Scientific Support for Global Climate Shift

I've read time and again conservative yokels saying that many scientists claim up and down a pole how GCS doesn't exist, it's a hoax, etc. I honestly do not know from where these statistics crop up, but I decided to do a little research myself, and I found the following:


A panel entitled the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that it is very likely that humans have caused and expounded upon global climate shift trends (very likely being 90% agreement). Now, you may say, who is this suspicious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? They sound like a bunch of leftist partisan hacks!
Well, not so fast. It is actually an internationally funded and supported group created from organizations within the United Nations: the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme; neither of which are based out of the United States, and both of which contain a charter which is riddled with some of the most prominent names in Meteorological sciences and, more broadly, environmental sciences.
Now, if you do a little research you will see that the IPCC doesn't do any of its own research, and you may say "AHA! See! Just a bunch of speculation!!"
Well, that's not so true. They put out reports speculating on the possibility of human influence on Climate Shift, based off of scientific reports from all around the world (inside and outside of partisan lines).

A brief synopsis of their 4th report, which was released last year, states as follows (just a few bullet points, the report can be read in full; I will post a few links after this)

# Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
# Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

# Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).

# The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.


Now, again, you're saying they're cherry-picking research, and not doing it comprehensively. Well, IPCC just so happens to list their contributors, who number over 250 (contributors means scientific researchers, teams of scientists, and individual institutions); and their nationalities are very diverse, ranging from America to Zimbabwe; each one of the scientist and/or team of scientists being very prominent in their own countries and their own rights.

So, I guess the scientists you are listening to aren't necessarily the scientists to whom you should listen. The Bush administration has been caught pressuring scientists to disavow Global Warming. Now even the people who didn't acknowledge global climate change for many years (much like how the catholic church bashed and subsequently punished those who believed the sun was the center of our solar system, and not the earth [and then didn't apologize for their actions for 400 years]) have actually recanted their original position; back-striding to say, essentially "We fucked up, here, we should fix this."

To so as imply that there are a lot of scientist that don't believe climate shift is possible is just as stupid as saying the Earth is flat, or the sun revolves around Earth. Sure, there are scientists who are the dissident population, but they do not represent a majority, or even a spatial culmination of "a lot." Maybe, a lot means in relation to the size of their IQs, or possibly a lot in relation to the amount of african-americans in the commonwealth of Wasilla (At last census count, 7). But a lot doesn't constitute 8 in a population of 10,000+.

I honestly hope you got something from this, but you probably didn't.

Anyway, here are some sources you all can cite if you want (by the way, this response took me some time, so I'm not this environment nut, or somebody who was able to rattle these stats off the top of his head... just a few long-winded google-searches).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report:_Climate_Change_2007
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/index_en.html
http://www.unep.org/
Contributors to the IPCC Report:
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/final_pdfs_ar4/Annex-III.pdf
Actual Report:
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus


That should get you started...

The Wonderful World of Football

In the past few years I have been expressing an increasing affinity for World Football. I gravitated towards AC Milan and Barcelona, as I've always enjoyed the beautiful countries of Spain. Now, how I came to make my decision on the teams I wish to love (Milan and Barca) is too long of a story, but suffice it to say, lots and lots of history was read, lots and lots of games were watched, and lots and lots of reports, trades, administrative files were paged through. It would take a fortnight for me to fully detail exactly how I came to my decision.

Now that I have expressed how I feel about World Football, I should mention that there are a few things about it that I do not particularly enjoy. One of these is the rating system used world wide to rank teams.

My first bitch about this rating system (called AQB Sports Rating) is that the system doesn't take several facets of the game into account; in effect determining the strength of a team by whether or not it wins by big margins. The system neglects the relative strength of the team over time, as well as the relative strength of the league over time. For example, a win of a single powerhouse team in a smaller country's league (say Portugal) over a smaller team known to get beat by 3+ --and, true to form, the powerhouse wins by 5-- clearly outweighs the system. Another facet that is gleefully left out is the main goal scorer and the position that said goal scorer plays. If a team has 1 forward that averages 3 goals a game, and the defense can barely hold off 2, the team isn't strong; yet by the AQB rating system, this team is considered extremely strong.

With this in mind, I chose to devise a new system. I have this new system detailed to its fullest as of now, but it has yet to be proven on determining strengths and weaknesses of teams (as well as certain variables I need to tweak). I will post the Ranking Method --which I have yet to name-- and how to determine each variables as soon as I perfect it. For tonight, it remains unproven, but when I ran some preliminary tests (a terrible team's stats, a mediocre team's stats, and a powerhouse team's stats) I came up with very promising numbers, allowing me to determine which team does well, and which doesn't.

The goal this season is to tweak the numbers a bit and to perfect the system whilst also testing it out.

The Robin Hood Complex

The Robin Hood Complex

A Brief Study by Dr. Hugh B. Russ

In the introduction –or rather, the opening synopsis of a compendium of essays to follow—to Peter Singer’s “Writings on an Ethical Life,” Singer made mention of a problem that caused a bit of tumult in my own mind. Such is the case generally with a renowned philosopher—whether he is of Singer’s storied status or not—however, there is a bit of a difference, here. Singer makes an offhand, but still important, remark about the ethics of “taking” (The reasons I choose not to use “stealing” are several-fold, and shall be addressed in a letter to follow) from the economic-despots in order to benefit the super destitute. His comment was (in addressing a conjecture of Ryle’s in the essay “On Forgetting the Difference between Right and Wrong”):

“It is when, say, honesty clashes with charity (If a wealthy man overpays me, should I tell him or give the money to famine relief?) that there is no need for thought and argument.” (“Moral Experts,” Writings on an Ethical Life, Singer, 4). (emphasis added by me, not Singer)

The underlying issue here is the motive of stealing to benefit a just cause, but is disregarded as not needing “thought [or] argument.” The problem transcends casually throwing this idea aside, however. This idea encompasses what I call “The Robin Hood Complex,” as it has been generally accepted that stealing from the dastardly rich in order to benefit the lowly and humble poor is widely okay, and in many cases encouraged.

