was my central point. You extrapolated from there that I meant we should dismiss the entire IPCC report, which I did not allude to.
My suggestion, rather, was that since the IPCC had fully endorsed the work of a scientist whose work was later discredited, we can only conclude that it is possible there is other work in their report which might also be suspect. This is not an argument to “throw the baby out with the bath water,” but rather an argument to proceed cautiously and remain skeptical of all arguments, no matter who is presenting them.
You must remain skeptical of my arguments. But you need also be skeptical of the IPCC's.
More importantly, though, is your flippant dismissal of Mann's work (Wow, take away one graph...). I would argue that every piece of evidence is important, and that dismissing a man's work as if it did not matter at all or did not change the outcome is not only hasty but misguided.
Do you really believe Mann's graph was so unimportant? That it doesn't really matter if it was there or not?
I find this interesting, because it would lead one to believe that the IPCC's decision to include it was made as flippantly as was your dismissal. Either the IPCC considered Mann's work carefully and, believing it important and relevant, chose to include it, or they chose his work willy-nilly and with little regard for its merit.
I believe they did the former, which illustrates that even good scientists and well-meaning people can make grave mistakes. But if we believe the latter then we can not consider anything in the IPCC report relevant at all.
I'm guessing you would place yourself with the former group. However, if that is so, your glib jesting to explain away such a discrepancy in the IPCC report shows that you are only considering information which is in line with your case. If it suits your purpose then it must be accurate. If it taints your argument, then it is “just one graph.”
Concerning your paragraph about data and tests, the one where you gave a more detailed explanation of what you think my argument is...you misunderstood me. I have not claimed there is no data, no hypotheses, no tests, no evidence.
Data: I have argued that there is a mass of data. I have argued there is also a large measure of data unaccounted for.
Hypotheses: I have argued that there are hypotheses for global warming, many of which fall into the category of false logic (such as many of the arguments you have already presented).
Tests: I have not said anything thus far about tests, but eventually I will. Some of the tests in this debate are relevant and accurate, as regards to data. Other tests often used are absolutely worthless and have no meaning whatsoever.
Evidence: See Data.
Finally, I have argued that the conclusions drawn from the available data are inaccurate, and that the men and women drawing those conclusions misuse the data available to them by making false-logical arguments and ignoring contrary data.
This is pseudo-science.
I will state again: Data and Conclusion are not the same thing.
One can accept Data and question Conclusion.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Continued Response
Reme,
Good argument. This was well reasoned and more compelling. Let me see if I can respond where I thought necessary.
A) Peer Reviewed Journals:
I'm glad we're on the same page with peer-reviewed journals. I'll make note again that most of them aren't on the internet, which would mean that the study you referenced would only be sampling a minority of what's available (and the more technologically savvy minority). Also, I think it's worth pointing out that we don't have the key words used for this particular survey of articles, which leaves us with the question of whether or not those key words were biased.
However, let's say I concede to you that the survey was entirely fair and unbiased. Let's say I also ignore that there might actually be articles which present DATA disputing global warming, but no OPINION, which then would leave them in the category of “no position” even though they ought to be counted in the “against” category. Still, let's concede those points and move on.
Where does that leave us? With a tally of 928 to 0.
Let's put it up again all big and bold:
928 to 0.
Stunning, ain't it? Sure. Stunning.
But what's wrong?
You have taken this number to be firm support of your position. I mean, look, it's:
928 to 0.
Obviously, this kind of consensus can not be argued with. Correct?
I admire your dogged determination to hunt down these kind of facts, but you missed the subtle suggestion these numbers present.
This study tells us not that there is a debate, not that some people disagree, but that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OPPOSITION.
Tell me, on what subject have you ever found that there is no opposition whatsoever? Give me a subject where if we tallied the populace you would find absolute agreement with a grand whopping total of ZERO dissent.
Reme, there are scientists publishing papers right now who claim Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong. The single greatest theory in scientific history, proposed by the most brilliant mind of the 20th century, and if you did a tally of scientific papers today you might find (making up a number here) a vote of
928 to 6.
But there would be that six.
An absolute donut hole of opposition should not cause you to jump for joy. It should make you wrinkle your brow, at the very least. More likely, it ought to send a small shiver down your back.
