Ramblings and overdue comments

All of the following items probably should be comments on various posts (like Karl's), but I find it easier to write one post than 5 comments.

To Glenn

Congratulations is way overdue. The baby pictures were nice, but I especially enjoyed the pictures from the "Hair Raising Experience" blog entry. Today I was reading some articles by Steven Landsburg, including one called Do Daughters Cause Divorce? (Landsburg has written a series of interesting articles for slate.com about Everyday economics: How the dismal science applies to your life.) Anyway, when I read this article, I thought of you Glenn and hope that you can beat the odds.

Glenn, I also enjoyed your post on the Joseph Smith presidential candidacy. We just finished reading the D&C/History of the Church picture scriptures with our daughter, but the bid for the presidency was not a topic that was covered. I understand that it doesn't build testimonies to talk about Joseph's run for the White House, but it doesn't hurt testimonies either.

I'm listening to this book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me". Most of it deals with how our Euro-centric history text books omit or misrepresent the history of people of different races (starting with the Indians) and social classes. The author also has a section on heroification and how he thinks it does people a disservice to talk about historical figures as real people with real struggles that made mistakes. I know there is a limited time in church, so it is important to focus on the most uplifting things. Still, I can't help but feel the church does a bit of a disservice by not talking more about the whole Joseph Smith and things like his presidential bid.

Speaking of books, did anyone else volunteer to be part of the book club core or is it my turn to choose again? If it's my turn, books I have been kicking aroung include one's that I've already read "An Ordinary Man" (About the Hotel Rwanda story), books I've half read "Rough Stone Rolling", and books I plan to read in the near future "The Omnivore's Dilemma". Let me know if you have any opinions.

The Dismal Science and the Environment

So a while back I asked Jesse to post his half finished post on the environment because I wanted to comment on it. I decided that if economics and environmental science are indeed comparable, then I have been underestimating environmental scientists because I have a lot more faith in economic predictions than environmental predictions. Also, I liked Karl's point that you don't have to know when the smoker is going to die to know that smoking is bad. (Aside: I think a more apt analogy than thinking of the US as a smoker would be if the country were a '50's coal miner. Both are eventually going to suffer lung disease, but the coal miner needs the job in a different way than the smoker needs a cigarrette.)

I still feel like environmental scientists have not come up with a viable solution to the problem. Most of the "cures" are worse than the disease. I don't understand why most environmentalists aren't quicker to embrace nuclear power, as it is much more proven than wind, solar, and biofuels. If someone can explain it to me, I'll be one step closer to accepting Obama (our next president?), who often repeats the wind, solar, bio mantra, as the thoughtful person he has a reputation of being.

The Lost Cause

I still haven't come to a firm conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of Lost. In retrospect, watching 3 seasons in 3 months was probably a bit much. My wife has definitely concluded that she won't be watching it, and I definitely feel that I shouldn't spend that much time watching stuff without my wife. So by default, I guess I won't be watching the rest of Lost.

I am starting to look more into devices that can help filter out a lot of the bad stuff because, as Karl pointed out, most episodes of Lost aren't that different than the commercials or other media. Personally, I don't feel offended by most commercials or most episodes of lost, but that may be more of a reflection on me than the media. I don't know. Either way, I figure if there is technology available to help me access cleaner media, then I should try to utilize that technology. I've heard some success stories, but if any of you have had any success, let me know.

State of Fear, Science and the Dismal Science

By popular demand (the President of Merrill Hall no less!) I'm unearthing and posting my comments on "State of Fear" from several months back. I'm sorry I've been AWOL the last while...I've been hit with the double whammy of 1. working in finance where the world is melting down and 2. buying a house and moving. Not done with either just yet...

If it feels like it abruptly ends without much conclusion...well that's why it's been unposted for so long. I also have lots of other thoughts on the topic I wanted to share...will have to wait for another post (I'd also enjoy a serious book on the topic).

1. On the book. Now I know what it feels like to read a "dollar-theater" movie. It really felt to me like Crichton was writing a screenplay for an action film---with the lack of depth, predictable plot and totally unrealistic and unnecessary stunts. Of course, I did read it in about a week, while my book club selection (Men hating church) took me a month to get through. So I guess I have no right to complain.



