Navigating toward Solutions and Tea Time

Face it, people love conflict. We were born of it, and revel in its glory.  Our ascendancy within society is based on coping and overcoming conflict. The winner is, without question, that individual who is superb and expert manager of conflict.

Conflict arises easily, and when conflict is absent, it is fabricated. Soap operas are conflicts conceived from raw and base emotions; jealousy, hate and love. These surge, endlessly sloshing back and forth between our ears daily, and may even haunt dreams with their restless energy.

Solutions arise only after wrangling down our emotions and, transiently hog tied, these tempestuous emotions constantly gnaw away to regain freedom, and when released, wreck havoc on the undisciplined mind. Solutions can reside only in the tethered mind, secure from raging anxiety.

Nowadays, society is raging with conflicts that are scurrying, ping ponging between our ears. Distraction only mildly describes them. Yet, in order that we survive and find our way to the light and happy days within that Shining City on the Hill, we need calm and some navigable sense toward solutions. 

As far as rating solutions, there are the transient, band-aid throw conflicts in the closet or under the rug; only the dim-witted persist in tripping or shoving the door closed. Long term, effective solutions are the Holy Grail so many seek. 

Yet the course to viable solutions begins with a single and provocative step; Define the problem. Only with a perfected, unambiguous statement of a problem can we even begin to consider racking our tiny brains to outline a solution. Even then, in order for a solution to be tenable, we must set forth a set of expectations for any solutions effect.

So wrestling our emotions into submission, defining the problem and setting expectations are the initial first steps to frame a viable solution. As with so much else in life, we must navigate our way to that point. Prospective or theoretical solutions require resources and those who are truly committed to solutions it is necessary to provide a manifest of resources present and which resources we must still acquire.

Arduous, but necessary for those dedicated to finding solutions. 

Once we have tallied required resources, we then start assembling prospective solutions and weight them against constraints we will encounter. Constraints are Gremlin-omniscient entities dedicated to sabotaging best efforts to implement solutions. The "peanut gallery", naysayers and pessimists - the persistent nagging and fierce adversaries of improvement.

Once constraints have been remedied, it is reasonable to assemble the remaining solutions and begin examining consequences , especially those described as unintended consequences.

Having invested a considerable quantity of time and effort to this process, it is clear why few are willing to look for solutions and remain  a devotee to the indolent practice of criticizing. Hard work in itself is difficult and humans are extraordinarily equipped to avoid it and find ever more clever ways to avoid it.

Thomas Edison had a sign in his lab:  "Because such thinking is often difficult, there seems to be no limit to which some people will go to avoid the effort and labor that is associated with it..."

Whereby we have much in the way of criticism and little in the way of solutions, all this thinking has given me a terrible headache and I must lay down somewhere to refresh myself.

Say isn't it  tea time? Earl Grey anyone?

PC Young

Freedom,Truth and Real Democracy

 P. C. Young Feb 14 2015

     There are few words that elicit stronger responses within humanities vocabulary than truth and freedom.  They are inextricably tied together; you cannot have one without the other.  After all, the words, "The truth will set you free" uttered by Jesus Christ are perhaps the most definitive statement for that relationship.

 

       Science looks for truth and has developed methodology that insures the greatest truth possible for the given tools of observation, theory and experimentation.  Its tools are simple objectivity and verification - not the easy path, but the path towards free standing and profound truths.

       Yet, truth eludes most of us in our daily lives. At odds is the quality of information we receive , acquire and are bombarded with on a daily basis. It takes the form of presentation only, substance less, one sided and heavily biased stuff that portends to call itself news. Self delusion and insanity take the same form.

      Survival requires we discern which words are true and which ones are false, which conduits of words are credible and which ones are not. Whether the words and information we receive is even worth considering for content or cast aside as pointless and meaningless. To be truthful it must be tested.

    

        In nature, truth is absolute: either you survive or you don't. The consequences for eating the wrong food or experimenting with your geographic living conditions are unalterable and permanent: death or debilitating disease, incapacitating injury. Being liberally friendly to the local wildlife may, in fact, leave your face mauled and your food stores defecated in.  In nature, truth is absolute.

       Modern society has buffered and distanced us such that we can regard most things disguised as truth without much harm (in the short term) to us. The longer term consequences of assuming something is true when it is not constructs a world of short sighted contrivances, mostly manipulated by others - that unless we consider each in its own present context and better discriminate between truths, half truths and untruths, our entire world view will be in error and the effects are only slowly accumulated;  ultimately equally and eventually irreversible.

