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, Global Carbon Transfer

Global Carbon Transfer, and Evidence for Global Warming

1 Comment

Global Carbon Transfer

I have said before that we should call this concept we are all familiar with Global Carbon Transfer. That is what it is and always has been.

Global Carbon Transfer is directly measurable.

The term “Global Carbon Transfer” is completely accurate to what we are actually doing. We know that we are transferring carbon.

The name “Global Carbon Transfer” allows for consideration of other unknown effects that we have yet to identify that nobody even talks about.

We are transferring a lot of carbon from the ground to the atmosphere. This is an indisputable fact.

Simple Man’s Evidence for Global Warming

I personally believe that global carbon transfer is causing significant man-made global warming. Here is a list of the evidence that shapes my concept of the world, my personal observations that lead to my belief:

  • I learned in Physics class in high school in ~2001 that carbon dioxide reflects infrared light / heat more than the other more highly-abundant components of the atmosphere. This makes sense to me. It would be difficult to fake this, easy to confirm or refute. I put this under the heading of scientific fact.
  • We learned what the greenhouse effect is, and I have personally been inside both a hot car in the sun, and an actual greenhouse. Fact.
  • I have personally seen an equilibrium exhibit a large change based on a small increase in a catalyst. For example:
    • Milk goes sour if you drink from the carton.
    • I saw chemicals abruptly change color in chemistry class after just drops of liquid entering.
    • If I had drunk two beers this morning instead of two cups of coffee, my blood would have changed by less than one percent, but I would absolutely not have written this post.
    • Small change can yield big change.
    • Catalysts exist.
  • I have seen man affect the environment, both for good and bad. Some of these I didn’t personally see of course, but they happened:
    • Water quality in Columbus, Ohio versus Rio de Janeiro.
    • Chemical disaster in Bhopal, India 1984.
    • Smog in LA.
    • Scale of the Piper Alpha explosion in 1988.
    • Personal accounts of the reduction in litter in the United States following anti-litter campaigns in the 1970s.
    • Chernobyl of course, but that’s nuclear not chemical, a whole ‘nother level.
    • Urban sewage management, cities now versus 200 years ago.
    • Forests versus fields.
  • I see carbon entering the atmosphere that used to be in the ground from sources that are less than a century old. Sound ridiculous? It’s everywhere. Everywhere. Try not seeing it! We could not transfer more carbon if we started a campaign to transfer more. Everything we do contributes to carbon transfer, and is mostly new!
  • The earth is really really old. There has been a lot of time for plants live, absorb carbon dioxide, respire oxygen, die, and be buried in the ground. Let me repeat, really really old, and a lot a lot a lot a lot of time. A lot. There has been so much time in fact that I no longer view the air I breath as coming from “the earth in general,” but as being the breathed out breath of plants. Call me a tree-hugger, but it is an accurate concept, much more accurate than the “general earth air” idea that comes easy. The atmosphere is and always has been a product of life and vice versa. It is a two-way street.
Some more carbon numbers, click here.
All, Global Carbon Transfer, Rage and Frenzy Politics

John Oliver, Archetype of the Cancer that is the Media

The News Story:

Bill Nye (of “The Science Guy” fame) recently sold out and went on John Oliver’s late night show:

Notes

Full bias disclosure: while I believe that John Oliver and for example, Donald Trump, are near equals in the damage that they do by being entertaining idiots / bullies in the media (both are both, if you can’t see that, then you are stuck firmly on one side), when they face off, I personally would enjoy watching Trump name-call John Oliver instead of the reverse. This is probably very simply because Oliver seems like a little weeny to me.

The subject of this post, whose name I am finished using so that you and I can successfully forget it as soon as possible, does not himself warrant a post. However, he so acutely represents a form of the cancer that is the mainstream media that his name gets to appear in my title here on Rage and Frenzy Politics, the most prestigious place it will probably ever be written.

I am going to use the stupid media term “global warming” here, rather than the more accurate and effective term, “global carbon transfer,” because we are talking about media bias, not the actual phenomenon.