I've said it before: this is not a debated issue. The real debate in scientific circles died out a long time ago. And when debate vanishes, when it shrinks to zero, it is most assuredly NOT because everybody agrees, but because the opposition is being suppressed.
And suppression is always wrong. As Voltaire famously said: “I don't agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”
928 to 0.
It ought to worry you.
B) Misrepresentation:
Yes, indeed, there will be examples of scientists misrepresenting data to further their own agendas. I think you might be further enlightened if you look up the history of Michael Mann, who published the infamous “hockey-stick” graph in a 1998 issue of Nature magazine. It was this graph, and Mann's work, adopted by the IPCC which caused a major rolling wave in the whole global warming argument. Mann's work, later discredited, has been rejected now by the IPCC, but only after they prominently used it and displayed it for six years.
The point, again, and as it will continue to be, is that there is bad science on both ends.
It also, however, is my not-so-subtle hint that one shouldn't trust the conclusions or the infallibility of the IPCC, no matter how many scientists they have in their ranks.
C) My Point Regarding Consensus:
You are correct in pointing out that consensus on the issues I mentioned have changed, and that yes they have changed because of scientific discoveries (although I would argue the greater measure of change came not from science but from social and political revolutions for certain examples).
The point I was making, though, was subtle. I will restate it. Consensus, as a basis for argument, is worthless and meaningless. It may be right. It may be wrong. In either case, it does not matter, because simply because large numbers of people believe something to be true does not make it so.
Consider that our current consensus could change, and we could revert to the belief that certain races are inferior to others. This could become a wide spread consensus. It would not make it true. And it would not change the facts. That is why we must use facts as the basis of argument, and not opinion.
D) Fear:
Now, here is where I'm going to take you to task, because I have grown intolerably weary of this particular facet of the global warming argument: the argument that we must ACT NOW OR ELSE.
This is absolutely the vilest basis for persuasion known to man, for it makes no appeal to reason or to logic, but rather appeals to one thing and one thing only: fear. It claims legitimacy not through good, solid thinking, but through a desperate appeal to the emotions, emotions which serve only to cloud rational thought.
It is the same appeal used by the doomsayers who claim the world is at an end and have been claiming so in every era since the crucifixion.
It was the same appeal that sent America into mindless and endless war, and has sent countless other countries into countless other conflicts.
It is the same base and dehumanizing appeal that causes ignorant white parents to grasp the hands of their children when a black man walks by.
It is, sadly and pathetically, the appeal that won over California voters on Prop 8 and thus denied good, decent Americans their civil right to marriage and equality.
If I look over the course of your arguments thus far, many of them have been faulty, weak and illogical, but all of them are arguments widely swallowed by the masses, and the people swallow them for one reason: fear.
What I hope for here is that you will make a compelling and convincing appeal that has nothing at all to do with fear and emotional hysteria. As I said before, if your conclusions are accurate and your argument sound, then it should be just as accurate and sound in the full light of day as it will be huddled in the dark corner shrouded in a robe of fear-mongering.
Off from that particular soap-box...
E) Media:
Your statement that you don't believe the mass media is pushing the global warming agenda says either that you don't pay attention to the mass media or...well, actually, that's about all it can mean. Check out the major news television shows and let me know when they run a story against global warming. Let me know when an anchor even hints that global warming isn't real.
I won't hold my breath.
F) Lobbying in Washington:
Lobbying. Yes, the oil industry lobbies intensively. And they put out huge sums of money.
You know who puts out more money lobbying than anyone else? The American Medical Association.
You know the most powerful lobbying group in Washington DC? The AARP.
I'm not denying the influence of money, but I think it might do Americans some good if they had a better understanding of the lobbying process. There's more to it than evil deals done behind closed doors, and the truth is the majority of that money is thrown around to advance positive aims...like benefits for tobacco farmers and better wages for oil workers.
Furthermore, making the accusation that the oil industry spends millions of dollars lobbying in Washington in an effort to deny global warming is a gross misunderstanding of the political structure. A lobbyist would not be employed doing this.
What would actually happen is the oil industry would put forward experts to testify in congressional hearings regarding issues of climate change, and these experts would lay out their case (supporting the oil industry, no doubt).
It is in congressional hearings where the oil industry's influence would be felt in regards to disproving or refuting the claims of global warming supporters. But in lobbying? Not likely. Lobbyists have much more specific and direct agendas which involve policy and law, not scientific debate.