2. On global warming. I am not a scientist. I therefore rely on an appeal to authority here, and my understanding is that most authorities are in broad agreement that global warming is occuring. I do, however, have several reasons I'm less sure of the details (and therefore the appropriate response) than I would like to be:



a. People are selfish. This includes grant- and publicity-seeking scientists. Incentives certainly play a role here.



b. Sample selection bias. People who believe strongly in global warming or "environmentalism" are much more likely to be passionate enough to devote their life to the study of these issues. Most civil rights attorneys think racism is a big problem; most nutritionists think people should be more careful about what they eat. They certainly have more information on these issues...but you can't ignore that they also are a biased sample.



c. Climate is a complex and unpredictable system. I will here make a comparison that may strike the scientists in the group as unfair. I will compare economics to climate science. Economics, my field of study, is known as the "dismal science." Many people believe this is a commentary on the quality of economic research---in fact the term originated as nothing of the kind. It referred instead to the predictions of economists like Thomas Malthus whose predictions about the future and fate of humanity were rather pessimistic. Malthus observed humanity as a system of production and consumption and used the data available to him to predict the path of that system. He predicted that overpopulation would devastate the human race within a short period of time---that standards of living were doomed to continuously decline. Of course he was wildly wrong. But his methods were sound. He tried to predict something very complicated based on observations on a much smaller (and simpler) scale.



Take a more recent example. Economists nearly all agree that increasing government debt raises interest rates. The relationship between debt and rates is simple and nearly irrefutable in theory---it's just supply and demand. Yet recently Dick Cheney declared he did not believe in this relationship because the data supporting it is so hard to interpret. And unfortunately it's hard to blame him for that conclusion. The economy is a complex system with many variables interacting. To quantify the effect of debt on rates requires a specification of the whole system. It requires controlling for all the other variables which affect interest rates. Economists can experiment with these things on a small scale and can build mathematical models to simulate. But in the real world the relationships are very hard to identify and quantify. Predictions can be and have been very far off. Economics cannot be as precise as science most of the time because economists cannot conduct controlled experiments. We have to infer from the data we observe in the world.



Isn't global climate science similar in this regard? You can know the greenhouse effect is real...you can understand the theory behind it, model it, simulate it, observe it on a small scale...but predicting it in a system as complex as world climate is no small task. Economists also tend to vastly overestimate their ability to forecast. It would not surprise me were global climate models to suffer from the same bias.



A common argument I encounter is that while the extent of global warming (or other environmental problems) may be unknown, why not have clean air and water? This seems to me a useless point. It conveys no information---if I say I'll pay $0 for something you know nothing about its worth to me. The cost is not $0. It may be $0 to much of the developed world, but it most certainly is not to the third world. It is unfair to duck the hard questions here---life (and public policy) is about trade-offs and it doesn't get us anywhere to pretend otherwise.

Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb

Chrichton

Thanks to those who cracked the cover on the State of Fear. I read (skimmed) it on the beach two years ago--definitely summer reading--I personally apologize for putting you through the misery of the novel itself.  When I recommended it I assumed it would involve a good deal of skimming-I assumed most of you would have already known the Dan Browniness of the author.  Hopefully none of you wasted to much time in two dimensional spaces (Third Policeman?), and you don't hate me for the FICTION I recommended.  

Science

I understand that there is science behind the global warming.  Most of it is a little beyond me, but I think that Alvin's request for clear, concise data is reasonable.  Granted, it's a complex issue--I'm sure we'll learn more as time goes by. (This R. Feynman clip is so true about science).  

Global Warming

Alvin, Peter, Glenn, and others--loved the comments.  Elliot and others:  I hope you'll expound on your dis.  While I'm hesitant to spend a lot more time looking into it myself, I would love to hear more as Alvin mentioned, from those on the less heretical side of the spectrum--i.e. those who believe "that the Global Climate Models accurately project the effects of increased greenhouse gases" and that "the costs associated with limiting greenhouse gas emissions are worth the benefits".

