I was noticing the other day that my irate Bank of America post was still at the forefront of my blog. I knew that I had to change that or else someone might think that I am a bitter person. Besides, Bank of America has since changed their overdraft policy as I found out recently. I'm glad that I was a part of the backlash.
Have you ever thought about how you become friends with certain people? For instance, you can be in a big group setting and be able to interact with everyone, but you'll gravitate to certain types of people. Why is that? You can probably force yourself to be around other types that you don't naturally jive with, but in an ideal environment, you'll be attracted to certain people.
I think part of how you choose friends has to do with the early beginnings: the family and the people that surround you early on in life. I think you are attracted to characteristics and personality traits that these people find attractive. But family is only one part, in my humble opinion (Note: my opinion in this entire post is very humble because I have no formal experience with psychology or sociology so take this with a grain of salt). Next you might wonder about how you choose friends that are very much different from your family. Part of the answer may lie in who chooses you early on in life. You then get comfortable with these types of familiar personalities and they stick with you.
In sum, I believe it all boils down to a combination of environment and genetics. Isn't it interesting how the answer to almost everything in life is a combination of two extremes. That is why I think it is unwise to be either a full-fledged Republican or Democrat. You've got to have balance and realize that there are answers in both extremes.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Bank of America uses immoral practices to squeeze money out of the customer
Our world is now quite accustomed to fine print. Every company has to cover its back by countless clauses of legalese. Sometimes, though, companies can use the fact that no one reads fine print to literally take advantage of people. Such is the case with Bank of America's debit card policy.
Last week, I messed up and bounced a check. Ooops. No one is perfect with their finances. So I was in the negative. I didn't know that I was in the negative, however. Contrary to Bank of America's assumption, I don't check my account balance on a daily basis. Even though I am enrolled in the online banking, I received no email about the overdraft. The next day, I went to the Post Office and bought a stamped envelope on my debit card for 54¢. Bank of America charged the card even though I didn't have any money. The next day I did the exact thing. A total of $1.08. Then they charged me a fee of $35 for each day. Their policy with debit cards is that Bank of America assumes you are in an emergency and will charge the sum of money, and then ding you with a $35 overdraft fee. Am I the only one that thinks this default policy is ridiculous? When I don't have any money in my bank account, my assumption is that my debit card will be declined. I'm in an emergency far less frequently than not and if I was in an emergency, I'd want to call up the Bank to allow for an exception. The fine print, though, finds ways to jack the customer and give the giant bank corporation more profits. Should Bank of America really assume that spending one dollar was worth $70 to me? Pleading with the stone-cold representative and her supervisor did me no good, so I am now resorting to my only other forum to spread the word about this crappy policy.
The representative offered to change my account settings so that my card will be declined when there are no funds and I accepted. Why can't this be the case by default? It should be. Do any other banks engage in this shady practice?
Last week, I messed up and bounced a check. Ooops. No one is perfect with their finances. So I was in the negative. I didn't know that I was in the negative, however. Contrary to Bank of America's assumption, I don't check my account balance on a daily basis. Even though I am enrolled in the online banking, I received no email about the overdraft. The next day, I went to the Post Office and bought a stamped envelope on my debit card for 54¢. Bank of America charged the card even though I didn't have any money. The next day I did the exact thing. A total of $1.08. Then they charged me a fee of $35 for each day. Their policy with debit cards is that Bank of America assumes you are in an emergency and will charge the sum of money, and then ding you with a $35 overdraft fee. Am I the only one that thinks this default policy is ridiculous? When I don't have any money in my bank account, my assumption is that my debit card will be declined. I'm in an emergency far less frequently than not and if I was in an emergency, I'd want to call up the Bank to allow for an exception. The fine print, though, finds ways to jack the customer and give the giant bank corporation more profits. Should Bank of America really assume that spending one dollar was worth $70 to me? Pleading with the stone-cold representative and her supervisor did me no good, so I am now resorting to my only other forum to spread the word about this crappy policy.
The representative offered to change my account settings so that my card will be declined when there are no funds and I accepted. Why can't this be the case by default? It should be. Do any other banks engage in this shady practice?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
My Take on Net Neutrality
In case you haven't noticed, the internet is a huge passion in my life. I understand this may seem weird, but very few topics about the internet do not interest me. The latest news about the internet comes from Tim Berners, who yesterday declared that the web should be uncontrolled and unfettered by corporations and governments. The debate on the nature of the internet is not new. As the internet becomes increasingly relevant and vital to society, it is very apparent how much the internet has changed from its very independent and free-spirited beginnings. Here is an excerpt written by John Perry Barlow in 1996 entitled A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.
