kate said

Not only am I moving out of my apartment, I'll also now be blogging over at unsolicitedopinion.wordpress.com.

See y'all there.

Eddie performs show for dude in hospital, because he is the best.

A friend emailed me this HuffPo article Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted by Harold Ambler, which I could not wait until morning to refute. Or rather, find the scientific refutations and quote them.

In point form:

- It’s all a big lie: Actually, the science is in. “Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators.” (grist.org has a list of indicators with links to observational data), not just in the conclusions from the IPCC (I’ll get to the challenge on the methodology in a minute), and ALL the international organizations that support their findings.

In a review of studies published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change, none were found to dispute its validity. ”The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” as reported in Science Magazine, 2004.

- Semantics of the term ‘Climate Change’ and the ‘Mann Hockey-Stick’ controversy: Yes, the climate is always a-chagin’. But. (from grist.org)

"Noting that something happened before without humans does not demonstrate that humans are not causing it today.
For example, we see in ice core records from Antarctica and Greenland that the world cycled in and out of glacial periods over 120Kyr cycles. That climate cycle's timing is fairly well understood to be caused by changes in the orbit of the earth, though the mechanism behind the response has not been conclusively established. These orbital cycles are regular and predictable and they are definitely not the cause of today's warming. The other important difference between the glacial-interglacial cycles and today is the rapidity of the current change. The rate of warming is on the order of 10 times faster today than in the ice cores.
Such rapid warming on a global scale is quite rare in the geological record, and while it may not be entirely unprecedented, there is strong evidence that whenever such a change has happened, whatever the cause, it was a catastrophic event for the biosphere".

And the hockey stick thing – (read about the controversy in depth here), but what you need to know is “there are dozens of other temperature reconstructions. They tend to show more variability than the original hockey stick (their sticks are not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years, and the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period.” (from link cited above, 2006).

- CO2 follows temperature, rather than leads: I recommend this article from realclimate.org (2007) for the full scientific explanation, but basically, CO2 acts as an amplifier once a warming event has taken place, exaggerating the effect and producing a feedback loop. "The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback."

- Water Vapour makes a way bigger difference: “Atmospheric levels of water vapor, (...) cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.” from the Environmental Defense Fund

- The Counter-theories – Svensmark, the Maunder Minimum, and sun spots: Svensmark’s experiment suggested that cosmic rays play a big part in cloud cover, and therefore daily weather and temperature trends. But “to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn't been” (which is just the last of a few complaints on the conclusion that Svensmark draws, itemized here - realclimate.org, 2006). You can read more about the problem with the ‘sun spot’ theory here.

- Climate is complicated: Yeah, it is, but it’s not the same as predicting the weather. Several models (even from days of yore) have been, over time, proven correct, the point being that modeling is possible and valid though, obviously, like all science (on anything), always imperfect. That doesn’t mean the general idea and observations (on so many, many fronts) are wrong, it just means they aren’t perfectly exact.

- Stop worrying about the Arctic, it melts and re-grows all the time: Yes, but what we have now is an ongoing loss (see this graph from the National Snow and Ice Data Center), moreover, glacier patterns aren’t proof of global warming, but it “is just one piece of evidence that is consistent with global warming.” grist.org, 2006.

Sure, it feels better to say that it's a natural trend and technology will take care of us and I really like my car, and any scientifically minded person will freely acknowledge that they might be wrong. But if they're not, who wants to be the guy who screwed over everyone's grandkids because he just couldn't take the bus? (or vote for government officials who would use tax dollars to increase funding to green programmes, or support green businesses, or recycle, or or or).

Fun additional reading – debunking Wired’s weird ‘green’ science from last summer (wherein readers were told that AC took less energy that heat, endangered species were bad, and they need not be ashamed of their SUV - conclusions largely attributable to bad math, bad methodology, and, well, egotism). I was quite disappointed with them, I usually enjoy the mag. It was such a shock to see that issue.

images from www.middlebury.edu, columbia.edu, www.ehponline.org,

from girldetective

1. What did you do in 2008 that you'd never done before?
Went to New Zealand. Had jobs in my field.

2. Did you keep your New Years' resolutions and will you make more for next year?
I don’t remember. I have a vague idea of trying to be more optimistic, and to do something creative.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
My best friend Rachel is pregnant.

4. Did anyone close to you die?
No

5. What countries did you visit?
The US (California, North Carolina, Virginia), and New Zealand.

6. What would you like to have in 2009 that you lacked in 2008?
More courage and inspiration.

7. What date from 2008 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?
There isn’t one.

8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
Being fired from the Women’s Post for publishing a ‘negative’ review.

