Tuesday, March 27, 2007
My Excuse
I started a review of Mom's Doctor's Appointment Day (which went well, thank you), at one minute before 0600 on 3/23/07. It's still in drafts. It will be finished. Not sure when, sometime this week, I imagine. As well, I have a promise to keep regarding publishing about medical funding which I expect will be honored later this week as well. I got distracted, which I'll address in a minute, because the distraction is important.
We received a call from Mom's PCP's office this morning with sketchy results of the various blood tests her doctor performed. Although the office person who called reported that, overall, the doctor was "pleased" and pronounced Mom as doing well, I'm a little surprised. I didn't write down the results, as they'll be arriving in the mail probably toward the end of the week. This is what I recall from the conversation, though:
Mind you, I'm as much of a fan of the horror genre as the next guy. I love to be chilled and frightened, especially if the provocation is well done. Combine horror with documentary and I'm yours. But, tell me there's no controversy then defend yourself against controversy and the horror and the documentary aspects of a presentation lose their edge for me and I start to think.
As well, since I hadn't previously researched the subject, I'd had no reason, up until the last few days, to doubt the detail of the global warming proposition. All I've done, as have most people, is worry about it and wonder if the individual steps Mom and I take to lighten our carbon load on the atmosphere are effective.
It was, therefore, with much surprise that, upon typing the search terms "global warming" and "controversy" into a search engine, up popped "1,100,000" references. Needless to say, I followed only the uppermost and, of those, few, relative to the number of references cited. Quite a few were from Wikipedia, since there is an article with multiple links named for my search terms. This, however, was not my only source, nor was the infamous (to the environmental community, anyway) Dr. Richard Lindzen the only scientist I accessed. The media has, indeed, not been silent on the controversy. A variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites have spoken out on the controversy, despite what some of the scientists feel. While it is true, as Gore asserts, that scientific opinion is in agreement about the fact of global warming, the preliminary list of scientists who dissent with various details of global warming, including explanations of what constitutes global warming, what's causing it and what reliable predictions can be made from what we now know, factoring in the voluminous category of what we don't understand and don't know, is not insignificant. In addition, Wikipedia has published a list of "Former Global Warming Skeptics". It is interesting to note that although a few science writers people this list, no scientists are on it.
It seems that Gore's delineation of the global warming phenomenon is so simplified as to be inaccurate, at least. The influence of the greenhouse gases he mentions, particularly CO2, is in dispute. The documentary is negligent, as well, in paying almost no attention to what the meteorological community considers the most important factor involved in global warming, atmospheric moisture. Several "dissenting" scientists note that Gore gives little attention, as well, to atmospheric dust, which is closely related to atmospheric moisture. Even his predictive models are widely disputed and some of them have not been able to be duplicated, which is a foremost requirement of rigorous scientific method.
His citing of recorded soaring temperatures over the last few years centers on the use of cities. The urban heat island effect is not disputed by science and is of much concern. What is disputed is its effect on the rest of Earth.
Gore certainly gets it right when he asserts that global warming is a political issue. Thus, I read the entire Kyoto Protocol. I was astonished. This is not a prescriptive document for reducing global warming, I realized, it is a political document designed primarily to force developed nations into subsidizing the economic prosperity of developing nations. As such, there is much doubt within the scientific community that it will have any observable effect on reducing global warming.
Other curious observations:
There is even dispute about whether reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing. Some scientists consider that global warming may, in fact, be good for humanity and nothing more than business as usual for Earth. Others think the effect may be so easily and quickly overcome within the human community as to be negligible. All of the dissenting scientists agree, though, that the issue of global warming is surrounded by such political hysteria, at this time, that efforts to research the issue effectively are being stifled.
As I continued my reading, I was reminded of Galileo Galilei and his dispute with the political force of his time and place, the Catholic Church, over heliocentrism. Considering that the position of the Church did not reflect the position of individual members of the church, including the reigning pope, nor the populace at large, all of whom had long ago accepted the Copernican thesis, the trial was essentially a witch hunt within the context of the much larger issue of who held political sway.
