Books past:
Yesterday my wife was trying to decide between two pairs of shoes, and she finally decided on the less expensive pair because she simply couldn't justify spending $90 (pre-discount) on a pair of shoes, even if she only gets new shoes once every 3 years. This is why I love her. I, however, felt that I wasn't being a very good provider if my wife didn't feel like she could get the slightly more comfortable shoes, so I convinced her to get the more expensive ones. While I felt like a good provider, I was later haunted by the ghosts of Paul Farmer.
Books present:
I finally got the
On a tangential note, I was called to the Young Men's Organization about a year ago, and I was very surprised because I didn't think they called people with my personality type to Young Men's. It's typically the more popular, manly men. For example, we had an activity this year where we built potato cannons. The majority of the YM's leaders and youth were very excited about this activity. It's very manly/cool to shoot things, start them on fire, etc. However, I was not at all interested in such things as a youth, and I have not acquired these tastes as I've grown older. I guess, according to this book, I've become too "feminized" for the YM's program. Now, I realize there is still a way for me to be helpful in YM, as not every youth is into guns, archery, and fire, but we are certainly not in the majority.
Books future:I'm surprised by how much commentary there has been about this book by people that haven't read it. I haven't read it either, but I have read most of the bibliography that Paul referred to. (I was at a Polka concert in our library, and I saw the book on the shelf next to me and read it while I listened. It's not that long, and it's better documented than Al (I should have been President.) Gore's documentary.) I think everyone can/should at least read the bibliography.) I thought it was funny that the anti-Crichton faction chose to call his book "Heresy" because Crichton has an interesting article about environmentalism as a religion.
I don't want to spoil the bibliography but for those of you have never read it, let me clarify a few things for you. (Hopefully, I won't misrepresent anything because I actually haven't read it for a year.) But from what I remember, Crichton doesn't deny that global warming is happening, and he doesn't claim that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it. He thinks carbon dioxide has less to do with it then other things, such as the way we use land, but the focus is always on carbon emissions instead of bigger problems. He also gets annoyed with how some weather predictions get presented as facts when they are just scientific guesses, and environmentalists often cause as much harm as good.
Chrichton doesn't use this example, but I think biofuels is a good example. Studies are now showing that the carbon emitted to process biofuels plus the forests that are being destroyed so that we can plant more corn, sugar, etc. to create biofuels has had a net negative effect on the environment. The center to predict hurricanes underpredicted the year of Katrina and has overpredicted every year since. (Note: I'm not saying that all environmental models are useless. In statistics we say, all models are wrong, but some are useful.)
I believe that we do need to be very concerned about the environment. I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of the earth. I believe that global warming is happening, though I am unsure of all of the causes, what is the most important cause, or what we can realistically do to prevent it. I have visited Karl's suggested website for global warming doubters, and if you make it down to the scientific reasons for doubting global warming, I think there are still reasonable reasons to think that there may be other more important causes to global warming than carbon emissions. If you can lead me to sources that prove otherwise, please do. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
3 comments:
I agree with your concern about biofuels. Particularly corn-based ethanol here in the U.S., but also sugar. Now, I have seen some info on other bio-sources that, in principle, like pond scum.
Solar, and perhaps nuclear, are the ways to go. We need to pour a lot more research into solar, but I believe that we could easily get it to be more cost-efficient than oil.
As for environmental models, I don't understand the science enough to say how accurate they are, nor can I safely say how big the standard deviation is with respect to the recent stats thrown around by doubters, such as hurricane numbers and snowfall in Utah. I tend to believe the principles behind the explanations I've been given. But would I be surprised if the models weren't 100% or even 75% correct? No.
To be honest, I don't really care about how much sea levels are predicted to rise in the next 50 years, and to what extent carbon dioxide emissions are actually going to be responsible for that and other predicted effects of global warming. I like fresh air and clean water, I like to be able to see more than 20 miles when I get up to the top of a mountain, I dislike dependence on foreign and non-renewable sources for energy, and I think we should all treat this planet God has given us much better.
Hey Alvin,
sorry I didn't see your note and invite until now. that would have been fun to get together... Enjoyed reading your comments.
Hey I read over your comments again on Crichton and global warming. I hope I've given up being passionate enough about my opinions to get upset at people! Especially somebody as nice as you. The use of land point kind of makes sense because, I have been told that the fluxes of carbon in and out of the atmosphere during season changes far exceed our carbon emissions. Something is out of balance, and there is much we don't understand. I really am not an expert on these things. I just tend to be conservative in these things, and I take seriously what appears to be a consensus among my fellow nerds. We are running a giant world experiment that has never been run before. And physical scientists who do real experiments (like me) appreciate just how difficult it can be to predict the results of their experiments, even when they are far simpler systems than the earth. Most scientists aspire to be level-headed and analytical about these things, and that's important. But climate change is a moral issue, not just because of the environment, but because of the large numbers of people who could die if things go poorly. It's a problem where any powers of prevoyance would be incredibly valuable. So it seems to me that many LDS assume that because the prophet hasn't asked them to reduce their carbon emissions, that the carbon emissions must not be part of the problem. Do you think this kind of thinking influences how LDS think about this issue? Should it?
Post a Comment