You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.
You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.
Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.
In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.
You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.
In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.
Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.
These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.
We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.
This declaration embodies net neutrality better than anything else I've come across. 
I am not a fan of complete net neutrality. The internet has turned into something that is very similar to real life, and that reality necessitates real-life laws and regulations. For instance, breaking into someone else's computer is similar to theft: you have violated another's personal property without their permission. The internet is also a natural extension of human speech and should be subject to the tort actions of libel and slander. Intellectual property, like trademarks, copyrights, and patents, simply must be regulated or else needs to be protected online.
Having established that the internet should be regulated to some degree, I think we should resort to 
the law regulation as a last resort. Lawrence Lessig explains that there are 4 ways of regulating the internet: law, markets, social norms, and architecture. In my opinion, these other regulations should be used to a much greater extent than the law. From the perspective of a computer geek, it is amazing what kinds of things you can do to safeguard yourself or your property using the architecture of the internet. Behind everything on the internet is code. The internet should and most likely will continue to use that architecture to protect people and ensure them their rights. Social norms also play a vital role. If a certain behavior is highly frowned upon, there is a much greater chance the behavior won't be pursued. Also, maybe even most importantly, markets determine people's incentives for doing things online. If people out there can't make money doing bad things, they won't continue doing them.
In sum, I am more partial to net neutrality than I am to a completely regulated and interfered with internet. There is simply too much good that comes from the openness and flexibility of the internet. Governments should intrude only as absolutely needed.
The Road to Love is not Always Laced with Roses
Dating-relationships can be crappy. When you start to date someone, there are only two possible outcomes: it either works out, or it doesn't. If you're like me, it's hard for you to work out with someone. That means that you start something up, only to see it die time and time again. Each relationship death is a painful experience.
Does it have to be painful? My experience is yes. Throughout the course of one's lifetime, it is inevitable to have feelings for someone else. It is part of our human wiring. These feelings range from friendly, childhood affections to more mature, romantic feelings. It doesn't matter if you are seeking a casual friendship, a networking opportunity, or a significant other, you are bound to be turned down by someone else out there sometime in your life. Romantic love can be the most painful because you are tapping into your deepest feelings. It takes a while to learn that when you freely give away your love and affection, and putting your heart out there, your feelings are likely to not be reciprocated and your heart to get trampled on. If you don't feel this pain, you are most likely dishing it out to someone else.
Is having painful relationship deaths a bad thing? My experience is yes. Some act like breaking up is not a big deal, or that they have transcended getting hurt by dating. I think these individuals are either deceiving themselves or they are more robotic than human. I think that the more relationship deaths we experience, our hearts shrivel up a little bit. We become a little more apathetic and we are less apt to put our love out there for others. We act like we don't have feelings, act like we're above the game, and are less willing to love. A bad thing, in my opinion.
Is there an alternative to being poked by the barbs that are strewn along the road to love? I don't think there is an alternative. When someone is trying to find love, there is always a risk of disappointment and failure. Perhaps you could sit and do nothing, but we all know that inaction does not lead anywhere noteworthy. My bottom line is that notwithstanding the highly probable pain along the way, you've got to keep believing and having confidence that someone, someday will love you back when you show them your love.
Does it have to be painful? My experience is yes. Throughout the course of one's lifetime, it is inevitable to have feelings for someone else. It is part of our human wiring. These feelings range from friendly, childhood affections to more mature, romantic feelings. It doesn't matter if you are seeking a casual friendship, a networking opportunity, or a significant other, you are bound to be turned down by someone else out there sometime in your life. Romantic love can be the most painful because you are tapping into your deepest feelings. It takes a while to learn that when you freely give away your love and affection, and putting your heart out there, your feelings are likely to not be reciprocated and your heart to get trampled on. If you don't feel this pain, you are most likely dishing it out to someone else.
Is having painful relationship deaths a bad thing? My experience is yes. Some act like breaking up is not a big deal, or that they have transcended getting hurt by dating. I think these individuals are either deceiving themselves or they are more robotic than human. I think that the more relationship deaths we experience, our hearts shrivel up a little bit. We become a little more apathetic and we are less apt to put our love out there for others. We act like we don't have feelings, act like we're above the game, and are less willing to love. A bad thing, in my opinion.