         This axiom holds true for politics. Incorrect ideology will just as certainly lead a people to an either successful or happy conclusion or towards eventual ruin. Civilizations rise and fall; they’re decline can be predicted by the course of missteps taken. I doubt any would argue that a culture ideologically predisposed to mandate complete homosexuality will survive very long. The present generation may enjoy its orgiastic perversity but with no one relegated to reproduce (certainly to take the time to establish a safe and healthy home structured to care for and implore the next generation to invest it and the next generations.

         Societies who have divested personal responsibility, self determination in exchange for superficial conveniences (ultimately turn nefarious and only serve those in power) totalitarian regimes find they have exchanged personal freedoms for eventual servitude. All dictators initially offer greatness and wonderful notions to a tired and starving population in exchange; there again truth is absolute.

         For progressives who naively believe as Lamarckian Geneticists, that magical exposure to information and a complex social environmen, assume that behavior will automatically translate into permanent traits within the human animal. Maslovian demands still reigns supreme and will for the foreseeable future until there is real selection, in terms of reproductive survivability.

       Thomas Edison stated: "There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." We in the United States, who allegedly value freedom more than others, have enabled entertainment to replace more in-depth, informative debate, clearly applying Edison’s axiom. 

        Entertainment subverts dialogue and debate and conveniently applies a calmative salve to quell our disdain for the inherent difficulty of thinking for ourselves. Such an effect is exactly the result that those who intend to conquer us by dividing us, wish to achieve. If social controversy ascends to greater hostility more will shrink from standing their ground and instead find distraction from difficulty.

         It’s only logical that failing to become informed with verifiable facts; personal convictions will falter and even less effort will be applied to defend one’s opinion from another’s. Whereas having confidence in the reported facts offers a more stalwart defense. Personal conviction is a powerful force, and few demur from conflict if grounded from facts which are perceived as truth.

         Here again, scientific evidence when presented in full force is probably the most powerful in convincing people. In today’s culture, scientific authority is powerful. Yet when we see science facts being misrepresented by opinion and for political motives we shirk even from those facts. The credibility of the source is paramount to truth. Questions and or doubts corrode even science.

          Yet even science must have credible reliable sources for its foundational knowledge. We rely on institutions and individuals who have established themselves with reputations for credibility, after sufficient, scrutiny and debate. If one bases their reputation on bad science the results are horrific and one will find they unemployed and branded a charlatan.

         There once was at time when real journalists would as a  matter of professional pride, provide only objective, fact based and unbiased reporting of  news and information. At least greater effort would be undertaken to attempt. Editors of credible news papers would take great pains to insure the credibility of that newspaper was retained at a high standard.  Basically, a more scientific approach was taken towards journalism.

         Those efforts to provide the public with objective facts were effective and enabled better debate and confidence in discussing matters. Such an effort can be undertaken again. It requires only work. It will require time necessary to build credibility. But only such an effort will regain our ability to believe in ourselves and have confidence we know is absolutely necessary for a free society.

         If there is a difference to be made it is with that objective in mind.  Its axiomatic "The Truth will set you free". In that context, ignorance is slavery.

-Philip Young

     

             

Origins Of Climate Change

Philip Young Feb 5 2015      

       

           “A Pale blue dot” Carl Sagan remarked upon viewing this image of earth taken by Voyager when some 6 billion miles away. It’s a frightening image when taken in perspective. No one will come to our aid if we don’t get it right.  It’s important to get it right, more to the fact that we have gotten it wrong more times than right.  We should not then make that mistake when it comes to rapid and expansive changes to our industrial base to stop, what has yet to be proven; anthropogenic climate change.

         When you see the image of Earth floating, unattended, absolutely alone in a vast black and barren universe one quickly becomes convert. A grandiose belief penetrated much of Western Civilization. It heralded man are master of his domain. That domain, Earth, is but a pale blue dot and suddenly this idea reflects back as the cold, humbling and very chilling realization: That as master we have grave responsibility over our domain. We had better not destroy this pale blue dot.  Else….

        The foundations of concern over climate change are steeped in scientific inquiry but have unfortunately become the apocryphal battle cry of the Democratic Party.  Climate changes have occurred since Earth begat an atmosphere.  These range from Earth’s orbit, Earth’s rotation, Earth position relative to the Center of our galaxy Our Sun’s energy output, Transient solar events i.e.mass Ejections.