The Perceived Problem

The perceived problem, judging by Bill Nye’s calling somebody “you f***ing idiots” (we don’t swear here at NathanRuffing.com, but in this case, it is a direct quote), is that global warming is caused, or at least allowed to continue, by some portion of the population who isn’t smart enough to understand global warming. I assume the idea is that this idiot portion of the population is voting for selfish policies that exacerbate the problem, and also probably spreading conspiracy theories that discredit the basic science behind global warming. I personally believe that these things have some truth to them, but what follows is the actual problem.

The Actual Problem

The actual problem is that we – and I do mean we human beings, all of us, especially those of us living in industrialized nations – are logistically supported by the energy that comes largely from transferring carbon from the ground into the atmosphere. Keep in mind, I did not say that we are the problem, I am saying that our source of energy can cause problems that we did not foresee when we started using it.

The current population of the world is 7 billion +. That is seven times the population of just 200 years ago, and ~25x the population of about 1,000 years ago. That is a significant increase. On top of that, we use a lot more energy per person now than we did 1,000 years ago. This is great, and I am happy to be a beneficiary of this energy wealth, but we should recognize that we should conserve the resources that produce it.

The Mainstream Media

What does the mainstream media say?

One side of the media says that global warming is not happening at all. This side actually will go so far as to say that it is impossible to the point of ridiculous to even suggest that mankind could affect the entire atmosphere and the climate. The main evidence that I have heard cited for this idea is that some scientists faked data, and that there are large global climate cycles. Both are almost certainly true, neither is evidence one way or the other.

The other side says that global warming is definitely happening, and does things like have a “Science Guy” put safety glasses on, string swear words together, and take a torch to a globe while a laugh-track rolls. Very constructive, subject of this post, you little weeny. I agree with your science, but you are the ring leader of a half-political laugh-track circus whose carbon footprint is the size of most third-world countries. Your team of writers puts its energy toward corrupting Bill Nye The Science Guy into insulting half the country because it is more entertaining to call somebody stupid than to say something smart. Are you even the leader? I find it hard to believe. Who writes your teleprompter? Who tells that person what to write and not to write? Who pays that person?

My Opinion

I think I editorialized this post enough that you know my opinion.

The Solution

The solution is for us to identify things that we do that use a lot of energy, especially energy that transfers carbon into the atmosphere, and stop doing those things. The first thing that comes to my mind is the military-industrial complex. If you don’t know what the military industrial complex is, you should. Click the link for the Wikipedia article.

The military industrial complex is not a new concept. One of the greatest warfighters in our history recognized the military industrial complex and preached about it in 1935. Click for the PDF: War is a Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

Stopping doing many things that transfer carbon into the atmosphere will be difficult. For example, if we fight fewer wars, trade routes will close, and prices may go up. This may include the price we pay for gas at the pump. This would be difficult. We would have to coordinate with each other and carpool to work for example. We might even have to live closer to work and bike there.

All, Industrial Change Surfing, Rage and Frenzy Politics

Technopolitics

Geopolitics, from Wikipedia:

At the level of international relations, geopolitics is a method of studying foreign policy to understand, explain and predict international political behavior through geographical variables. These include area studies, climate, topography, demography, natural resources, and applied science of the region being evaluated.

If the geographical landscape affects politics, doesn’t the technological landscape affect politics also? Shouldn’t there be people studying how technology affects our politics?

Technopolitics, from my Rage and Frenzy Politics category:

At the level of national policy-making and international relations, technopolitics is a method of studying policy and foreign policy to understand, explain and predict political behavior through technological variables, especially as those variables change over time. These include technology market penetration studies, cultural attitudes, demography, information flow, and communication norms of the region and time period being evaluated.

Technopolitics, Historical Context

I remember my high school history teachers drilling into our heads the importance of the Gutenberg Press while I went through high school. They said it was easily the most important invention in the last 2,000 years. I remember because it seemed so dull at the time – but it finally clicked. We should all know about the Gutenberg Press and the Reformation, and the technopolitics of the world at that time. This should not be obscure history, this should be daily discussion. Who were the first political leaders in the wake of the press in the 15th century? Who issued the first political proclamation to be copied to a newly-reading populace? These are the right questions to be asking right now in the twenty-eighth year of the internet, very possibly the height of technopolitics for the 3rd millennium. I discuss it here on Rage and Frenzy Politics.

