Increased Storms Sign of… End Times

Polar BearsOver the weekend, I discussed the way that atheists often fetishize science and overstate its power. But better that than the total disregard for any inconvenient science that gets in the way of the religious fundamentalists’ Iron Age dogma. And pity the once great empire that relies on such nonsense to govern itself. It will find itself needing to relearn how to smelt metal. Good people of America, I offer for your consideration and concern: Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Inhofe is known for his highly publicized claims that global warming is a hoax. Does he actually know any science? Of course not! But it doesn’t take much to go to The Heartland Institute website and grab a bunch of cherry-picked data and argue that global warming is just a communist plot to trick people into believing collective action is sometimes necessary. (Funny how conservatives never have a problem with the draft!) But Inhofe’s interest is not in the modern science but in the “science” of the 6th century BC.

Earlier this month, Right Wing Watch caught Inhofe on Crosstalk, a show on Voice of Christian Youth America. He explained that climate change just couldn’t be happening because God wouldn’t allow it. Again, this is because an Iron Age book, put together by countless writers, tells him so:

Genesis 8:22… is that “as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,” my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.

Three thousand years ago, people told stories around the fire at night. Someone wrote them down after hundreds of years. And James Inhore is now using those stories to explain that science is just a great big hoax. It’s an entirely typical game that he is playing. The fundamentalists know that they can’t be honest and just admit that they believe what they believe because they learned it in Sunday school when they were six. Instead, they pretend to do science. It is despicable.

If this isn’t depressing enough, Digby brought my attention to a recent Public Religion Research Institute poll. It asked what they thought the reason was for increased storms. Among white evangelicals, 49% said that they thought it was due to global warming. That’s actually pretty good. But here’s the freaky part: 77% thought that it was a sign of the End Times. This would not be a problem if these people were living in a cave somewhere. But they probably vote more consistently than readers of this blog. I think I might make a bumper sticker, “I’m a religious freak: And I vote!

I’m sure if you asked Joni Ernst, the new Iowa Senator-elect, she would provide the same answer. But for the media to report on her extremist views during the campaign would have been rude. So the media do what they always do: error on the side of allowing right wing extremists to get away with everything. After all, there was reporting to be done on her challenger’s fight with his neighbors over chickens. We’ve got to stay focused on what’s important. And the fourth estate knows what’s important: total nonsense. But don’t worry: it will all work out fine. If you’re super rich.

New Atheists and Non-Overlapping Magisteria

Stephen Jay GouldIn 1997, Stephen Jay Gould published an essay, “Non-Overlapping Magisteria.” In it, he posited the idea that there was no conflict between religion and science because they dealt with different things. For example, religion was concerned with questions of morals and existence — issues on which science had no opinion. One could question this on the moral front, where science actually has a lot to say about many of our morals. But the obvious counterargument is that religion isn’t really concerned with morality as we find it but rather morality as we ought to find it. On the issue of existence, science really does have nothing of value to add, although sadly most atheists can’t seem to understand that.

I’ve always seen Gould’s essay as more a plea to religions to stay on their own ground. One of my great frustrations in dealing with theists is their reliance on Iron Age myths for their science. So they think that Genesis is literally true. But claims like humans being created originally in their current form and the Grand Canyon being formed by the great flood are not religious claims; they are scientific claims. Not only do these fanciful stories soil science, they also make religious people stupid in a theological sense.

Recently, the atheist community has begun to attack the idea behind Non-Overlapping Magisteria. In fact, they are so outspoken about it, I had assumed that I had missed something — that there was some critical flaw with the idea. But then I came upon the following video by Hemant Mehta. In general, I like his work. But on this video, he shows his smug atheist colors. I take special offense to one line, “If you are a devoutly religious person, and one who accepts the scientific method, something’s gotta give.” Ugh!

