Seismic Airgun Blasting Permits – Oh No!

A press release from Oceana signals problem of seismic airgun blasting while praising President Obama’s slick use of an existing act to protect millions of acres offshore from mineral extraction.

Good News, and as Usual, some Bad

There’s always another environmental insult to be found in fossil fuel industry practices. I never heard of this sound-bombing until today. More damage to sea creatures in order to get carbon out of the Earth and into the air. Absolutely sickening.

We might be able to stop it. See press release (above).

Michael Mann Gets Chance to Continue Defamation Case! – Will Go to Jury!

A partial victory! An appeals court gave a go-ahead to climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation case against his poisonous critics—it will go to trial by jury. The defendants are the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Steyn writing for the National Review.

Check out: Appeals Court Favors Mann

Speaking of the National Review, I picked up a copy while in the library yesterday in the interest of listening  to The Other Side (i.e., the not-so- parallel universe where pompous conservatives ply their lofty intellectual trade.).

Believe me, I tried to read with an open mind—I really did.  But I didn’t get very far.  I think what most got to me was the smug, dismissive tone (in two different articles and an editorial)—the casting of liberals as near-hysterical alarmists who every day go into a panic about a new patch of the Sky Falling.

Do we liberals do that (I mean, do we belittle the opposition with such self-satisfaction, not that we go into panics)? Maybe I do, although I like to think I try to address those folks on a level playing field. Being sarcastic, sure, but without sounding like I view them as rodents scuttling about in the basement. For example, I don’t speak of climate change deniers as ignoramuses. Is my reference to a parallel universe an unfair, belittling metaphor?

Something to think about when supposing oneself objective.

 

 

Digital Roadkill: Beyond Online Bullying

Harassment, threats, bad-mouthing, exposure of private matters, and other forms of bullying are rife on the internet. You can get your tragic fill of stories of suicides from bullying here: six deadly cases.

Cyberbullying is a scourge that seems to have no cure, as long as free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Measures have been taken by Facebook and Twitter to minimize abuse—as private enterprises, they are not bound by the same rules as governments—yet there’s no way to stamp it out entirely.

So? We’ve always had bullying. Although bullying in general may be on the rise, what’s so special about online bullying?

There are three characteristics that make online bullying especially pernicious:  (1) the cloak of anonymity available to abusers; (2) the immediacy with which information (or lies) can be broadcast to the world; (3) the size of the audience—potentially, everyone on the planet with a computer or cell phone, except for censored networks such as in China and North Korea.

OK, so much is obvious—but these factors are synergistic: they amplify each other. What’s more, they set an example that encourages any troll who may once have been reluctant, to try their own hand. Even without anonymity, on account of speed, size of audience, and imitation, online abuse can quickly metastasize into a psychological, if not physical, atrocity. Young people can be scarred for life, and even many adults—such as the women who are deleting their blogs following deluges of hate—will never be able to ban these cruelties from their heads.

Most of the targets of this abuse are women, the perpetrators men. If this sounds like things going on in the “real” world, then we have to see the Internet acting as an extension of misogyny and hate.  We are like civilians living in a digital war zone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37%!?! The Trumputin Effect, Tribalism, and Strongmen

A recent poll by The Economist and YouGov found that 37% of Republicans  have a “favorable view” of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (It’s 10% of Democrats also!; I don’t know who these Democrats are and I don’t want to know.)

That’s a “favorable view” of someone who is responsible for the deaths of Syrian civilians in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. That’s in addition to  thousands of casualties resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, plus the bloody invasion of Georgia in 2008, not to mention cyberwarfare against Baltic states, and, within Russia itself, continuing violent repression of critical investigative media and opposition voices in general.  In other words, a “favorable view” of someone for whom there’s a compelling case to charge as a war criminal several times over.

Oh, and we might mention that he lies about absolutely everything that sheds a bad light on Russia (last I heard he was still denying that Russian troops had entered eastern Ukraine, except to protect Ukrainian rebels. Why does this sound like Saturday Night Live?). 

Continue reading “37%!?! The Trumputin Effect, Tribalism, and Strongmen”

Fake News Ain’t the Half of It

“Fake News” is getting a lot of heat these days from some of us who actually believe that truth is better than untruth—those of us who are being forcibly dragged into the “post-truth” era.

As if “post-truth” were something new. Actually, we’ve been drifting into the post-truth fog for quite some time now.  In Virtual Unreality, Charles Seife (2014) chronicles the many ways in which the digital revolution and its star attraction, the Internet, have been masking, warping, and turning upside-down our perceptions of the world and even each other.  A pedestrian example is how easily one can manipulate one’s Facebook persona into one loosely based on, and more attractive than, the original—more good-looking, more cool, more talented, more sociable, more with it.  As the joke goes, “on the Internet no one knows you’re a dog,” and no one knows whether what you’re feeding them is bullshit.