Modern Applicability of Technopolitics

Being the case that technology, especially communication, has fundamentally changed over the last century, technopolitics should be a focus of academia today. The internet went public 25 years ago. Information exchange changed fundamentally, and it increased exponentially. Many attribute the election of the current president of the United States to his use of modern communication technology in Twitter. This is such a simple truth to us that we are instantly bored with it, but it is also such a fundamental driver within our world that we must understand it more deeply.

Solution

Vote, … and participate in the multi-directional free exchange of thought on the open frontier that is the internet. But do it responsibly! Contribute your ideas to Rage and Frenzy Politics. Thank you!

All, Rage and Frenzy Politics

Bigger Than Trump

Big News: Trump. Still Bigger: The Internet

Like him or not, Trump is the most powerful man in the world. He gets more attention globally than any other single person. His media coverage may be mostly negative, but they’re covering him, and more importantly, his coverage of the media is just as negative, and it matters. So what is bigger than Trump? The technopolitics that enabled him to turn the tables on the media and rise to the presidency are bigger than Trump.

The internet went public in August of 1991. The barrier to information dissemination dropped to zero. This is the defining event of our lives. This invention in the last decade of the 2nd millennium will be the defining event of the 3rd millennium. It seems old now after 25 years. It is not old. It is still brand new and its shock wave is still emanating.

The Only Thing Bigger: The Gutenberg Press

You will see a theme on this blog that the best historical analog to the internet is the Gutenberg Press. The movable type press was invented 500 years ago, which is a long time past, but like the internet does today, the press represented an exponential increase in the spread of information. Information spreading has far-reaching impacts. The details of the impacts are unpredictable, but the overall effect has direct historical precedence if you know what to look for and you look for general trends.

The Gutenberg Press, the first movable-type printing press that enabled documents to be copied by machine. Look at the changes that occurred within two centuries of the invention. The press fueled the Reformation that occurred from 1517 (Martin Luther’s 95 theses) to 1648 (end of the bloody Thirty Years’ War). The Reformation was a revolution of literacy and upended the monopoly on religion that the Catholic Church had held in Europe for more than a millennium.

Fake News, A Modern Inevitability

“Fake news” is one small example of the impact that information dissemination has. It is an example of the general trend of exposing corruption and eliminating information asymmetries that leads to tearing down of institutions. We could not have known that Donald Trump specifically would be elected, but we absolutely should have known that ideas would shatter powerful institutions like the established media, and the Republican and Democratic parties. “Fake news” is shattering the established media. The media reports Twitter. They have to. They have to report what Trump says on Twitter because 50 million people will hear what he says anyway, and is therefore by default, “news.”

What It Means

I don’t know exactly. I do know that the fall of institutions and the shift of power is not complete. The internet is still new and we need to pay attention to the technopolitics of what is happening to understand our modern world.

Solution

Get on Twitter. Participate on the internet. Don’t leave it to the power-hungry, narcisistic few YouTubers and Instagrammers. Hard to imagine, but I bet anything there were hold-outs when the Bible was first available to read in 1500. I bet there were many who refused to read Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1520. They missed out. We shouldn’t. Help me understand what is happening. Contribute your thoughts here at RageandFrenzy.com

All, Rage and Frenzy Politics

Populism, Polarization, and Social Media

We have a worldwide hate and polarization problem. The problem is perpetuated in the free information exchange that is modern social media, and specifically the irresponsible use of social media.

The Perceived Problem

Populist politicians have been elected recently whose primary message has been of exclusion, hate, and negativity. They whip up their base with rage and frenzy that is destructive even to their very selves. They often use social media to spread their message.

The Actual Problem

The perceived problem is the current politicians, as though they created the situation. While they may be part of the problem, the actual problem is the widespread irresponsible use of social media.

The Mainstream Media

The main stream media and press need only to take a side to win inspired viewers and therefore support the bottom line. Further, a new wag the dog situation has developed where the main stream media is following social media that is completely devoid of actual thought and has developed a vicious cycle where deeply polarized populations in turn produce more hate on social media.

Historical Context

The Reformation represented a fracture of long-standing institutions, for better or worse, and led to violent conflicts including the Thirty Years’ War. Both of these events followed the invention of the Gutenberg Press.