Is there an alternative to being poked by the barbs that are strewn along the road to love? I don't think there is an alternative. When someone is trying to find love, there is always a risk of disappointment and failure. Perhaps you could sit and do nothing, but we all know that inaction does not lead anywhere noteworthy. My bottom line is that notwithstanding the highly probable pain along the way, you've got to keep believing and having confidence that someone, someday will love you back when you show them your love.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Turn the other cheek
Yesterday I was reading a sermon where the Savior sets forth the higher law in regard to the law of Moses. Instead of "an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth," Jesus outlined that whoever smites you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues for your coat, give him your cloak too. And if anyone makes you go a mile with him, go two miles with him. Give to him that asketh thee, and give to him that would like to borrow from you.
Talk about a difficult set of scriptures! I wondered if anyone that lives a normal, everyday life really lives by these words? To me, this block of scripture meant pure selflessness to others, not thinking about your own interests at all. I at least could not claim to live by these teachings. But even thinking of how truly selfless Jesus was during his lifetime, I didn't picture him always doing what others wanted him to do. He always did what the Father did, but Christ was not a super-meek and submissive person to his fellow man. Needless to say, I was perplexed by the text and wanted to reconcile the teachings to everyday life.
Spencer and I were talking about this on our way up to Salt Lake land. His BYU religion professor Stephen L. Robison claimed that this scripture needed to be understood in the context of Jewish culture. When it said "whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, turn to him the other also" it meant that you get back on your feet after someone takes you down. This answer didn't satisfy me though. I understand that you could rationalize Jesus' teachings by saying He wanted to stress a point of humility to others, so He fell down pretty hard on the side of selflessness. But when you are looking at the text of the scriptures (the New International Version is virtually identical to the King James version), I found some serious doctrines that are hard to rectify with real-world life.
Every once in a while, God sees what's happening in our lives and intervenes to teach a principle. I was supposed to take a right at the 1300 S exit, but instead got in the left lane. Once I realized my mistake, I sheepishly tried to inch back into the long line of cars also desiring to go right. The people in the right lane were livid mad that I was trying to cut in front of them. One grandma would net let me in one inch and the backseat 45-year-old man was shouting at me from behind the window. Three or four other drivers met me with similar contempt. I stared at these people with a calm and fixed demeanor. Then it struck me. This is what turning the other cheek meant. God was teaching me an eternal principle on I-15. These scriptures didn't mean letting bad people do bad things to you, but rather having a different mindset. When someone does something bad to you (like cutting in front of you [this is really bad guys, huh]), give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you'll get burned by someone who is really trying to maliciously do bad things to you (and cut in front of you on purpose). However, it may also be the case that they just missed a turn and need to get back into your lane. Why risk turning into an evil human being because this person might cost you 5 seconds of your day. Life is short, be nice to people. Maybe your example will help someone else be nice.
Talk about a difficult set of scriptures! I wondered if anyone that lives a normal, everyday life really lives by these words? To me, this block of scripture meant pure selflessness to others, not thinking about your own interests at all. I at least could not claim to live by these teachings. But even thinking of how truly selfless Jesus was during his lifetime, I didn't picture him always doing what others wanted him to do. He always did what the Father did, but Christ was not a super-meek and submissive person to his fellow man. Needless to say, I was perplexed by the text and wanted to reconcile the teachings to everyday life.
Spencer and I were talking about this on our way up to Salt Lake land. His BYU religion professor Stephen L. Robison claimed that this scripture needed to be understood in the context of Jewish culture. When it said "whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, turn to him the other also" it meant that you get back on your feet after someone takes you down. This answer didn't satisfy me though. I understand that you could rationalize Jesus' teachings by saying He wanted to stress a point of humility to others, so He fell down pretty hard on the side of selflessness. But when you are looking at the text of the scriptures (the New International Version is virtually identical to the King James version), I found some serious doctrines that are hard to rectify with real-world life.
Every once in a while, God sees what's happening in our lives and intervenes to teach a principle. I was supposed to take a right at the 1300 S exit, but instead got in the left lane. Once I realized my mistake, I sheepishly tried to inch back into the long line of cars also desiring to go right. The people in the right lane were livid mad that I was trying to cut in front of them. One grandma would net let me in one inch and the backseat 45-year-old man was shouting at me from behind the window. Three or four other drivers met me with similar contempt. I stared at these people with a calm and fixed demeanor. Then it struck me. This is what turning the other cheek meant. God was teaching me an eternal principle on I-15. These scriptures didn't mean letting bad people do bad things to you, but rather having a different mindset. When someone does something bad to you (like cutting in front of you [this is really bad guys, huh]), give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you'll get burned by someone who is really trying to maliciously do bad things to you (and cut in front of you on purpose). However, it may also be the case that they just missed a turn and need to get back into your lane. Why risk turning into an evil human being because this person might cost you 5 seconds of your day. Life is short, be nice to people. Maybe your example will help someone else be nice.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Global Warming is Happening, for Real
I have recently come across those who don't believe that global warming is happening, or that mankind is not directly causing it. I have nothing against such beliefs - I fully support people exercising their God-given rights to believe in whatever pleases them. However, when I hear the argument that the global warming phenomenon has no scientific data to support, it makes me want to rise up and condemn such an ignorant position. I don't know why, but this disregard for science literally boils my blood. My frustration is most likely due to climate change turning into a partisan debate. Because people are passionate about politics, it doesn't take very much evidence to persuade them that they are on the right side of the debate. However, yesterday the White House released its most strongly worded report about how climate change is unequivocally happening. This detailed report, which cost us Americans $15 billion to research, pulled together research spanning many years and multiple administrations. The report, which included many different types of models in a region-specific manner, painted a bleak and sobering picture of what's going on in our world. Dr. Jerry Melillo, said climate change is fact, not opinion.
