Category Archives: Rage and Frenzy Politics

Turning frantic argument into constructive debate with historical context, facts, and solutions.

About Rage and Frenzy Politics, click here.

All, Rage and Frenzy Politics

President Trump’s First 100 Days

Donald Trump is (or will be on 20 January) the most powerful man on the planet. He released two pages outlining what actions he is going to take in his first 100 days in office, his 100-Day Action Plan to Make America Great Again on his website in late October. Let’s see how he does.

Here is a link to the pdf that I downloaded around the time of the election.

Here is a link to where you can download it directly from his site. (same document, different place)

8 November 2016: Trump elected.

15 Nov 2016: President-elect Trump announces presidential inaugural committee leadership. Unrelated to the plan, just preparing for the inauguration.

21 Nov 2016: President-elect Trump releases video message. The video is just over 2 minutes. He reiterates items directly from the plan.

18 Jan 2017: two days before the inauguration, Trump does an interview with Fox News. Most of the talk was about the inauguration. From the election through today, there were 3 main focuses in the media and from Trump:

  1. Trump selecting cabinet members
  2. The media trying to make stories out of very little actually happening
  3. Trump tweeting and responding to the media on Twitter.

23 Jan 2017: Sean Spicer’s first White House press briefing, work day one.

  • Trump has already withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  • He has revived two proposed oil pipelines, the Keystone and Dakota. (I don’t personally support this, but he signed something that allowed them to go forward).
  • He reiterated his intention to withdraw from NAFTA, but that there is a procedure that has to be followed in accordance with the deal.
  • He reiterated his intent to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  • There were no specifics yet, but he reiterated his intent to make deals that allow businesses to create jobs.
  • He still intends to build a wall on the Mexican border. Sean Spicer continued the focus on illegal immigrants who have committed crimes per the 100-day plan.

Many of the questions at the briefing sound stupid. Initially, I hesitated to make that judgement because the reporters must be well-vetted to even be in the room. Then one of the reporters (named “Shane,” no further ID stated) referred to the “First Day Action Plan,” and asked why Trump didn’t address everything on the plan on the first day. That subject I am familiar with and I am 100% sure it’s an incredibly stupid question. It’s a 100-day plan, not a 1-day plan. I’m really surprised they don’t suspend reporters’ privilege of being in that room sometimes and replace them with competent people.

Trump still believes there were millions of illegal voters in the election.

28 Jan 2017: I am not going to continue to follow this contract. It just takes too much time. In attempting to follow, I have heard various reporters say that it is difficult and it is their full-time job. I will return to the subject on 30 Apr to check the results.

In searching for the truth on this subject, the best source I found was to search “Sean Spicer” on YouTube. A good portion of what the media talks about comes from the White House spokesman. I am certainly not suggesting agree with everything that he says, but if you get the information second-hand it is often not even recognizable from what Sean Spicer actually said.

Another source, and I know this hurts, is to follow Trump on Twitter. Like it or not, fact: the president of the United States tweets daily. The media talks about it. If you’re going to hear them talk about it, you should know what they’re talking about.

That is obviously only one side. For dissenting opinions, I look for Trump’s own people because they don’t have ulterior motives to dissent. Secretary of Defense General Mad Dog Mattis’ dissenting opinion on the use of torture is a good example so far.

Two other sources from the past that appear genuine are his former employees Louise Sunshine and Hayley Strozier. They tell unflattering stories that appear to be true while they don’t appear to be gaining personally from it.

What I believe are unifying truths in this situation are that we don’t have a unifying purpose. Had Obama succeeded at his agenda, half the country didn’t want it. He talked smoothly of unification and “crossing the aisle,” but to me and many people, he was divisive in his own way. Trump is openly hostile, and I thought that, counter-intuitively, maybe this approach would have the opposite effect by making it a badge of honor to get along with the big bad Trump. That is a stretch I know! So far, that does not appear to be the result.

What are we doing? What is success?

So we lack a unifying purpose at the national level: we need to invest personally in our local communities! People are already doing this. You probably already are. Turn off the TV, and feel good about it! Embrace your sense of purpose!

…

30 April 2017: His first 100 days are complete.

All, Global Carbon Transfer

Global Warming: Some Numbers, and My Opinion

2 Comments

In this post, I put the numbers that we as individuals can know with reasonable certainty in perspective. I cannot say based on these numbers whether man-made climate change is or is not happening. What I can say is that the numbers show human carbon transfer is large enough to possibly have an effect. Because I believe the burden of proof should be on those saying there is no change, then I assume man is affecting the global climate.