My developing feelings regarding global warming are this: We do not need to scare humanity with a loose cannon in order to observe and address that we have, indeed, created enormous problems for ourselves and other species by raping our environment for economic gain. Some of these problems are: An increasing lack of potable water and arable land; an unusual ascendance of illness linked to environmental factors, particularly, but not exclusively, asthma and cancer; extremes of political unrest which can be directly attributed to unusually swift environmental change clearly perpetuated by activities intended to increase economic development in developing and developed nations; the alarming disappearance of species, such as bees, upon which we rely to produce the elements of survival. All these problems need to be addressed. The need is urgent. One of the larger problems inherent in addressing them is the current "survival of the fittest" economic model, in which wealth is defined by, yes, Al, "gold", under which most of our species labors and which Gore does not address. If anything, Gore predicts that this model could and should become healthier if his global warming platform is embraced.
We've got problems. They are global problems. I think that our attempts to gather these problems under one questionable umbrella and christen that umbrella "global warming" are actually deflecting our efforts, especially the science and economics of our efforts, to solve these problems. My reading of the Kyoto Protocol and its delineation through Wikipedia (the immediately previous link) leads me to believe that this treaty will probably do more to undercut our eventual solutions to these problems rather than advance them.
If our history as a species has taught us anything, it is that we cannot do credit to our desires if we discredit dissent, especially scientific dissent, during the problem solving process. From my point of view, the inconvenient truth is this: Hysteria does not advance our ability to deal with these problems, but it is exactly what Gore's movie is designed to produce. Further, without serious, unsettling economic considerations, we, as a species, will have no chance of solving the problems with which we have beset not only our species but other species and the global environment. It is important that we realize, as well, that Earth doesn't consider humanity's life style a problem. Earth is apolitical, amoral. To Earth, we are simply a circumstance, to which other circumstances are created in response. Those "other circumstances" may well spell out our eventual extinction, even if we work seriously and apply ourselves with utmost sincerity of purpose to the desire to keep our species and what we think of as our beloved but currently fragile environment in existence. It would do us well to consider the following:
11 x 11 - 11 (66)
Do not fear your rage. It barely penetrates
the earth’s skin, even as it reverberates
in canyons, in ears. I transform violence.
It carries my own ecclesiastical
lament. It swirls a thrilling shudder through me.
I am within the pit. I am the ocean.
Why would you think I would not want you to dive
into me? I was made to encompass you,
adore you. When you think you have plundered me
lifeless, I will absorb you, your chemicals,
and brew another batch of sentient soup.
Can we humans cool our hot headed devotion to rhetoric over reason, prophecy over practicality, oration over observation, conflict over cooperation?
Let us try.
What does all this have to do with my mother? Well, she's been here with me through all of this. And, as well, this is my excuse for not reporting in more depth on her.
Later.
Added April 11, 2007
I continue to research opinions about global warming, as I can; both sides of the issue. I just discovered an interesting blog entry entitled How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic that is very helpful. I'm just now making my way through the exhaustive list of references. My contention remains that, whatever the cause of what we are currently referring to as global warming, the problems to life, human and other, are obvious and need to be addressed, regardless. We also need to be much more wary about the solutions we propose. I am offended, for instance, by the idea of "credits" being issued that can be traded about in order to reduce one country's responsibility while heightening that of another. Responsibility, I believe, should remain global. It seems these credits are also applicable to businesses and individuals in the form of carbon offsets (also called "green tags"). It seems to me that buying one's way out of the disappearance of livable habitat is a solution that delays responsibility. Humans are famous for cheating when it comes to money: Tweak a spreadsheet here, revise a number there, obfuscate the evidence in an exhausting series of numbers and formulae and no one has to do anything while the earth becomes less and less able to reliably sustain life as we know it and apparently love it.