          Earth’s geologic composition is responsible for climate change. Volcanoes regurgitate huge quantities of ash, dust and toxic gases (Sulfur Dioxide SO2, Carbon Dioxide CO2, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Hydrogen Chloride HCl, Carbon Soot other gases.   Both the rate and the quantity impact our planets climate.  Despite claims to the contrary Fluorinated Carbon compounds are not naturally occurring. 

           Many times in science a poorly researched reference is not verified for its scientific truth. A case in point is the continued citing that a high fat diet leads to heart attacks. This is a perfect example of Political interference and political imposition of policy which has no real basis in scientific fact! Our recent epidemic of obesity in the United States can be attributed to the mandated health policies drafted by ignorant politicians eager to mandate how people eat.

        All due to a single case of fraud, that was perpetuated and coerced into being.  Herein lies the danger from even the best intentioned efforts to improve the quality of our lives or divert catastrophe.

          Politicians are perhaps the least qualified in making scientific and or technological judgments.  We see and hear each day politicians pushing settled science dogma citing that the great majority of scientists believe in climate change.  Science is not built by public consensus or even voted on by peer least of all a lesser informed public.

              Nothing is settled and we must remain focused on finding the truth, once found then to moderate any movement toward any intended goal.  Especially, when economic turmoil can ensue from the fact entire global industrial base is powered by petrochemicals.

   
         First we should be away of the basic mechanisms that affect climate.  There is first the physical blocking of sunlight (the sun emits approx. 1.3 Kilo watts per square meter). Carbon Soot or C3 particles can , when floating high in the atmosphere. Then there are particles which reflect sunlight, thus preventing it from heating the planet and cause actual cooling.  Sulfur Dioxides are the principle culprit for this effect.

        Sulfur dioxide particles are by far of greater potential cooling effect (pound for pound) than all the other products belched from volcanoes.  The excessive height, at which they are broadcast into the atmosphere, is responsible for the tremendous effect on weather and climate.

        Once deposited into the stratosphere, particles can remain aloft for months. Prior volcanic eruptions such as El Chichen in 1992 spewed more than 17 million tons of SO2 at above 40 kilometers. At this height jet streams can (due to velocities of over 150 mph) provide the necessary force to keep particles from falling to earth.

         While Volcanoes contribute greatly to the composition of our atmosphere (our atmosphere was created from accumulations of gas emissions over eons of time). However, certain gases are generated at rates far in excess of their volcanic counterpart. Carbon Dioxide is one of these.  Between 130 – 250 million tons of CO2 are produced each year (values vary as it is a matter of conjecture the exact amount of CO2 produced by volcanoes) from volcanic sources.

         This extraordinary amount is less than that produced by industrial processes. Man made or anthropogenic production is 33 times that quantity or 8415 million tons per year. 8.4 gigatons. The exact impact on our climate is not yet known. It is speculated that it will ultimately increase the global temperature due to its measured effect for absorbing solar radiation.

           Unless there is a complimentary and opposite mechanism (cooling) it’s a matter of simple physics and time. It is a fact that CO2 absorbs radiation (the greenhouse effect).  Yet, the matter is not yet settled. What is necessary is an exact determination of the rate at which this effect heats the earth’s atmosphere.

             To date models used in the attempt to predict such temperature affects have not met with success and models are being simplified by going back to stochastic modeling (probabilistic and data fitting ) in order to have better confidence. This confidence is extremely significant as credibility relies on being exactly correct.  Science mandates accuracy and prediction of effect. Without such proof it remains a theory which now, due to premature rants and Armageddon presentations by political Demagogues and those who exploit our fears for money.

               This is very unfortunate and troubling. It is clear that scientific expertise was exploited and enticed by financial gifts (research grants) and celebrity.  Had the scientific community stood fast and not fall prey to the usual enticements; theory would have turned to fact and the continued discussions and speculations as to whether the science is settled (IT'S NOT!) would have , instead, helped promote a world wide effort. 

               However, I still caution all, as proven science does not mandate policy or justify the overall stripping of local and individual and or corporate authority to a large, stumbling blind, stupid and dumb central bureaucracy.  This could have more immediate and dire consequences on more of the worlds population than the projected consequences of a slowly heated atmosphere.

                 As with everything change requires time and the time. The time taken to make slow and deliberate changes, will afford the time necessary for accurate feedback as to its effect.  We cannot afford to suddenly halt centuries of industrial dev elopement.  Adopting such absurd punitive policies such as Carbon tax will only burden smaller businesses and future growth AND innovation.