I am greatly concerned about the way the atheist community fetishizes the scientific method. They seem to have learned about this in high school science class and decided it was The Truth™. I noticed this same thing in the first episode of the new Cosmos. Neil deGrasse Tyson said that even though Giordano Bruno was right about stars just being other solar systems, he wasn’t a scientist. Why? Apparently because he never proved that it was true. He just had an intuition. This is an enormous error of thought. It mistakes the scientific process for what any given scientist does. What Bruno did was no different from what Einstein or Maxwell or Newton did.

The High School Science Class MethodWhat Mehta is getting at is that people who accept the “scientific method” only believe things that have been proved. This is patently false. What it means in practice is that atheists believe in the current state of science. Hooray for that! But most issues are not this clear. When it comes to the murky waters of economics or child rearing, do atheists really use the “scientific method” or do they just go with their gut? We all know the answer to that regardless of what some iconoclastic atheist might say.

There is one issue on which science has no opinion: ontology. And here I’m not just talking about the fact that science has no answers. Science is not designed to answer questions that exist outside the realm of existence itself. But I’ll admit: maybe some day science will have answers. But given the fundamental paradox of existence, it seems unlikely. But until then, science has no answer. And to expect people to simply have no opinion on such a fundamental question until science does have an answer is just silly.

I think that the Non-Overlapping Magisteria concept is just what we need today. I’ve already mentioned how religions soil science by applying their Iron Age myths to scientific questions. But atheists have a strong tendency to soil religion by applying scientific answers to theological questions. The ultimate example of this is Lawrence Krauss’ facile ontological answer, “Nothing is unstable.” It’s a perfectly fine scientific answer to why universes form. Similarly, the big bang is a perfectly fine scientific answer. And if we ever manage to show that our universe is part of a multiverse, that too will be perfectly fine scientific answer. But people who are interested in the ultimate question of why anything exists at all will not be satisfied with these answers.

From my perspective, there is one and only one question that is beyond the conceivable reach of science. But it is the biggest question there is. And atheists do themselves no good by pretending (1) that the question doesn’t matter and (2) that eventually science will answer it. And the idea that science has answered it is just fatuous. Atheists need the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Stephen Jay Gould was a lot smarter than the leaders of the New Atheist movement.


See also: Non-Overlapping Magisteria Helps Theists and Atheists

The Resurrection of Philae

PhilaePhilae is dead. It died Friday night as its battery was drained. But here is hoping that it doesn’t rest in peace. And it is possible that it will not.

Last Thursday, I wrote, Mission to 67P in Crisis. That was when “the little lander that could”[1] found itself wedged at the bottom of a cliff on Comet 67P. In that location, it was only able to get sunlight for a bit more than 10% of the 67P day — not enough to operate without its battery.

Of course, the scientists did not mean for Philae to land there. When the lander first dropped onto the surface of 67P, it was in a big open area. But when it touched down, the harpoons didn’t activate. Even though the lander was only traveling at roughly one mile per hour (an incredibly slow walk), it bounced because on the surface of 67P, Philae weighs only as much as a piece of paper. So it bounced — a long way away. And then it bounced again. This is confirmed by the following image collage created from Rosetta images at different times:

Philae Bounce

We still don’t know where Philae finally stopped, but it is hoped that images from Rosetta will eventually reveal its current location. But wherever it is was not the plan. “For want of a harpoon, a lander was lost.” Or maybe not. According to Joseph Stromberg over at Vox, “Additionally, scientists say that as the comet gradually nears the sun next year, it’s possible the probe would be exposed to additional sunlight and wake back up, allowing for further investigations.” That would be very cool. Of course, at this point I’ve learned not to get my hopes up.

As it is, the mission was a success, even if it wasn’t able to do the one thing that I was most excited about: the search for organic molecules on 67P. In particular, it took temperature and density measurements and used radar to probe the comet’s interior. In total “the craft successfully used all ten of its scientific instruments and gathered all sorts of data about its environment.” And most of all, the mission is primarily Rosetta. Philae was only ever supposed to be about a fifth of the project. And Rosetta has worked flawlessly thus far.