In the meantime, over the last couple of weeks I've changed out all our light bulbs, except for those in the dinette on a dimmer switch (I have yet to find bulbs locally that work in these sockets). Couldn't hurt, right? This has created a minor problem in that, by the light of the curly bulbs, Mom perpetually looks anemic. As you know, her anemia profile has lately been a matter of concern for me; so, in the evening I find myself herding her into the dinette so I can take a look at her under light to which my skin reading skills are better adapted. A side benefit of this is that she gets a little more exercise. It also keeps her humor up. She thinks it is incredibly silly that I insist on doing this.
As well, I've begun to contemplate the end credits tag on An Inconvenient Truth that implores "children" to ask their "parents" why they would want to endanger the existence of their progeny (a shameless paraphrase, I admit). Funny, but I discovered that the originator of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson, was of my mother's generation, born in 1914. His extremely important collaborator, Denis Hayes, who is responsible for the mechanics that launched the original Earth Day and revived the movement in the 1990's, is of my generation, born in 1944. So, you know, don't ask me this question. It's obvious to me that there is no generation specifically responsible for either the destruction of livable habitat, nor for efforts to abate the destruction. We're all culpable, including our children, for what we perceive as a looming crisis. Thus, we're all responsible. Now, if we could just get the money issue out of the picture, we might actually accomplish something of value and meaning.
Yeah, right.
Later.
We received a call from Mom's PCP's office this morning with sketchy results of the various blood tests her doctor performed. Although the office person who called reported that, overall, the doctor was "pleased" and pronounced Mom as doing well, I'm a little surprised. I didn't write down the results, as they'll be arriving in the mail probably toward the end of the week. This is what I recall from the conversation, though:
- HA1c: 5.2. The office reporter declared this "good", and it is better than September's reading. I recall her doctor, at the time, mentioning that he'd like to see her a little closer to 6.0, which she is.
- Her hemoglobin, though, dropped, within the space of less than a week, from 10.9 to 10.2. He clearly mentioned, at her appointment (previous to these most current results) that he prefers to see her in the 10-12 range, if not higher. I'm a bit alarmed by the drop, too, although it could have to do with her aspirin intake over the few days preceding the appointment. She'd been moving more, thus, her back and knees were bothering her more than usual. For two days before and the day of the appointment I gave her adult aspirin at breakfast instead of her usual 81 mg dose. The day before she received an adult aspirin at night, as well, and yet again another adult aspirin in the morning. This could explain the drop in hemoglobin.
- The office reporter told me, without numbers (for which I didn't ask), that her cholesterol was "a little high" and that Mom's doctor recommended cutting down on fats. This is going to be interesting because the healthier her diet becomes, the lower her HA1c drops. I'm curious to see these numbers, because, in September, although her overall cholesterol was slightly above normal, her triglycerides were zooming, and yet her doctor explicitly wrote next to that number not to worry. My guess is that her overall cholesterol has climbed and her triglycerides may be in the stratosphere. I'm not exactly sure how to moderate this and keep her HA1c up. I've already decided to switch her from regular bacon to Canadian bacon and increase sugar by increasing fruit, which is one of the strategies I used this time. Of course, the holidays also figured into this cholesterol reading, but this last holiday season was not nearly as gastromically rambunctious as have been previous seasons.
Mind you, I'm as much of a fan of the horror genre as the next guy. I love to be chilled and frightened, especially if the provocation is well done. Combine horror with documentary and I'm yours. But, tell me there's no controversy then defend yourself against controversy and the horror and the documentary aspects of a presentation lose their edge for me and I start to think.
As well, since I hadn't previously researched the subject, I'd had no reason, up until the last few days, to doubt the detail of the global warming proposition. All I've done, as have most people, is worry about it and wonder if the individual steps Mom and I take to lighten our carbon load on the atmosphere are effective.