               We can adapt (life adapts) to slow and incremental changes. Making decisions based on fact and not, emotional, panicked reactions.  As to whether our planet is heating up or cooling down from industrial emissions of CO2.

            No it has not been proven the science is not yet settled. There are other forces at work. When the science is settled then the real work begins by way of slow and purposeful incremental changes.

                 The next article will explore some of those other forces and some interesting compensatory effects.  Earth’s orbit, position in galaxy, etc.

               The final article will discuss some of the observed changes noted from climate change (whether man made or not)

             My last article discussed scientific advances in climate change and political forces.  

Fear, Politics and Rational Process for Crises Management - Part 1

Part 1 of a 4-part series examining climate change and current research

        Climate change evokes strong and immediate reactions ranging from the Apocalyptic to the yawn, and everything in between. Unfortunately for the public, political forces have taken hold of objective science, presumed tentative results and assumed them as rationale for policy change worse they have then enlisted converts to effect large scale Massive Energy policy changes.

       Let’s take a step back. The concept that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (the main combustion Product of the Internal Combustion Engine) might affect an increase in Global temperature has been the subject of scientific research for over a century. It was first recognized that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) absorbs infrared radiation and re-radiates it as heat (1865). Way before the Al Gore Trumpeted the end of the world (he and others made millions from this venture).

       The major concern is that man made pollutants will cause a gradual or catastrophic change (warming or cooling) change in the Global Temperature. This includes Methane, CO2, SO2 (sulfur dioxide) carbon black (soot). The exact rate (change over time) has yet to be determined but ultimately some transformation will occur. Speculation as to the ill effects is from increases in the ocean rising over currently habitable coastlines (don’t buy inland properties just yet) to large scale die offs of coral reefs, to famine to increases in rape? (It's always rape, it seems, that evokes more fear in the female population).

         Unfortunately, the Scientific community has been put between a rock and a harder place, and that would be: funding.  As a scientist, you depend on government grants, and when the prevailing government supports global warming, then you had better tailor your research to compliment that political view, or find another area for research.  The previous Bush administration was a guilty of this as is the Obama administration citing firings and withdrawal of monies for grants for those poor souls who tried to continue or begin new research on anthropogenic climate change.

         We should consider that both skeptics and absolutists are both [currently] wrong. The proof of any scientific theory is in accurate prediction. This has not yet occurred and researchers are looking at altering their models and “retrofitting” them to more stochastic or empirical models rather than the very complicated ones they use now. Stochastic is essentially Monte Carlo simulations or like rolling the dice, looking at probabilities, extrapolated from proven and simpler models.

          The other elements that require investigation - and are finally being looked at with appropriate scientific objectivity - is a Gaia approach. Gaia refers to Dr. Marguilis Lovelock and his defining the Earth as a system. That means interconnected and complex. This also means some degree of adaptation and resilience now borne out by findings that plants now increase both density and growth (by as much as 16%) as the CO2 levels increase.

         Such approaches also consider biological adaptation. That organisms and therefore biosystem’s can adapt. such as rates and occurrences for coral reef bleaching (reached a maximum 1997-1998 worst on record) are not as sensitive to bleaching due to local adaptation and geographic redistribution.

         It was recently found that ants can increase the dissolution rate (how fast carbonates are formed) depending on the CO2 content of the atmosphere.  We should never forget that Volcanoes (source of CO2 and SO2) and the earth’s tectonic movement can release large amounts of methane. Such events occurred in the past and contributed to climate change.

      What is clear is that inevitably, continued increases of man made pollutants will cause a shift (how large or how small yet unknown) as other pollutants have causes wide spread changes in the ocean flora and fauna. It is naïve to continue to believe we can belch quantities of stuff without effect.

       Science is steadfastly, and, with some objectivity peering into the future. Armed with viable and proofed scientific evidence, we can presumably prevent future crises by provisioning and or guarding, placing some restrictions at a rate which enables human’s to adapt.

       Unfortunately, once political forces get a hold of an idea and attempt to push through legislation without bullet proof data, then credibility is lost perhaps to our ultimate disadvantage. Objectivity is not an inherent characteristic for much of humanity, nor should it ever take the place of an emotive and empathetic people guided by pure science, but understanding the implications of imposing Science on others. Some would call this wisdom.  The fact is: People resist change simply because it is change.

-Philip Young