I think my disappointment with this mission to 67P is that I have to wait for the hundreds of scientists to pore over the data and draw conclusions. When I was a kid, it was just exciting that we were going to the moon. And I’ll admit: seeing closeup pictures of 67P is impressive to me. But given all we stand to learn by studying this comet, I’m disappointed that we don’t know more right now. As I said, these missions tend to bring out the kid in a lot of us. And patience is not one of the defining characteristics of children.


[1] I came up with that phrase myself, “The little lander that could.” It seemed appropriate, although idiosyncratic and silly. But here is an article today from NASA Watch, The Little Comet Lander That Could. And there are lots more. It seems space exploration brings out the kid in a lot of us.

Mission to 67P in Crisis

Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P)I’ve really wanted to discuss Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko (67P) and the amazing Rosetta mission to it, but I’ve found the coverage of it to be really bad. So I’ve been reading everything I could and I think I’m in a position now to discuss it. And the first thing on my mind about the comet is its shape. Just look at the image on the left. When I first heard scientists describing it as a rubber ducky, I thought they must have become a bit stir crazy. But it does in fact look a whole lot like a rubber ducky — although one covered in iron flakes from a Wooly Willy.

But there is nothing particularly strange about this. Large asteroids can be relatively spherical. But the only one that is truly spherical is Ceres, which has a radius of about half Pluto. Comets are far smaller. The largest known is Comet Hale–Bopp, with a diameter of perhaps 50 km — roughly one-twentieth the size of Ceres. And most comets are much smaller than this — generally less than 10 km. So they have nowhere near enough gravity to affect their own shape. In the case of 67P, the small lobe is a bit more than 2.3 km across the and large lob is 2.6 km across.

What’s more, the basic shape of 67P is typical of comments. Comet Halley, for example, looks quite a lot like a peanut shell with two bumps on either side and and a thin shaft in between. Comet Hartley 2 looks much the same. And Comet Borrelly looks like a bowling pin. All of this is more or less what we see with 67P. I figure the reason for this is because of the sublimation of comets when they get close to the sun. The parts of the comet that vaporize most easily end up looking like bars that connect the less volatile areas — at least until the comet breaks in half.

The news from Rosetta is frustrating. As far as I can tell, we don’t know anything more about 67P than we did before. That’s mostly because Rosetta has been orbiting the comet since early August and it has been sending back data since September. The data are interesting. For example, both hydrogen and oxygen were found in its coma (tail). And no surface ice was found and the albedo (surface reflectivity) is very low. But these last two bits of information were known years ago (pdf).

The most exciting aspect of the Rosetta mission is the search for organic compounds — including nucleic and amino acids. I’ve always found the idea that earth was seeded with these building blocks of life to be far fetched. But a lot more amazing things are in fact true. If we discovered amino acids on 67P, it would blow my mind. And it really would change the way we look at the development of life in the universe. The coming decades would be very exciting indeed.

Sadly, we can only test for organic compounds by collecting samples. And it is not clear at this point whether Philae (the little lander that could) is going to be able to do this without launching itself off the comet. And the current situation can only be considered a crisis. The lander appears to be at the bottom of a cliff, so that it is only getting an hour and a half of sunlight for each 12 hour rotation of the comet. What’s more, only two of its three feet are on the surface of the comet. It is possible the issues can be worked out, but the scientists only have until Saturday to work it out, after which the battery on Philae will be dead.

I understand that for most people, the adventure story is enough: we landed on a comet! And there is no question that this is cool and the landing is a great engineering feat. But if it ends here with a couple of images and a little spectroscopy, this will be heartbreaking. But the scientists are collecting all the data they can while they can. As time runs out, they may go ahead and start digging, given they will have little to lose at that point. Here’s hoping they can work some kind of a miracle.