Donald Trump is the first world leader to be elected who used social media to spread his message. Like the Gutenberg Press, social media is a new, extremely efficient means of spreading ideas.

The Solution

The solution is for good intelligent people to take the extra moment to channel their political ideas and develop positive rhetoric on our youngest, most vulnerable forms of media that are just in their infancy. Good intelligent people should start WordPress blogs, contribute to this blog, and promote their productive, thoughtful blogs on social media in a positive way. This must be a group effort.

Editing Notes

The use of the word “populist” here clearly refers to right-wing movements. I seek a counter essay that lays out how both sides, or even just the left are using overly-simple basic instincts to garner votes, i.e. “populism.” Notice that they are just examples, not the primary problem. The solution here has to do with using social media responsibly, so keep in mind your solution must be similarly productive, whatever it may be.

All, Rage and Frenzy Politics

About Rage and Frenzy Politics

For all Rage and Frenzy Politics posts, click here.

Are you tired of polarized politics?

Do you feel like politics are getting worse and reaching a tipping point where they may actually result in violent conflict or the fall of governments?

Do you find that you are unable to discuss politics with the opposing side in a productive way?

Please direct your energy toward this project.

Mission

The mission of this politics category is to channel the frantic energy that has been whipped up by politicians, the media, and social media into something productive. The energy is there, this site provides the structure to channel both sides to common solutions using historical context, and constructive debate.

Goal

The specific goal is to produce one 500 word essay per 2 weeks on a current political topic, throughout 2019. The template below is provided as a guideline.

Essay Template

  • News story, or link to a news story.
  • Historical context for the situation, or link to relevant history.
  • The problem, perceived.
  • The problem, actual.
  • What the main stream media says.
  • Author’s opinion.
  • The solution to the problem.

Each essay must end with a solution. Other editing guidelines are as follows:

  • Full disclosure: this is edited by Nate. The goal is posts that both sides view as productive, even if they disagree.
  • Language used must be accurate and free of contentious political bias.
  • Some phrasing will be necessarily contentious. I’ll deal with that as it arises and be as transparent as I can.
  • Blaming politicians will not be tolerated. They don’t single-handedly cause major problems, and at least they are there participating, trying to contribute.
  • Electing a certain party over another is not a solution. You have to describe an actual policy, at least an overview.
  • Characterizing large groups of people as stupid, uneducated, or wrong is a waste of time.
  • Reference external material with links. This is the internet. You don’t have to rewrite everything and make another copy. Just link to it.
  • 500 words is short. The essay should be concise, and positive. It should not take a long time to write.

If an argument lasts more than five minutes then both sides are wrong. -Neil deGrasse Tyson

  • This is a debate that is made up of concise, 5 minute arguments. If the solution doesn’t work, we try something else and debate that.
  • Comments are allowed but limited to 140 characters. Don’t like that limit? Then write a post in the proper format. Don’t like that? Start your own blog.

The Name

Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years.-Edmund Burke, 1790 in reference to the French Revolution

Prefer Mud-Slinging?

For those who prefer that I just trash the media because it’s more fun, I’ll refer you to these quotes attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/thomas-jefferson-had-some-issues-newspapers/

All, Rage and Frenzy Politics

Solved All the World’s Problems in One Sitting

Politics and Religion

I have discussed these things so many times on so many random occasions with so many different people that I can’t remember. It’s time to sit down and record it all. This also happens to be my 200th post, so what better time than now?

Politics

The Environment

“Global warming” / “global climate change,” – we should call this thing we all talk about “Global Carbon Transfer.” That’s what it is and always has been. This is directly measurable. It is completely accurate to what we are actually doing. We know that we are transferring carbon. The name Global Carbon Transfer also allows for consideration of other unknown effects that we have yet to identify that nobody even talks about. We are transferring a lot of carbon from the ground to the atmosphere. This is an indisputable fact.

I personally believe we are affecting the climate as well. When you start consistently transferring one substance within an equilibrium, which Earth is, and which we did with carbon starting in the mid-19th century, there will be change. The burden of proof should be on those saying that there won’t be change. Tell me how we can make a globally significant change in the composition of the atmosphere and it doesn’t have unintended consequences. How?