Continue reading “Fake News Ain’t the Half of It”

Environmental Wrecking Ball to Head EPA, Continue War on Science – Why??

It seems that every sentient being on the planet has felt obliged to weigh in on the U.S. Presidential election and what it spat out: Donald Trump. I have kept quiet on this matter on this blog up to now, because (1) I’m “partisan,” so what is my biased opinion worth? (2) every insightful thing that can be said has already been said by others.

But Donald Trump’s nominating Scott Pruitt to head the EPA is a call to arms.  If you don’t know the scope of the damage Pruitt can do, check out this in The Guardian: Pruitt Nomination Implications

Most of what you need to know about the policy issues can be gleaned from The Guardian piece and elsewhere on the Web. But there’s a more sweeping issue represented by the nomination of a climate “skeptic” (in actuality, a denier) to this critical post. That of course is the War on Science. From whence does it spring?

Continue reading “Environmental Wrecking Ball to Head EPA, Continue War on Science – Why??”

Will They Be Coming for Us?

It’s not the robots who are coming for our jobs, our society, or our planet. It’s the people who design them. To make trouble, those people don’t have to be evil. The problem is that, even if their intentions are benign, they are obeying the technological imperative: if it can be done, it will be done.  It will be done, and along the way unintended consequences are sure to arise.

Machines have no intrinsic motives. They don’t “care” in the way that we “care”— at least at the present stage of Artificial Intelligence. They care neither about us, nor themselves. Why should they?  They don’t desire; they don’t rejoice, they don’t make love, they don’t mourn, they don’t yearn for what they do not have.  They have no ambition to become masters of our corner of the universe. They are innocent. They don’t “want” to take our jobs. They don’t “want” anything.

Continue reading “Will They Be Coming for Us?”

Belmont Stakes, 1973

BELMONT STAKES, 1973

Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes,
Planet-shaking meteors, the preposterously intense
Furnaces of suns.
Things measurable:
Equations represent them.
600 million tons of hydrogen fused to helium
Every second in the depths of our sun
(Unremarkable among suns):
Numbers that numb a mind.
But what ignites a heart
Has no measure.

In 1970 (so we count our planet’s travels,
Cued to the affairs of men),
Was born a horse more than animal
Drawn to a hidden star
Impelled by forces
That threw even coldly calculating oddsmakers
Into speechlessness.

Needing a name,
As we use names to hang our dreams on,
Humans named this presence
Secretariat.
A prosaic tag
Slapped on the transcendent.
No matter: in the end
Any name for him would have gathered wonder,
As a mountain gathers storms.

Continue reading “Belmont Stakes, 1973”

A Little Learning. . . Climate Change Denial and Crank Science

Yesterday, I heard repeated for the umpteenth time the fact that, on average, Climate Change deniers know more science than believers. (I haven’t seen the polls, but this news came on NPR so I’m inclined to believe it.)

It’s really not so surprising. The history of science is littered with wacky contrarian claims—such as, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is wrong. (Let’s be clear: modifications of Einstein’s theory are in the works by many researchers, but the core of the theory is undisputed by the vast majority of physicists.)  By and large these claims are made by people who are highly science-literate, but who grasp at straws of evidence that are either misleading, misinterpreted, or outright bogus. Their partial knowledge seduces them to believe in their competence to chop away at the basic foundations of modern science.  For variations on the attack on General Relativity, see http://www.crank.net/

Continue reading “A Little Learning. . . Climate Change Denial and Crank Science”

What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)

Here’s the bottom line of this post, for those who don’t want to wade into the weeds: major reliance on wind and solar electricity generation demands a lot of electrical energy storage—many times what is currently available. For reasons why, we look at “load following” in California in the summer of 2016.

California’s Energy Program

The state of California is pushing ahead rapidly to achieve a goal of 50% renewable electricity power production  by 2030.

This makes sense in California, since its terrain and climate are highly adaptable to both wind and solar generation.  In-state conventional hydroelectric—which in many places currently accounts for the largest fraction of renewable generation— is not included in California’s ambitious program. That also makes good sense, since worsening and recurring droughts make hydroelectric an iffy proposition in the state.

However, the 50% goal will only make sense with abundant energy storage capacity, little of which is currently available. The reason is the intermittency of wind and solar. Solar, obviously, does not generate power at night, and not much in cloudy conditions, and wind power depends on weather.

Continue reading “What “Load Following” Means for Renewable Energy in California (hint: it means storage)”