Benjamin Banneker

Benjamin BannekerOn this day in 1731, the American astronomer and surveyor Benjamin Banneker was born. He was self-taught and known mostly for his popular almanacs and ephemeris work. The son of a free born black woman and an ex-slave father, he was something of a cause célèbre among the abolitionist movement — both in the United States and overseas. In fact, William Wilberforce discussed Banneker in the House of Commons in his fight to end the slave trade.

Banneker was an outspoken abolitionist. In fact, he used his almanacs to push his ideas on that subject as well as other liberal issues. Included in his 1793 almanac was a correspondence that he had with Thomas Jefferson. It is quite interesting. When he first wrote to Jefferson, Banneker didn’t pull any punches. He confronted Jefferson about his public statements against slavery and his continued private participation and profit in it. Jefferson responded politely.

But what’s most interesting is that in later years, after Benneker was long dead, Jefferson showed how small minded he could be. Clearly, Benneker’s criticisms had stung. In a letter to Joel Barlow, he claimed the letter from Benneker “shows him to have had a mind of very common stature indeed.” Yes, very common of him to mentioned Jefferson’s hypocrisy. Jefferson, being the racist he always was, claimed that Benneker must have been helped in his work by a local Quaker benefactor. There certainly was a mind of very common stature among the two and it certainly wasn’t Benneker.

Happy birthday Benjamin Banneker!

Lise Meitner

Lise MeitnerOn this day in 1878, the great physicist Lise Meitner was born. She had an amazing career. Along with her nephew Otto Frisch and her long-term partner Otto Hahn, she discovered and explained nuclear fission. She also discovered the Auger effect — where the movement of an electron from a higher energy state to a lower energy state releases a photon, which can be absorbed by another electron, causing it to be ejected from the atom. The French physicist Pierre Victor Auger discovered the effect independently a year later. So why is it named after him? Well, that is pretty much the story of Lise Meitner’s life.

Otto Hahn received the Nobel Prize for the work he did with Meitner, but again, Meitner did not get the award. You know, she was a girl. I mean they had already given the award to Marie Curie (who interestingly, shares the same birthday — although eleven years earlier). Of course, Meitner did get some extremely prestigious awards such as the Max Planck Medal in 1949 and the Enrico Fermi Award in 1966. She was given both of them along with Hahn. I kind of think the scientific community had figured it out. Although to be honest, I’m not sure why they gave the Planck Medal to Hahn, who was one of the greatest chemists ever, but really didn’t know much of anything about physics.

What’s sad is how common this kind of thing was and I think largely still is. Women in since are a commonplace now. But they are still treated as somewhat suspect. They have to clear a higher bar than men. We really haven’t progressed very far as a culture. But I’d like to think we are making some progress. For another prominent example, see Rosalind Franklin.

Happy birthday Lise Meitner!

Global Warming and Slippery Property Rights

GuanacosI’m going to talk about the social disruption that will result from global warming and how the power elite will try to maintain the status quo, causing countless unnecessary deaths in the name of them keeping their privilege. But before I get to that, I want to provide you with how I got to thinking about this. You see, recently I was watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You may remember one of the best things about the film is that the opening credits are done in the style of an Ingmar Bergman film, and so there are repeated references to Sweden and moose. But then, the titles are changed to that of a Latin American film and instead of moose, we get llamas.

For example, one of the executive producers is, “‘Ralph’ the Wonder Llama.” And of central importance to us, one of the director credits is to, “14 North Chilean Guanacos (Closely Related to the Llama).” I had to look this up. And indeed, it is true. The guanacos are of the genus Lama — Latin for llama, I assume. They live in southwest South America. And most notably, they manage to live on the western edge of the Atacama Desert — the driest desert in the world outside of the polls. The average rainfall is about a half inch per year. But there are some weather stations in the desert that have never received any rainfall for over half a century.

So how do the guanacos survive in this place? Well, they mostly don’t. They only live near the coast. The cold ocean air hits the hot land and fog forms. This moisture is captured by the cacti and the guanacos eat the cacti. And that is how they survive. So the guanacos can only survive in perhaps 1% of the Atacama Desert. And I thought that was rather a good analogy of what we are doing to the earth as we ignore global warming.