G) Solar Radiation:
I'm not sure exactly where you took your data considering solar radiation, but since your initial statistic regarding solar energy and its fluctuation since 1750 is inaccurate, I would question the rest of it as well.
I would point you to the work of SK Solanki, who presented an article called “Solar Variability and Climate Change: is there a link?” is Astronomy & Astrophysics. His work clearly shows fluctuations and increases in solar irradiation during the time period we're discussing, and shows a corresponding correlation with increased temperatures on Earth.
Solanki does not conclude that they are a cause and effect system, but notes the correlation. He also notes that his data does not account for a sudden spike in temperature for which there is no spike in solar irradiation, a spike he believes is caused by greenhouse gases.
However, that spike does not occur until 1980, a statistic not correlating to the general global warming argument.
To say that various models can't account for change in temperature without including greenhouse gases is a rather misleading statement, since there HAS BEEN an increase in greenhouse gases. There's no debate there. So any logical model would include those gases as part of the overall effect.
We're not debating whether there's more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or not. We're debating their effect.
H) Pseudoscience:
As for pseudo-science. Pseudo meaning false. False science are those fields of study and theory which masquerade as legitimate science but underneath are anything but. Imagine science as a set of clothing. Anyone can put them on, but that doesn't mean you're a scientist underneath.
The dangers of pseudoscience are many, but they all stem from the fact that people trust and believe scientists. People give weight to even the slight opinions of scientists, because we imagine their opinions to be backed by science. The authority we give scientists is much like the authority people gave to the Church in the medieval era, for in our own culture science has toppled religion as the main pillar of truth.
For this very reason speaking in the name of science comes with a grave responsibility. Science speaks with authority, and it's authority comes from it's successes, which have been many. All those successes, however, rise up from the same foundation: logic, rationality, reasoning, unbiased and testable experiments. If you are going to speak in the name of science, then, you need to be working from that same foundation.
Pseudoscience, however, does not. It uses the pulpit of science to forward arguments and systems of belief that have no grounding in rationality or logic, testable hypotheses or reason.
A fine example is the Space Alien Abduction theory. There is no evidence to support it, no logic behind its argument, no testable hypothesis, and no rational reasoning to explain the basis of its debate. And yet there are thousands of pseudoscientists using the name of science to forward their ideas about Space Alien Abduction. They print books and newspapers, have their own television and radio shows, and their followers number in the millions.
And, in some cases, they have developed cults, as the Hailey's Comet cult did at the end of the millennium. They committed mass suicide, believing the alien gods had come round again to take their souls to heaven, or Mars, or whatever.
Pseudoscience poses a dangerous threat to our democracy, for reasons Sagan outlines clearly in his book. You should read it. After finishing this book my junior year in high school I said if there was one book I thought every high school student should have to read it would be DHW.
As to how pseudoscience relates to our discussion here, I will argue that the claims of global warming experts are pseudoscientific, based on faulty science and false logic masquerading as the real deal. What I have argued for from the start, and will continue to here, is for a better case, a clearer argument, and the use of real science to get a solid and accurate picture of what we're dealing with.
Because until we do, we will be making all of our decisions based upon a misguided and fundamentally inaccurate understanding of our world. This kind of decision making undermines our democratic system. In most cases it is merely costly, in some cases devastating, but in all cases dishonest.
Good argument. This was well reasoned and more compelling. Let me see if I can respond where I thought necessary.
A) Peer Reviewed Journals:
I'm glad we're on the same page with peer-reviewed journals. I'll make note again that most of them aren't on the internet, which would mean that the study you referenced would only be sampling a minority of what's available (and the more technologically savvy minority). Also, I think it's worth pointing out that we don't have the key words used for this particular survey of articles, which leaves us with the question of whether or not those key words were biased.
However, let's say I concede to you that the survey was entirely fair and unbiased. Let's say I also ignore that there might actually be articles which present DATA disputing global warming, but no OPINION, which then would leave them in the category of “no position” even though they ought to be counted in the “against” category. Still, let's concede those points and move on.
Where does that leave us? With a tally of 928 to 0.
Let's put it up again all big and bold:
928 to 0.
Stunning, ain't it? Sure. Stunning.
But what's wrong?