We should do something about Global Carbon Transfer, and saving the environment is not even the most important reason:

  • We (the United States now) fight expensive wars for energy resources. We should slow or stop this. We should challenge our consumer culture to save before we fight wars to waste energy on luxury comforts. Challenges are good for people and for countries. This challenge is worth confronting.
  • Heavy reliance on energy makes us weak from a national defense standpoint.
  • The most effective way to change our habits / culture / technology is to allow the price of energy to increase to a level where people have to make reasonable sacrifices to save energy. Yes, I am saying $10-$15 a gallon for gas. Yes, this might “crush our economy” in the short term. The media would say there’s a “crisis.” I am saying it is worth it. Solar panels would naturally reach grid-parity. Carpool. Produce and buy local. Vacation local. Fix goods instead of trashing them and buying new stuff. Choose a fuel-efficient car. Turn off the air conditioner.
  • Countries, like Germany especially, are way ahead of the US in implementing renewable energy sources. Any excuses for why this is the case are just excuses. We can win at this too.

Trump’s policy of “bringing us back to the old days” by continuing as world police and opening the energy flood gates to keep prices down is the policy of his with which I disagree most strongly. I wrote this in December of 2016.

We should create jobs and encourage education that has a future. Energy efficiency is the future, we have to transition, and we will be best at it if we have to consider our energy usage.

Terrorism

Using the label of “Muslim” to help identify terrorists is wrong and we have better ways of identifying terrorists than this unfair and dangerously broad label that includes many many good people. Most terrorists have called themselves “Muslim.” That does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. What everybody missed while babbling on and on over the “Muslim” issue is that Saudi Arabia was not on Trump’s banned country list. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and yet they are still essentially treated as an ally somehow, and have been for decades. The media doesn’t talk about this.

Terrorism can be best fought by a reduced reliance on foreign oil, both because:

  1. Our involvement globally is lessened, and
  2. Because less demand in the US lowers the global oil price, which reduces terrorism funding.

Notice that using less oil / energy goes to the root of each of the first two subjects in this post: the environment, and terrorism.

Race

Americans are Americans first. Labels, poles, categories in the “news” media that separate by skin color or any race / nationality label are divisive and wrong.

Slavery was very very bad. Its long-term effects are worse than we typically allow for. An entire group of people was violently separated from their heritage and stripped of their culture. This takes generations to heal. This country fought its most deadly and costly war mostly over this issue, and the right side won in 1865. Blacks and whites fought together. Segregation continued after slavery ended, and that was wrong too, but that legally ended in the 1960s. We should celebrate our progress regardless of how far we think we still have to go.

On affirmative action, I agree completely with Justice Clarence Thomas when he ruled on Adarand Constructors v. Peña. Affirmative action is wrong.

Both sides of the media stoke and worsen any race problems that we may have. Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Grant Hill, Chris Rock, Spike Lee, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Floyd Mayweather Jr., and Ben Carson hire a bunch of white people and start their own media company to include a news channel. Label it something non-racial, just like the existing media conglomerates are labeled, and cover all news as they see it just like the existing media does. What would that look like? Compare that to what we have. It would be better.

Immigration

Mexico is a country. People from Mexico are Americans once they are citizens, just like every other American.

We have allowed many Mexicans – mainly because of Mexico’s  proximity, and its poverty and violence – to enter illegally for a long time. That was wrong. We should not have allowed that and we should stop allowing it.

However, to all-of-a-sudden now hunt down illegals and send them out would be wrong also. It is not that simple. I’ve heard some interviews and it sounds like the law vs. the policy vs. the actual enforcement situation are each entirely different things especially in this case. Ask a border patrol agent about this. Only they really know the situation there. The rest of us are just arm-chair quarterbacks. Will we care about what’s happening there in 2 years when Trump and the media have moved on to who knows what other subject?

There should be a process to document all people living in the US and either humanely send them out or get them paying taxes. Leaving them in limbo is bad for everybody.

US Manufacturing

This is the issue on which I most agree with Trump.

We should make the tariffs at least fair so that we have a balanced society. Massively favoring foreign workers to the exclusion of our own is wrong. We know it caused the “rust belt” in the mid-west and somehow fixing it gets labeled as an insane  anti-global-economy trade war. How? The tariffs should have some semblance of equality. They haven’t been even close since the mid-1990s. Almost my whole life, I have used goods that say MADE IN CHINA. We know we don’t make anything anymore and we know why. The rest of the world may be unhappy when we fix the situation, (are they even unhappy, or is that a media illusion?) but we should make the deals fair.