9. What was your biggest failure?
Being fired from another job for no rational reason.

10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
Nope.

11. What was the best thing you bought?
Tickets to California to see Rachel, and the trip to NZ.

12. Whose behavior merited celebration?
Elizabeth May

13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed?
Stephen Harper. People who voted for Prop 8.

14. Where did most of your money go?
Airplane tickets.

15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
Traveling. My career-related jobs.

16. What song will always remind you of 2008?
MIA’s Paper Planes

17. Compared to this time last year, are you:
i) Happier or sadder? Hmm, I’m melancholy at the moment, but I don’t think it’ll last.
ii) Thinner or fatter? Thinner, by about 10lbs, thanks to biking everywhere in the spring and summer.
iii) Richer or poorer? Richer. I’m hoarding cash to move to the UK (which I will have to dip into now, as I’m unemployed).

18. What do you wish you'd done more of?
Writing. Doing creative stuff.

19. What do you wish you'd done less of?
Worrying.

20. How did you spend Christmas?
With my family in NC, visiting my friends Katie and Inez, eating a lot of bread, cheese, cookies and chocolate.

21. Did you fall in love in 2008?
Already was.

23. How many one-night stands?
None. Obviously.

24. What was your favourite TV program?
Mad Men. And Dancing with the Stars.

25. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?
No.

26. What was the best book you read?
Disgrace by Coetzee

27. What was your greatest musical discovery?
This guy - Ukelele + Beatles = Awesome.

28. What did you want and get?
A trip to Stratford for my birthday. Jobs related to my career. A visit with Rachel, a visit from Inez, and, I think I’ve mentioned, my trip to NZ.

29. What did you want and not get?
To move to the UK.

30. What was your favorite film of this year?
Man on Wire, There Will Be Blood.

31. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
I went to Stratford and saw Trojan Women and Taming of the Shrew for my 28th bday.

32. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?
An ever-flowing river of cash to support my travel addiction.

33. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2008?
“This is comfortable” and “I can walk in these”.

34. What kept you sane?
Brain chemistry.

35. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
Famous people don’t really do it for me.

36. What political issue stirred you the most?
War. Everywhere.

37. Who did you miss?
My friends in the U.S. who I hardly ever get to see.

38. Who was the best new person you met?
My coworkers at Next Film.

39. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2008:
It is surprisingly restorative to spend an evening knitting with a bunch of lady-friends.

40. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year:
“I’m leaving on a jet plane/ don’t know when I’ll be back again”

The BBC's David Willey reports that a priest in Rome told the kids that Father Christmas (and Befana, the New Year's present-bringing fairy) are make-believe.

"I told the children that Father Christmas was an invention that had nothing to do with the Christian Christmas story," he said. (...) The priest said he had never intended to hurt anyone, but it was his duty to distinguish the reality of Jesus from the story of Father Christmas which was a fable just like Cinderella or Snow White.

My favourite part of that is "the reality of Jesus". Naturally, this concern for the truth failed to extend to admitting that the Christian Christmas story is also a fable just like Cinderella or Snow White. Or is the truth not as important as "The Truth"?

Besides, St. Nicholas is a Christian saint. He got lumped in with the mythology that the Church foisted onto the winter solstice festivals as the holiday evolved.

You'd think that the men of the Church would be all for this practice in magical thinking - all faith would collapse without it. If you start telling the kids that it's not possible for a fairy or a Saint to deliver a bunch of goodies in the middle of the night once a year, why in the world would they think it possible for some entity to create the universe and everything in it in a week? For the entire global population to have sprung from two people (hello incest) over the course of 5000 years?

Oh, the church. Always finding new ways to spread the joy of the season.

In the Quill and Quire:

The White Space Between and The Tristan Chord

image from http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20041224_merry_christmas.htm

I have forgotten how to shop. Living on a tight budget for a few years has made spending money on anything other than food and the occasional book/movie/play terrifying. Wandering through a crowded mall on a Saturday looking for shoes or pants or whatever I happen to need becomes an angst-ridden nightmare where the bag-clutching masses text rather than speak to the friends with whom they are shopping, ignoring the techno or muzak (depending on the shop) which must be aiming to inspire spending rather than fleeing (which is what I usually find myself doing).