You have taken this number to be firm support of your position. I mean, look, it's:
928 to 0.
Obviously, this kind of consensus can not be argued with. Correct?
I admire your dogged determination to hunt down these kind of facts, but you missed the subtle suggestion these numbers present.
This study tells us not that there is a debate, not that some people disagree, but that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OPPOSITION.
Tell me, on what subject have you ever found that there is no opposition whatsoever? Give me a subject where if we tallied the populace you would find absolute agreement with a grand whopping total of ZERO dissent.
Reme, there are scientists publishing papers right now who claim Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong. The single greatest theory in scientific history, proposed by the most brilliant mind of the 20th century, and if you did a tally of scientific papers today you might find (making up a number here) a vote of
928 to 6.
But there would be that six.
An absolute donut hole of opposition should not cause you to jump for joy. It should make you wrinkle your brow, at the very least. More likely, it ought to send a small shiver down your back.
I've said it before: this is not a debated issue. The real debate in scientific circles died out a long time ago. And when debate vanishes, when it shrinks to zero, it is most assuredly NOT because everybody agrees, but because the opposition is being suppressed.
And suppression is always wrong. As Voltaire famously said: “I don't agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”
928 to 0.
It ought to worry you.
B) Misrepresentation:
Yes, indeed, there will be examples of scientists misrepresenting data to further their own agendas. I think you might be further enlightened if you look up the history of Michael Mann, who published the infamous “hockey-stick” graph in a 1998 issue of Nature magazine. It was this graph, and Mann's work, adopted by the IPCC which caused a major rolling wave in the whole global warming argument. Mann's work, later discredited, has been rejected now by the IPCC, but only after they prominently used it and displayed it for six years.
The point, again, and as it will continue to be, is that there is bad science on both ends.
It also, however, is my not-so-subtle hint that one shouldn't trust the conclusions or the infallibility of the IPCC, no matter how many scientists they have in their ranks.
C) My Point Regarding Consensus:
You are correct in pointing out that consensus on the issues I mentioned have changed, and that yes they have changed because of scientific discoveries (although I would argue the greater measure of change came not from science but from social and political revolutions for certain examples).
The point I was making, though, was subtle. I will restate it. Consensus, as a basis for argument, is worthless and meaningless. It may be right. It may be wrong. In either case, it does not matter, because simply because large numbers of people believe something to be true does not make it so.
Consider that our current consensus could change, and we could revert to the belief that certain races are inferior to others. This could become a wide spread consensus. It would not make it true. And it would not change the facts. That is why we must use facts as the basis of argument, and not opinion.
D) Fear:
Now, here is where I'm going to take you to task, because I have grown intolerably weary of this particular facet of the global warming argument: the argument that we must ACT NOW OR ELSE.
This is absolutely the vilest basis for persuasion known to man, for it makes no appeal to reason or to logic, but rather appeals to one thing and one thing only: fear. It claims legitimacy not through good, solid thinking, but through a desperate appeal to the emotions, emotions which serve only to cloud rational thought.
It is the same appeal used by the doomsayers who claim the world is at an end and have been claiming so in every era since the crucifixion.
It was the same appeal that sent America into mindless and endless war, and has sent countless other countries into countless other conflicts.
It is the same base and dehumanizing appeal that causes ignorant white parents to grasp the hands of their children when a black man walks by.
It is, sadly and pathetically, the appeal that won over California voters on Prop 8 and thus denied good, decent Americans their civil right to marriage and equality.
If I look over the course of your arguments thus far, many of them have been faulty, weak and illogical, but all of them are arguments widely swallowed by the masses, and the people swallow them for one reason: fear.
What I hope for here is that you will make a compelling and convincing appeal that has nothing at all to do with fear and emotional hysteria. As I said before, if your conclusions are accurate and your argument sound, then it should be just as accurate and sound in the full light of day as it will be huddled in the dark corner shrouded in a robe of fear-mongering.
Off from that particular soap-box...
E) Media:
Your statement that you don't believe the mass media is pushing the global warming agenda says either that you don't pay attention to the mass media or...well, actually, that's about all it can mean. Check out the major news television shows and let me know when they run a story against global warming. Let me know when an anchor even hints that global warming isn't real.
I won't hold my breath.
F) Lobbying in Washington:
Lobbying. Yes, the oil industry lobbies intensively. And they put out huge sums of money.