As I talk about all the time, the biggest problem with global warming is almost certainly what it is going to do to rainfall patterns. A warmer world should actually create more rainfall. The problem is that both the models and long-term precipitation-temperatures correlations show that global warming will mostly decrease rainfall where we need it: over land. A lot more rainfall over the oceans really doesn’t help much. Decreased rainfall is going to make areas where there still is adequate rainfall far more valuable. The world will be like the Atacama Desert: plenty of land where we can’t survive and little land where we can.

What will happen then? Well, there have been water wars in the past. And as Shane Harris discussed in Foreign Policy recently, Water Wars, “The new conflicts of the future could be sparked by climate change.” I can see this working internationally and intranationally. I can easily see the United States invading Canada to get its farm land in a century. Of course, it won’t be sold that way. I’m sure The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets will be as willing as ever to spin whatever yarn the government is feeding them about the existential threat those francophiles in Quebec represent.

But also, as always, the rich will take the best land and everything that results from that. And the poor will be pushed to the margins. The argument in favor of private ownership of land is pretty weak. We aren’t talking about something that anyone built. It is literally true that you did not built that piece of earth. So when it comes to natural resources, we really do have a “might makes right” system where whoever owns a piece of land does so because of laws that privilege them.

This situation is bad enough today. But in a highly disrupted system caused by global warming, the situation will be much worse. Since the land that is considered valuable will change, we will see just how much billionaire Americans respect the land rights of poor people who win the geographic lottery. My guess is that we will see that they don’t believe in those rights all that much. At least, they won’t until they take control of the lands. Then land rights will be unquestioned. I only say this because it is how it has always gone.

At some point, every piece of land was stolen. The American obsession with land rights is just a way for the rich to maintain their power. The moment that it isn’t to their advantage, they will simply take what is not theirs. Afterward, they will pretend that their land ownership is righteous. Just like they do today.

Janaki Ammal

Janaki AmmalWell kiddos, it is election day. Even if you think, as I do, that in many ways we no longer live in a democracy, you should still vote. It is the most public expression of civil pride. It takes nothing to put a bumper sticker on your car. But voting takes a bit of work. But the country deserves it. If we are ever to fulfill the promise of American democracy, we must vote. So get out there and have your say!

On this day in 1897, Janaki Ammal was born. She was a botanist who did work on the chromosomes of different plant species as well as their geographic distribution. She is rare in her focus on medicinal plants, which I find especially interesting. She also co-authored The Chromosome Atlas of Cultivated Plants.

Happy birthday Janaki Ammal!

Math Lesson With George Boole

George BooleOn this day in 1815, the great mathematician George Boole was born. He had quite diverse interests in math, including what I consider the most interesting thing in math: differential equations. The reason for this is that differential equations are kind of like alchemy. There are no rules for solving them and only the barest of guidelines. I suppose I like this because it is so much unlike what most people think math is. It is more intuition than anything else.

Boole, however, is mostly known today for something that was highly theoretical at the time but is now intensely practical: symbolic logic, or as we say today, Boolean algebra. Boole’s system was quite complex. His main interest was in mapping logic onto an algebraic formalism. What we use today are the ideas of AND (∧) and OR (∨) and so on. The AND operator is defined as follows:

    0 ∧ 0 = 0
    0 ∧ 1 = 0
    1 ∧ 0 = 0
    1 ∧ 1 = 1

It is remarkable just how powerful all of this is. And if I weren’t still sick, I might spend some time on it. Not that it is necessary, since you are almost certainly reading this on a computer. But it is amazing that when digital computers came into existence, all the mathematics had been worked out a century before.