It was, therefore, with much surprise that, upon typing the search terms "global warming" and "controversy" into a search engine, up popped "1,100,000" references. Needless to say, I followed only the uppermost and, of those, few, relative to the number of references cited. Quite a few were from Wikipedia, since there is an article with multiple links named for my search terms. This, however, was not my only source, nor was the infamous (to the environmental community, anyway) Dr. Richard Lindzen the only scientist I accessed. The media has, indeed, not been silent on the controversy. A variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites have spoken out on the controversy, despite what some of the scientists feel. While it is true, as Gore asserts, that scientific opinion is in agreement about the fact of global warming, the preliminary list of scientists who dissent with various details of global warming, including explanations of what constitutes global warming, what's causing it and what reliable predictions can be made from what we now know, factoring in the voluminous category of what we don't understand and don't know, is not insignificant. In addition, Wikipedia has published a list of "Former Global Warming Skeptics". It is interesting to note that although a few science writers people this list, no scientists are on it.
It seems that Gore's delineation of the global warming phenomenon is so simplified as to be inaccurate, at least. The influence of the greenhouse gases he mentions, particularly CO2, is in dispute. The documentary is negligent, as well, in paying almost no attention to what the meteorological community considers the most important factor involved in global warming, atmospheric moisture. Several "dissenting" scientists note that Gore gives little attention, as well, to atmospheric dust, which is closely related to atmospheric moisture. Even his predictive models are widely disputed and some of them have not been able to be duplicated, which is a foremost requirement of rigorous scientific method.
His citing of recorded soaring temperatures over the last few years centers on the use of cities. The urban heat island effect is not disputed by science and is of much concern. What is disputed is its effect on the rest of Earth.
Gore certainly gets it right when he asserts that global warming is a political issue. Thus, I read the entire Kyoto Protocol. I was astonished. This is not a prescriptive document for reducing global warming, I realized, it is a political document designed primarily to force developed nations into subsidizing the economic prosperity of developing nations. As such, there is much doubt within the scientific community that it will have any observable effect on reducing global warming.
Other curious observations:
- It seems that the Alps' and Greenland's glacial fields have, within recent years, been observed to be advancing, rather than continuing their retreat.
- Gore's models have already inaccurately predicted the extent to which Earth should have already warmed.
- He neglects to mention a crucial cooling period in mid-century which led to a "cooling hysteria" just previous to the warming hysteria.
- Earth's tropospheric temperature, which is considered crucial in determining periods of warming and cooling, has varied only insignificantly during the time period Gore cites.
- The same is true of ocean temperature.
- While Gore lauds China for their CO2 standards in regard to automobiles, there is mounting evidence that China will, in the not too distant future, surpass even the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions from other sources.
There is even dispute about whether reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing. Some scientists consider that global warming may, in fact, be good for humanity and nothing more than business as usual for Earth. Others think the effect may be so easily and quickly overcome within the human community as to be negligible. All of the dissenting scientists agree, though, that the issue of global warming is surrounded by such political hysteria, at this time, that efforts to research the issue effectively are being stifled.
As I continued my reading, I was reminded of Galileo Galilei and his dispute with the political force of his time and place, the Catholic Church, over heliocentrism. Considering that the position of the Church did not reflect the position of individual members of the church, including the reigning pope, nor the populace at large, all of whom had long ago accepted the Copernican thesis, the trial was essentially a witch hunt within the context of the much larger issue of who held political sway.
My developing feelings regarding global warming are this: We do not need to scare humanity with a loose cannon in order to observe and address that we have, indeed, created enormous problems for ourselves and other species by raping our environment for economic gain. Some of these problems are: An increasing lack of potable water and arable land; an unusual ascendance of illness linked to environmental factors, particularly, but not exclusively, asthma and cancer; extremes of political unrest which can be directly attributed to unusually swift environmental change clearly perpetuated by activities intended to increase economic development in developing and developed nations; the alarming disappearance of species, such as bees, upon which we rely to produce the elements of survival. All these problems need to be addressed. The need is urgent. One of the larger problems inherent in addressing them is the current "survival of the fittest" economic model, in which wealth is defined by, yes, Al, "gold", under which most of our species labors and which Gore does not address. If anything, Gore predicts that this model could and should become healthier if his global warming platform is embraced.
We've got problems. They are global problems. I think that our attempts to gather these problems under one questionable umbrella and christen that umbrella "global warming" are actually deflecting our efforts, especially the science and economics of our efforts, to solve these problems. My reading of the Kyoto Protocol and its delineation through Wikipedia (the immediately previous link) leads me to believe that this treaty will probably do more to undercut our eventual solutions to these problems rather than advance them.