You know who puts out more money lobbying than anyone else? The American Medical Association.
You know the most powerful lobbying group in Washington DC? The AARP.
I'm not denying the influence of money, but I think it might do Americans some good if they had a better understanding of the lobbying process. There's more to it than evil deals done behind closed doors, and the truth is the majority of that money is thrown around to advance positive aims...like benefits for tobacco farmers and better wages for oil workers.
Furthermore, making the accusation that the oil industry spends millions of dollars lobbying in Washington in an effort to deny global warming is a gross misunderstanding of the political structure. A lobbyist would not be employed doing this.
What would actually happen is the oil industry would put forward experts to testify in congressional hearings regarding issues of climate change, and these experts would lay out their case (supporting the oil industry, no doubt).
It is in congressional hearings where the oil industry's influence would be felt in regards to disproving or refuting the claims of global warming supporters. But in lobbying? Not likely. Lobbyists have much more specific and direct agendas which involve policy and law, not scientific debate.
G) Solar Radiation:
I'm not sure exactly where you took your data considering solar radiation, but since your initial statistic regarding solar energy and its fluctuation since 1750 is inaccurate, I would question the rest of it as well.
I would point you to the work of SK Solanki, who presented an article called “Solar Variability and Climate Change: is there a link?” is Astronomy & Astrophysics. His work clearly shows fluctuations and increases in solar irradiation during the time period we're discussing, and shows a corresponding correlation with increased temperatures on Earth.
Solanki does not conclude that they are a cause and effect system, but notes the correlation. He also notes that his data does not account for a sudden spike in temperature for which there is no spike in solar irradiation, a spike he believes is caused by greenhouse gases.
However, that spike does not occur until 1980, a statistic not correlating to the general global warming argument.
To say that various models can't account for change in temperature without including greenhouse gases is a rather misleading statement, since there HAS BEEN an increase in greenhouse gases. There's no debate there. So any logical model would include those gases as part of the overall effect.
We're not debating whether there's more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or not. We're debating their effect.
H) Pseudoscience:
As for pseudo-science. Pseudo meaning false. False science are those fields of study and theory which masquerade as legitimate science but underneath are anything but. Imagine science as a set of clothing. Anyone can put them on, but that doesn't mean you're a scientist underneath.
The dangers of pseudoscience are many, but they all stem from the fact that people trust and believe scientists. People give weight to even the slight opinions of scientists, because we imagine their opinions to be backed by science. The authority we give scientists is much like the authority people gave to the Church in the medieval era, for in our own culture science has toppled religion as the main pillar of truth.
For this very reason speaking in the name of science comes with a grave responsibility. Science speaks with authority, and it's authority comes from it's successes, which have been many. All those successes, however, rise up from the same foundation: logic, rationality, reasoning, unbiased and testable experiments. If you are going to speak in the name of science, then, you need to be working from that same foundation.
Pseudoscience, however, does not. It uses the pulpit of science to forward arguments and systems of belief that have no grounding in rationality or logic, testable hypotheses or reason.
A fine example is the Space Alien Abduction theory. There is no evidence to support it, no logic behind its argument, no testable hypothesis, and no rational reasoning to explain the basis of its debate. And yet there are thousands of pseudoscientists using the name of science to forward their ideas about Space Alien Abduction. They print books and newspapers, have their own television and radio shows, and their followers number in the millions.
And, in some cases, they have developed cults, as the Hailey's Comet cult did at the end of the millennium. They committed mass suicide, believing the alien gods had come round again to take their souls to heaven, or Mars, or whatever.
Pseudoscience poses a dangerous threat to our democracy, for reasons Sagan outlines clearly in his book. You should read it. After finishing this book my junior year in high school I said if there was one book I thought every high school student should have to read it would be DHW.
As to how pseudoscience relates to our discussion here, I will argue that the claims of global warming experts are pseudoscientific, based on faulty science and false logic masquerading as the real deal. What I have argued for from the start, and will continue to here, is for a better case, a clearer argument, and the use of real science to get a solid and accurate picture of what we're dealing with.
Because until we do, we will be making all of our decisions based upon a misguided and fundamentally inaccurate understanding of our world. This kind of decision making undermines our democratic system. In most cases it is merely costly, in some cases devastating, but in all cases dishonest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)