Boole died young at the age of 49. Wikipedia provides a description that is both funny and pathetic. Mathematicians are not known for their practical acumen. Apparently, this is also true of their spouses:

One day in 1864, George walked two miles in the drenching rain and lectured wearing his wet clothes. He soon became ill, developing a severe cold and high fever. As his wife believed that remedies should resemble their cause, she put George to bed and poured buckets of water over him — the wet having brought on his illness. With neither spouse distinguishing good idea from bad, Boole’s condition worsened and on 8 December 1864, he died of fever-induced pleural effusion.

Happy birthday George Boole!

We Are Overreacting to Ebola

Sam WangThe amount of Ebola coverage is amazing: 1,869 stories from October 20 to 24 alone. That coverage came on the heels of the death of one patient in Dallas, Texas. The level of coverage is amazing considering the far greater impact of other infectious diseases in the United States: rotavirus, which kills dozens of small children every year; West Nile virus, a similar number of adults; and of course influenza, which kills thousands even in years when there is no epidemic.

Ebola appeals to our fears: the disease is grisly. It is a serious threat with tremendous public health implications — in western Africa. That is the reason for sending relief workers overseas — fighting it there so we don’t have to fight it over here. Unfortunately, popular intuitions about it are often wrong. Many people seem unaware that asymptomatic individuals are not contagious, and the disease is not transmitted by airborne means. It is unfortunate that more coverage does not focus on evidence-based information…

—Sam Wang
Overreacting to Ebola?

Antibiotics Create False Sense of Security

Aaron CarrollI have lived a long and colorful life — causing myself far more pain that I was born to. Yet the most painful thing I have ever been through was a case of herpes zoster — “shingles.” For five days, I was in so much pain that I did not sleep except for passing out for a few minutes here and there. The thing about shingles is that it is caused by a virus. I finally made it to a doctor on the fifth day and they put me on some kind of antiviral drug. And it was amazing — in its total uselessness.

This only highlights just what amazing things antibiotics are. If it weren’t for antibiotics, I would be dead. At least once they saved my life and maybe more than that. So it truly is remarkable that we have these largely generic drugs that are so highly effective. And it shouldn’t surprise us that doctors give them out like candy. It is a form of defensive medicine that actually has potentially deadly aspects.

I’m not talking about the antibiotic resistance that taking the drug creates, although that is certainly an issue. Instead, I’m talking about an article by Aaron Carroll, On an Antibiotic? You May Be Getting Only a False Sense of Security. In it, he noted that doctors often don’t know if the disease they are treating is caused by bacteria. He started with an extreme example:

The best way to prevent transmission of Ebola in the United States is to identify and quarantine those with the disease as soon as possible. However, the first Ebola patient in this country was, unfortunately, released after going to an emergency room, even though he had symptoms indicative of the disease. He was sent home on antibiotics.

But this seems to be pretty typical. Here, the doctors thought that Thomas Eric Duncan had a sinus infection. The problem with that is that sinus infections are usually viral, not bacterial. So even if Duncan had had a sinus infection, the doctors probably didn’t treat it properly, “Yet antibiotics are regularly prescribed in this manner.” And the issue isn’t just with the people treated.

Carroll is a pediatrician and so he is very familiar with conjunctivitis — “pink eye.” The general rule is that children with this disease are not allowed back at school until they’ve been on antibiotics for 24 hours. One of the problems with this rule is that pink eye is usually caused by a virus. But even when it isn’t, “Drugs simply work differently in different people.” He noted that people with pink eye could be contagious up to ten days after they start a course of antibiotics! The bottom line:

Even in the best-case scenario, being “on an antibiotic” isn’t much protection for others. And often, antibiotics offer no protection at all.

So what do we do about this? Carroll doesn’t have much of a recommendation other than for doctors to recognize that they often prescribe antibiotics more for themselves than for their patients. But I have a thought that has nothing to do with medicine. I think the problem is that our culture has changed in ways that are hurting us. It isn’t just that we pretend that everything must get done now now now! (I have friends who work for content providers and they are on deadline constantly; there is no normalcy.) But the bigger issue, I think, is that now most households have two people who work outside the home. So it is really important to get the kids back to school. It’s madness. And it is probably killing us in more ways than one.