The principle that humans are contributing to global warming is well established in the scientific community. It's kind of like the principle "smoking causes cancer." Sure there will be some people even within the scientific community who claim this cannot be established as fact. They claim "other things cause cancer" or "some individual smoke and never develop cancer" but just like in global warming, these naysayers are looking at the exceptions and not at the established scientific data.
With so much data available in our world today, it should come as no surprise that there is evidence both for and against global warming. Statisticians can play with numbers and show anything they want. But in my quest to understand what is really going on, I have found more scientific literature which supports global warming hands-down. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific, intergovernmental organization that assesses the body of scientific literature. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature. The organization seeks to state only conclusive findings, rather than doomsday predictions or even highly probable, but not established theories. Because of this, what the IPCC establishes is very authoritative. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. These conclusions are that the average temperature has increased and that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in man-made greenhouse gas concentrations via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Three compelling points are worthy of emphasizing.
The temperature of the earth is increasing - In the last 50 years, the temperature of the earth has risen 2ยบ F. Before this, the temperature of the earth for the last couple thousand years has been relatively stable. The year 2005 was the hottest on record, based on estimates by NASA.
The glaciers are disappearing - A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as that of the Larsen Ice Shelf, and sea level rise are attributable in part to global warming. The consequences of this are frightening, but I will save this for another time. The key to this post is not the consequences of global warming, but that it is occurring.
The oceans are becoming acidic - Oceans are being greatly affected by climate change. Not only are the glaciers melting, as the temperatures of the oceans are increasing, the acidity of the ocean's waters are also increasing. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. CO2 dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. Ocean surface pH is estimated to have decreased from 8.25 near the beginning of the industrial era to 8.14 by 2004, and is projected to decrease by a further 0.14 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the ocean absorbs more CO2.
Some of you reading this have the glossed look in your eyes, ready and excited to resort to your trusted global warming defenses. The first defense is other factors contribute to the temperature of the earth. The IPCC even remarks that natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. Solar flares also contribute to the earth's temperature. The argument is kind of like saying, "My lifestyle does not cause me to be fat-it's my genetic predisposition. There's no point in exercising or eating healthily doing so would not in and of itself lead me to be skinny." Just because there are other factors (which are uncontrollable by us), does not mean that we shouldn't work on the controllable factors. It is interesting to note that in 2005 (the hottest year on record) the solar flares were at their lowest levels in 30 years.
The second defense is that the earth goes in cycles. We do go in cycles, but the recent trend is not natural. Even if the hockey stick graph is not conclusive, all major models project that the earth will continue to heat up for years to come.
There are other critiques and defenses to the global warming hypothesis, and I will address them in the comment section. But why do I bring up global warming on my blog? Recognition is the first step. My motive was not necessarily to inspire a decrease in greenhouse gas consumption (although if that were to happen, I would definitely be happy. I myself try to conserve energy when I can by recycling, driving fuel-efficiently, and conserving energy. The more people that go green the better!) Mostly I wanted to first establish a fact that sadly has not been established yet. Our planet needs us to look after it better. I want to go back to Alaska and see all the glaciers that I remember seeing as a boy. My hope is for each of us to be honest when talking about climate change. Instead of saying, “There isn't enough evidence that humans are contributing to global warming,” say “I don't care about the environment” or “I care more about making money than preserving something for future generations.”
"It is clear that climate change is happening now. The observed climate changes we report are not opinions to be debated. They are facts to be dealt with."A brief overview of the science behind climate change. The greenhouse concept was discovered long ago (1824) and so accepted today that you could find the principle illustrated at any junior high science fair. When greenhouse gases are present, there is more potential to absorb heat, thus warming the surface and atmosphere of the planet. Right now, there are more greenhouse gases than ever. The concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. Geological evidence supports that the last time there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere was 20 million years ago.