Write your Senator

Regardless of what it does to the global temperature, the time to get America off dirty fuel is now.  America is addicted to oil, and we cannot reduce production of oil in the next 10 years without adversely affecting our economy.  Furthermore, we have LOTS of coal, which, as Peter pointed out, is dirtier than oil.  So while the Tesla is way cool, we need NOW to build the systems to make it possible.  Unless we prepare to use more nuclear power, or improve our electricity storage (for wind/solar), we are going to be using oil (we're not running out) and coal.  I know this sounds preachy, but our nation needs to:

1. Develop more nuclear power plants.

2. Improve our infrastructure (mass transit, hydrogen fuel cells).

These can all involve private investment to some degree.

Howdy from Texas

Well, I suppose it's time for me to stop lurking and finally post something. I've been reading the discussions for a while now and am finally up to date.  I've found it to be a great forum for discussions of many different views.

Anyway, a little about myself. I'm currently a software engineer for Bibble Labs in Austin, Texas. We do photography workflow software, primarily focusing on processing RAW images from Digital-SLR cameras faster than any other software available.  As such I get to play with just about any DSLR that comes out; if only that made me a better photographer. 

I made my way to Austin by first working with Karl at another software company - Corda Technologies in Lindon, Utah.  I actually started working there way back when we were all still in Merrill Hall, at that time it was only me and my Boss.  After I served my mission in the Philippines I returned to Corda and worked there while I finished my BS in Computer Science at BYU.  I graduated in the fall of 2002 only a few days after I got married.

Marriage inevitably took me to New York City where I worked for Nikon doing photography software similar to what I'm doing now.  I lived in the Upper East Side of Manhattan for about 3 years.  This time unfortunately saw the end of my marriage which also indirectly led me to Austin.  Being single again let me entertain opportunities that I otherwise might not have considered.  

That's me in a nutshell.  Throughout most of that time I've had a big black lab named Pungi who is featured frequently in the pictures I post on my blog, Cutterpillow.com.  Unfortunately Pungi hasn't quite mastered the art of taking pictures so there are very few pictures of me there.  One of these days I'll get Pungi trained and then hopefully there'll be more pictures of me up there.

Climate Change

Lastly to contribute somewhat to the discussion I'll share some of my views on climate change.  I must admit that I don't have a large knowledge of the subject, but since when has that ever stopped anyone from having strong opinions?  First of all I despise the term "global warming" as it implies that global temperatures will only ever get warmer and never cooler and that claim is pretty much preposterous.  I tend to agree with the following quote by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley which I referenced on my blog:

A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide.

Now when you've got a title like The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who's going to mess with you?  Seriously though, as for Peter's scale in the previous article I'd have to say that I fall in at #1 and don't go beyond that, that is I believe that on average global temperatures are currently increasing.  I don't have any conclusive beliefs one way or another regarding #2 but I am highly skeptical that we have anything to do with the rise in the average global temperature.  My belief is that the primary force behind climate change is that big burning ball of gas that our planet orbits.  I just don't think that there's enough information to determine that our activity is the driving force behind the current trend in climate change, after all the entire history of civilized mankind is only a blink in the history of this planet.  And the period of time that we've actually kept records of global climate trends is a mere blink of that - a blink of a blink in the history of the world.  To claim that we have any solid understanding of global climate trends over large periods of time is fairly foolish in my opinion, let alone trying to predict how the climate will trend in the future.

Something I like to remind myself of is how wrong science has been throughout the history of mankind.  The one thing that is constant in science is change, yet there are many who believe that out current understanding of science is an absolute authority.  There was once time when we knew that the Earth was the center of the Solar System.  Later a time that we knew that the planets orbited the sun in perfect circles.  I think that our understanding of the global climate system is still in its infancy and trying to enact any policy based on our current limited knowledge is premature and potentially dangerous.  It was only 34 years ago that Time magazine published an article titled Another Ice Age?  The consensus at that time was that "global cooling" was occurring and potentially a problem.  Not to mention that they thought that man might have been the cause.  Whatever the cause of the current change in global climates I believe that it is premature to take any significant actions based on our limited understanding of global climate patterns, especially any actions that might try to significantly change global climates.  Who knows, we might cause our own manmade ice age if we were to undertake radical efforts to prevent "global warming."

I do think that doing things to ensure a clean environment are a good thing.  Everyone wants clean water and air and we should recycle as best we can.  But imposing costly measures on businesses and individuals (Carbon Credits) is foolish in my opinion.