On a personal level, you might want to make sure that what your doctor is giving you is correct. But even if it is, it doesn’t mean you aren’t contagious. Streptococcal pharyngitis – “strep throat” — which is treated really well by antibiotics, doesn’t do much to stop it from spreading from the patient. So try to slow down and spend a little time alone. Learn to meditate. Or start a blog! The two are really not that different.

Afterword

I want to be clear that I think who manages the home ought to be a couple’s choice. But the big problem is that most jobs don’t pay enough to support a family anymore. I find it interesting that conservatives spend so much time whining about the dissolution of the family, yet they aren’t willing to support economic policies that would facilitate family cohesion. Managing a household is a full time job. We have two income families now because the business community wants higher profits and the government has enforced policies to assure that. It isn’t that way because the American family was just itching to have someone else raise its kids.

Bad Climate News and the Need for a Predator

CaribouOver at Vox this morning Brad Plumer reports, São Paulo Is the 7th Largest City in the World. And It’s About to Run Out of Water. It is experiencing “the worst drought in eight decades.” It really is bad: the city’s reservoirs are down to 5% of their capacity and there have been intermittent and widespread water outages. The proximate cause is that the region has received only 40% of the rainfall it normally does and the water utility had refused to implement water rationing, preferring anemic “free market” measures.

As for the more substantive reasons for the drought, Climate Central points to global warming and deforestation, which of course are related. Right now, here in California, we are in a similar situation. And in our case, it seems to be all global warming. Historical correlations between temperature in precipitation in the vast majority of the United States is negative — and it is particularly so here in California.

My concerns about global warming has always been focused on rainfall. The evil irony is that a warmer world will produce more rain, but it does so primarily over the oceans. So there are potentially devastating effects on agriculture, and those effects are going to harm the United States a lot. As for California, I won’t be surprised at all if in a hundred years, it is a ghost state because we just don’t have the water to support 38 million people. But I’m surprised that São Paulo is being so affected. It is on the edge of a forest and close to the coast. But that’s the thing about all the carbon we’ve pumped into the atmosphere — it is an experiment we are conducting on the planet, and we have little idea just how it is going to work out in its specifics.

CaribouMeanwhile, Andrea Thompson at Climate Central reported, Hot News: 2014 On Track to Become Warmest Year. It follows from an announcement by the National Climatic Data Center that following September being the warmest on record that we are “likely” to see 2014 be the warmest year. Even if the last three months are just as warm as the average of the years 2000 – 2013, it will tie with the warmest year.

But it is madness that we are even talking about this. Forget 2014. The warmest year on record: 2010. Second warmest: 2005. Third warmest: 1998. This last one is the only non-21st century year on the list of the ten warmest years on record. I’m again reminded of the caribou. The lack of wolves caused the species to get over-populated in Newfoundland. The caribou were so successful that they were destroying their habitat and starving, so wolves had to be reintroduced.

We need some wolves, but not to keep our population in check. We need wolves to keep our global capitalism in check. I’m not saying that we need to harm the economy. We are not turning a blind eye to global warming because the people or even the capitalists generally want that. We are doing it because there is one industry that has a huge incentive to stop us from doing anything about global warming: the fossil fuel industry. And they have enormous resources to create doubt. So yes, we are destroying the planet because about ten thousand people all over the world want to hang onto their current profits, which are almost all dependent upon externalities.

Any individual human would behave better. The current conservative line on global warming would be seen as irrational in an individual. Consider a man who said, “Unless you can prove to me that I’m going to die before my children are grown, I’m not going to buy any life insurance!” And the same conservatives who say we can’t do anything about global warming unless we know, also say that they must be allowed to carry a gun with them at all times just in case. I understand the philosophical thread: conservatives don’t believe in collective action. But the fact remains that we all have far more to worry about regarding global warming than we do lone gunmen. (Or black helicopters!)