All of this is made exponentially more traumatizing during the holiday season (the entire merit of which is lambasted by Christopher Hitchens at slate.com), where it is virtually impossible to justify the purchase of whatever gifts one feels obligated to purchase to show love and appreciation that might otherwise go unspoken (or un-demostrated-via-materialist-means), and where, chances are, one will overspend or forever be burdened with guilt, chastising oneself as a miser.

I do like giving my friends and family gifts, but the pressure, particularly when one has no 'perfect' gift in mind, is extreme. And so, like many mildly agoraphobic people, I turn to the internet for cheap shopping, and ideas, and am promptly met by a wall of age and gender stereotyping.

Many shopping sites have "suggestions" for those, like myself, who are out of ideas (I can always think of a book or three, but they have a nasty habit of going out of print). And to help with navigation, the lists are organized by sex, relationship (mom/dad/girlfriend/etc), like on amazon.com, or star sign - (what cancerian wouldn't want family tree software?) still divided by sex, by the way (apparently male cancers prefer barbecues to lingerie).

Judging from amazon's lists, your boyfriend/husband probably likes music, video games, sports, power tools, and titanium jewelry. Yes, specifically titanium. Your girlfriend, on the other hand, likes lingerie, bracelets, handbags, chick lit, chick flicks (both of which I would normally put in quotation marks, because I don't consider 'chick' a genre), and decorative boxes.

Moms appear to be interested in cooking, gardening, and wearing pajama sets while enjoying a foot massager. Dads have more intellectual pursuits, like documentaries, history, exotic meat and game, and prefer back massagers.

Siblings, friends, and coworkers are nowhere to be found - perhaps amazon assumes that people will check the closest appropriate age/gender category and go from there.

This kind of stereotyping is obviously blatantly sexist. Men cook, women watch documentaries, either partner in a relationship might be interested in power tools, but while amazon recommendations software uses your specific purchasing history (and that of the rest of its clients - probably with a heavy dose of publisher-generated, and paid for, genre-association - Oprah counts as a genre) to make suggestions based on what you, individually, actually like, the gift lists resort to very basic gender stereotyping - a logic that assumes the stereotype is a "safe assumption", and that more people fit in those broad categories than not.

I'd love to see a site that sells as much variety of product as amazon make truly helpful, individualized recommendations - have a form where I can enter magazine titles, book titles, dvds, electronic items, etc - and make me a list based on that. Don't give me some advertiser-generated short list of 'moms do chores! men like meat!' dimension.

At least in the mall a barbecue is just a barbecue, surrounded by other large cooking implements and outdoorsy furniture. Of course, it's probably also surrounded by the endless chorus of "Last Christmas, I gave you my heart/The very next day, you gave it away".

1. Answer each of the questions below using the Flickr Search engine.

2. Choose a photo from the first three pages.
3. Copy the URL of your favorite photo into this site: http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/mosaic.php
.
4. Share!

The questions:
my name / favorite food / hometown
favorite color / celebrity crush / favorite drink
dream vacation / favorite dessert / what I most want to be when I grow up
what I love most in the world / one word that describes me / my username

As I imagined last night, the headline of the New York Times if Obama won. (link to the image, I can't upload a screen capture).

Even if Obama doesn't achieve half of the change people are pining for, the election marks a major shift in the American mindset. They care again. Not all of them, granted, but depending on who you ask, it's either the best percentage turnout since the 1960s or 1908, with a higher representation of non- "white male" voters.

So hey, dig on that representative democracy. Though I still think the Electoral College needs rethinking. Kinda like that 'first past the post' system we have.

It makes our election here, despite some fantastic debates, look rather pathetic. I'm hoping Obama's election will mark a sea change, not just in American politics, but in global politics. The country is still hanging on to superpower status, by its fingernails, so events in the US influence and can conceivably inspire people elsewhere.

Maybe idealism can make a comeback.

"Kudos to Governor Palin for standing up to dermatologists"


Palin installed a tanning bed in the governor's mansion in Alaska.

Her decision is defended by the Indoor Tanning Association.

Yes, the manufacturers of tanning beds are leaping to defend a VP nominee.

The fact that she hasn't been laughed off the ballot makes me very afraid for my friends to the south.

I honestly thought McCain on the ticket would translate into a win-win scenario, at long last, for the US.

Alas, extremists are apparently a vocal and mobile voting bloc. Or conservative Americans choose to be painfully ill-informed and ostrich-like in their politics.

Either way, troubling.

(p.s. the livejournal spell-check suggests "Plain" for "Palin")