This phenomenon should be called “Global Carbon Transfer.”

Below are some numbers to put our effect as humans in perspective. I have heard both sides of this polarizing issue for a long time, and have been meaning to put some numbers to my own intuition. I chose numbers that can be intuitively understood and, though they are estimates, can be measured fairly directly. As far as I know, the following is not seriously in dispute.

Reference for Perspective

5.15 x 1018 Kg = total mass of the atmosphere.

3.0 x 1015 Kg = total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The following macro numbers are so huge as to be meaningless without some reference for scale. I use this quantity, 3.0 x 1015 Kg, total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere, simply to compare to other huge numbers to get some perspective. They are not directly related to each other within the equilibrium.

CO2 Concentration in the Atmosphere

0.0582% = CO2 in the atmosphere by weight. It makes up a very small portion of the atmosphere.

https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co2-by-weight-in-the-atmosphere/

Mass of CO2 Released Annually by Humans

35.9 x 1012 Kg = annual CO2 released by human activity, 2014.

1.2% = mass of annual CO2 released by humans as a fraction of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere = [35.9 x 1012 Kg] / [3.0 x 1015 Kg]

Mass of CO2 Released Since the Start of the Industrial Revolution

2.0 x 1015 Kg of CO2 = total CO2 released from 1870-2014.

67% = [2.0 x 1015 Kg] / [3.0 x 1015 Kg] = mass of CO2 released from 1870-2014 as a fraction of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.

https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

What it Means… and Doesn’t Mean

The amount of CO2 released by humans can be measured fairly accurately. Annually, it equals ~1.2% of the total weight of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is not to be confused with a ratio comparing to the amount of CO2 released naturally annually. We are one source of many in an equilibrium. Though that would be a more meaningful ratio, I did not use it because the amount released and consumed naturally cannot be measured as directly, and is beyond the scope of this post. I stick to numbers that I can know and verify with reasonable certainty.

The amount released by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution can also be estimated. This equals ~67% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. This is the best I can do as an individual debating this topic, but the total we have poured into the atmosphere  over that amount of time is like measuring the amount of water you put into a bucket with a big leak. How much is still in the bucket? It depends on the leak!

My conclusion: the amount that humans release is not massively alarming in proportion. I cannot prove or disprove man-made climate change. However, it certainly is a relevant amount, we should pay attention to it, and I personally believe man-made global climate change is happening.

The Volcano Effect

~200 x 109 Kg = mass of CO2 that volcanoes release annually on average. This number is widely disputed, and is known to be not well measured.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

[200 x 109 Kg] / [35.9 x 1012 Kg of CO2] = .56%,

The CO2 released by volcanoes continuously is less than 1% of the amount released by humans continuously, based on this estimate. How much does a big eruption produce? …

The Tambora Eruption of 1815

Regardless of what you believe, you have to read about this! The magnitude is unbelievable. Fun to read about.

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/tambora-1815-just-big-eruption/

The Tambora eruption was possibly the largest in the last 10,000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora

Tambora released up to 120 x 109 Kg of SO2 and likely caused the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

What is the long-term effect of one huge volcano? How does that compare to our human effect? I do not know.

My Opinion

I personally believe that yes, the earth is warming because we continuously release significant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. It makes common sense. Almost everything we do releases CO2. More CO2 changes the reflective properties of the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect as a concept is a proven fact. If it is possible to change the temperature by adding CO2, we are doing everything we can to make it happen.

What do I think we should do? What do I think government policy should be? Regardless of climate change, I believe that reducing dependency on carbon-based fuels is a worthy challenge. Regardless of climate change! Even though I believe global warming is happening, I can’t prove it. Nobody can. Even if it can be proven, can we stop it or reverse it? Well, who cares? Alternatives are cleaner, more renewable, and we could use a good challenge anyway! I think the government should set policy–yes including raising taxes on carbon-based fuels–such that the price is at a level where people have to make significant life choices to economize, but can still live comfortably. For example, car pooling and public transportation are a lot more attractive at $5 / gallon than at $2 / gallon. This simultaneously buys time to find alternate solutions, spurs market ingenuity, provides a meaningful challenge that encourages people to work together, and even supports national security by reducing dependency.