The principle that humans are contributing to global warming is well established in the scientific community. It's kind of like the principle "smoking causes cancer." Sure there will be some people even within the scientific community who claim this cannot be established as fact. They claim "other things cause cancer" or "some individual smoke and never develop cancer" but just like in global warming, these naysayers are looking at the exceptions and not at the established scientific data.
With so much data available in our world today, it should come as no surprise that there is evidence both for and against global warming. Statisticians can play with numbers and show anything they want. But in my quest to understand what is really going on, I have found more scientific literature which supports global warming hands-down. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific, intergovernmental organization that assesses the body of scientific literature. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature. The organization seeks to state only conclusive findings, rather than doomsday predictions or even highly probable, but not established theories. Because of this, what the IPCC establishes is very authoritative. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. These conclusions are that the average temperature has increased and that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in man-made greenhouse gas concentrations via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Three compelling points are worthy of emphasizing.
The temperature of the earth is increasing - In the last 50 years, the temperature of the earth has risen 2ยบ F. Before this, the temperature of the earth for the last couple thousand years has been relatively stable. The year 2005 was the hottest on record, based on estimates by NASA.
The glaciers are disappearing - A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as that of the Larsen Ice Shelf, and sea level rise are attributable in part to global warming. The consequences of this are frightening, but I will save this for another time. The key to this post is not the consequences of global warming, but that it is occurring.
The oceans are becoming acidic - Oceans are being greatly affected by climate change. Not only are the glaciers melting, as the temperatures of the oceans are increasing, the acidity of the ocean's waters are also increasing. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. CO2 dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. Ocean surface pH is estimated to have decreased from 8.25 near the beginning of the industrial era to 8.14 by 2004, and is projected to decrease by a further 0.14 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the ocean absorbs more CO2.
Some of you reading this have the glossed look in your eyes, ready and excited to resort to your trusted global warming defenses. The first defense is other factors contribute to the temperature of the earth. The IPCC even remarks that natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward. Solar flares also contribute to the earth's temperature. The argument is kind of like saying, "My lifestyle does not cause me to be fat-it's my genetic predisposition. There's no point in exercising or eating healthily doing so would not in and of itself lead me to be skinny." Just because there are other factors (which are uncontrollable by us), does not mean that we shouldn't work on the controllable factors. It is interesting to note that in 2005 (the hottest year on record) the solar flares were at their lowest levels in 30 years.
The second defense is that the earth goes in cycles. We do go in cycles, but the recent trend is not natural. Even if the hockey stick graph is not conclusive, all major models project that the earth will continue to heat up for years to come.
There are other critiques and defenses to the global warming hypothesis, and I will address them in the comment section. But why do I bring up global warming on my blog? Recognition is the first step. My motive was not necessarily to inspire a decrease in greenhouse gas consumption (although if that were to happen, I would definitely be happy. I myself try to conserve energy when I can by recycling, driving fuel-efficiently, and conserving energy. The more people that go green the better!) Mostly I wanted to first establish a fact that sadly has not been established yet. Our planet needs us to look after it better. I want to go back to Alaska and see all the glaciers that I remember seeing as a boy. My hope is for each of us to be honest when talking about climate change. Instead of saying, “There isn't enough evidence that humans are contributing to global warming,” say “I don't care about the environment” or “I care more about making money than preserving something for future generations.”
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
To the financially weary, I salute you
I used to think I was an economic conservative. It was easy and logical to think that the world justly rewards according to one's own work. I used to view the poor as somehow deserving of their condition either by not working hard enough, or by poor decisions that should not be rewarded. I don't feel that way anymore. You hear stories of people who got that one lucky break or that chance to shine. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy. But for every success story, there are many more stories of good-intentioned, honest, hard-working people who fail. A lot of times, it is nothing more than the luck of the draw - Luck of skillsets, health, interests, upbringing, education, and networks. And what bugs me the most is corporations like banks, credit card companies, and insurance companies acting as the bully by taking advantage of these disadvantaged folk. To fight these big corporations and to get out of poverty, you need certain things like education, skills, good health and connections. But each of these costs valuable resources. Without any access to these resources, the poor remain entrenched in their dilapidated state. Maybe it's possible to rise out of the poverty cycle, but so many simply do not. I realize my generalizations may be a wee overly broad, but what I write of happens far too often to go unnoticed. Am I advocating socialism? Absolutely not. I just see the injustice of our society and I wish it could be better somehow. If I ever get rich, which is actually one of my biggest goals in life, I will not forget where I came from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