If our history as a species has taught us anything, it is that we cannot do credit to our desires if we discredit dissent, especially scientific dissent, during the problem solving process. From my point of view, the inconvenient truth is this: Hysteria does not advance our ability to deal with these problems, but it is exactly what Gore's movie is designed to produce. Further, without serious, unsettling economic considerations, we, as a species, will have no chance of solving the problems with which we have beset not only our species but other species and the global environment. It is important that we realize, as well, that Earth doesn't consider humanity's life style a problem. Earth is apolitical, amoral. To Earth, we are simply a circumstance, to which other circumstances are created in response. Those "other circumstances" may well spell out our eventual extinction, even if we work seriously and apply ourselves with utmost sincerity of purpose to the desire to keep our species and what we think of as our beloved but currently fragile environment in existence. It would do us well to consider the following:
11 x 11 - 11 (66)
Do not fear your rage. It barely penetrates
the earth’s skin, even as it reverberates
in canyons, in ears. I transform violence.
It carries my own ecclesiastical
lament. It swirls a thrilling shudder through me.
I am within the pit. I am the ocean.
Why would you think I would not want you to dive
into me? I was made to encompass you,
adore you. When you think you have plundered me
lifeless, I will absorb you, your chemicals,
and brew another batch of sentient soup.
Can we humans cool our hot headed devotion to rhetoric over reason, prophecy over practicality, oration over observation, conflict over cooperation?
Let us try.
What does all this have to do with my mother? Well, she's been here with me through all of this. And, as well, this is my excuse for not reporting in more depth on her.
Later.
Added April 11, 2007
I continue to research opinions about global warming, as I can; both sides of the issue. I just discovered an interesting blog entry entitled How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic that is very helpful. I'm just now making my way through the exhaustive list of references. My contention remains that, whatever the cause of what we are currently referring to as global warming, the problems to life, human and other, are obvious and need to be addressed, regardless. We also need to be much more wary about the solutions we propose. I am offended, for instance, by the idea of "credits" being issued that can be traded about in order to reduce one country's responsibility while heightening that of another. Responsibility, I believe, should remain global. It seems these credits are also applicable to businesses and individuals in the form of carbon offsets (also called "green tags"). It seems to me that buying one's way out of the disappearance of livable habitat is a solution that delays responsibility. Humans are famous for cheating when it comes to money: Tweak a spreadsheet here, revise a number there, obfuscate the evidence in an exhausting series of numbers and formulae and no one has to do anything while the earth becomes less and less able to reliably sustain life as we know it and apparently love it.
In the meantime, over the last couple of weeks I've changed out all our light bulbs, except for those in the dinette on a dimmer switch (I have yet to find bulbs locally that work in these sockets). Couldn't hurt, right? This has created a minor problem in that, by the light of the curly bulbs, Mom perpetually looks anemic. As you know, her anemia profile has lately been a matter of concern for me; so, in the evening I find myself herding her into the dinette so I can take a look at her under light to which my skin reading skills are better adapted. A side benefit of this is that she gets a little more exercise. It also keeps her humor up. She thinks it is incredibly silly that I insist on doing this.
As well, I've begun to contemplate the end credits tag on An Inconvenient Truth that implores "children" to ask their "parents" why they would want to endanger the existence of their progeny (a shameless paraphrase, I admit). Funny, but I discovered that the originator of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson, was of my mother's generation, born in 1914. His extremely important collaborator, Denis Hayes, who is responsible for the mechanics that launched the original Earth Day and revived the movement in the 1990's, is of my generation, born in 1944. So, you know, don't ask me this question. It's obvious to me that there is no generation specifically responsible for either the destruction of livable habitat, nor for efforts to abate the destruction. We're all culpable, including our children, for what we perceive as a looming crisis. Thus, we're all responsible. Now, if we could just get the money issue out of the picture, we might actually accomplish something of value and meaning.
Yeah, right.
Later.