On this issue, I’m not even saying that it was wrong to make the deals originally. I’m saying that the current extreme situation calls for some action, some change.

To go further, I believe that the lack of manufacturing jobs contributes to the current opioid epidemic because of the large groups of people with nothing to do. We have entire regions full of abandoned towns.

US Debt

We are in a lot of debt, both as a group of consumers, and our federal government. The Chinese and other creditors have a lot of cash. This puts us at a disadvantage economically. They are beating us at our own game. They own our dollar.

How does this connect with leveling the tariff playing field, or with interest rates? I don’t know that answer, but considering that economists say exactly opposite things from each other, it appears economists don’t know either, so I will just say:

Big debt is a big disadvantage.

I don’t even know which side is better on this. They each blame the other and they each run huge budget deficits.

Entitlements

Government handouts make dependent groups of people and entitlements don’t fix problems. Obamacare was the issue with which I disagreed most with Obama. How he thought that a 1,000+ page confusing medical care handout to a country – that’s us, the United States – full of people who can’t even stop eating to improve their health is baffling.

The level for being a “disabled veteran” is so low that a guy who bicycled from Columbus to Cleveland and Cincinnati and back for fun got labeled “disabled” for some lower-back and neck pain. It’s a disgrace to those who are actually disabled. That guy is me. I told the truth on my exit exam. I don’t take the money, but I’ll take the medical benefits because who knows what they would cost me considering I would have to pay government prices for them and my once-per-year medical check-up doesn’t drain the system anyway.

Guns

The First Amendment gives us the right to peaceable assembly. Boring!

The Second Amendment says,

… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not boring! Guns!

The Second Amendment is about guns, right? Yes, that is half of it. What gets lost in this debate is that the real power behind it is the right to assemble in a firearms club – a militia. The first part says,

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, …

I believe the Second Amendment gives the right for individuals to own guns. I believe it is important for people to understand guns and be able to responsibly use them. I own guns and I know how to use them.

Guns today are so much more effective now than they were when the Second Amendment was written that regulatory laws should delineate among different types of guns and regulate accordingly. A semi-automatic rifle, even a .22 caliber, enables one person to kill many unsuspecting people, even hundreds of people. I am for some gun control.

So:

For you “gun collecting, de-regulate machine guns” nuts out there: if the scenario you are preparing for happens, you are going to run out of ammo. You will run out even faster with a stupid machine gun. Go to the local shooting club, be normal, make some friends, and talk guns. Those relationships will be worth thousands and thousands of rounds when the revolution goes down that you so love preparing for.

For you “no guns equals peace love and harmony” kumbaya hippie liberals out there: I have news for you. Guns exist. People do violent things sometimes. Guns are indeed more powerful now than before. They are also so easy to make now that you cannot eliminate all of them. So, if you can’t stomach taking on the responsibility yourself, or can’t stomach going to a shooting club to learn about a fact of life, then appreciate your law enforcement who walk the street everyday wearing a uniform that says, especially to criminals with guns and no uniform, “I have a gun, and I am here to use it if you fuck with me or anybody who is following the law.”

I thought seriously about applying to be a cop one time. For those few minutes of consideration, as I thought about what that would really mean for me, I gained a lot of respect for the police.

Religion

People should have a reason to get dressed up and go somewhere on Sunday morning. We should shut down the main streets on Sunday like they do in South America.

If you’re atheist, get dressed up and walk around in a park for no reason.

If you are from one of those Saturday religions who thinks the rest of us are pagan sun worshipers, OK Saturday is fine too.

Marriage: get married when you’re ready. Have a wedding. Throw a party and let your family and friends celebrate your relationship. Weddings are awesome.

Funerals: who is going to organize the ceremony when you die? If you don’t care, or you don’t want a ceremony, it doesn’t matter, the ceremony isn’t for you anyway asshole. You’re dead.

Catholicism has the best music and the best ceremonies. The Catholic Church takes a clear stand on various issues. I go to Catholic church on Sunday and I’m going to keep going for the rest of my life.

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.