However, there are several issues at stake that cannot be addressed by a flip of one’s hand and an informally segueing into another paragraph (as Singer had done).

1. The first and foremost issue is that of stealing, or taking that of which is not yours. Although the wealthy man overpaid, the rightful bill was of less monetary value. A common misnomer for this is “highway robbery,” where ratcheted-up gas prices in Rachel, Nevada (for example) benefit not those of the town, nor those passing through, but rather line the pockets of those making it convenient enough for the folks in that area to acquire gasoline faster (sacrificing price for convenience and availability). The differing factor between gas prices and a wealthy man overpaying is that the ballooned expense for fuel in that little town is a conscious overcharge, while the wealthy man overpaying is a half-minded oversight. Yet, the problem becomes cognizant to the cashier, seller, or whomever is receiving of the money, when he or she counts, and counts again the total paid. It becomes even more conscious when said person consciously decides not to warn the wealthy man of his mistake, but rather keeps it in his pocket as he will use this overcharged sum to benefit those in need (for whom famine relief is working). In this gray area, the differences of a conscious mistake with a conscious rip-off become one in the same. By not warning the man of his oversight, the receiver of the money has consciously stolen this money from another man –why would the problem be looked at differently if the man who overpaid wasn’t wealthy at all, but rather bordering on poor? It reasons to say that anybody close enough to the poverty line would (should) be intelligent enough to count every penny before paying a requested price, but the possibility of this occurrence remains the same: the man overpays, regardless of his economic status, and in keeping the extra-sum of the money, one is consciously stealing, regardless of his intentions with the money later on. Stealing, no matter in this way or from an elderly lady’s purse, is the same crime –taking that which is not yours. No thievery is justifiable in this manner.

2. The second issue concerns how the wealthy man was able to accrue his wealth. What is generally assumed with all wealthy individuals is they gain riches through a tidal wave of immoral and unethical means. In some cases, this may be true, but without a comprehensive guide to their spending and profiting history (tax forms, et al.), one cannot make the decision, or egregious assumption, that the man’s wealth was quantified in this way. Here is specifically where the Robin Hood complex comes into play. In the times of Robin Hood (topically, the specific area of Europe and the times that he lived within: medieval era), the super rich were also the rulers of countries which had gained their wealth typically through family inheritance. In the medieval times, kings –the super wealthy—ruled under what is known as a feudal system, that is, a division of incredible wealth (the king and his immediate family) with the super poor (the rest of the country; known as ‘serfs’). This is specifically why the ethics and morality of Robin Hood were completely justifiable in his times –and we consider it a harrowing tale of incredible charity and selflessness. The riches gained in those times were rightfully those of the working class –that is, the serfs. The serfs were glorified slaves who worked in order to survive, while the natural resources of the land were pilfered by the king and sold off to bordering nations and considered “trade;” the working class actually worked for their pay, while the Monarchy stole the fruits of their labors for the profit of their own (do not mistake me, although the King and Queen took terrible care of their subjects, they still kept them in living condition. At very least some –although not nearly a fair amount—of what the serfs had worked for had been reinvested in them to some degree). Robin Hood took what was rightfully that of the people from the wealthy who had effectively stolen it from those that worked for it, and reallocated it to his people. Robin Hood was not, in this sense, stealing from anybody; he was recovering what was stolen from those that rightfully deserved it. This complex issue strays now toward the wording of the tale told, which goes beyond the scope of this essay. The main point one must remember is that Robin Hood was not stealing (as we have cleared above, no single act of stealing is justifiable).

3. The final issue that I wish to cover (but isn’t the overall cresting issue of the Robin Hood complex) is that of donating to charity. Charity, as we all know, does amazing things to benefit society, and they do this under a non-profit moniker. Because of this non-profit moniker, they require 3^rd party donations in order to allocate help where it is needed; however, with the wheat comes the chaff. There have been numerous charities created in order not to help people, but rather to benefit the charity’s board. The list is comprised of such people as those that steal from the charity’s fund (a crime), those that use a charity only for a tax write-off (in America), those that use a charity to prove themselves as some sort of giving saint, or those that wishes to combine one with the other (or all three). It is never safe to assume that when donating to a charity one can know for certain exactly where their money is allocated. A charity holds the right to send the money donated to anywhere the board of directors sees fit, whether that be to cyclone, flood, famine, fire, earthquake, hurricane, monsoon, tornado, volcano relief; or to a political campaign. In this sense, one can never be too sure exactly if donating his or her hard earned wages will benefit those that honestly need it, let alone those profits wrongfully gained by stealing.

To reiterate:

1. Stealing is not a justifiable act, no matter from whom the money is stolen.
2. Judging a wealthy person as evil because of his wealth –in order to justify an act of stealing—is not a fair judgment, nor is hiding behind a tale of different times.
3. Donating to a charity, no matter whose funds one is utilizing, does not guarantee that said funds will benefit those in need.

Now, I am not going to say never donate to any charity, as you cannot ensure where your funds go. People give up their money on the insurance that they are helping people (and often because they get a warm, fuzzy feeling that they made somebody else’s life better), however, the problem here is different. The money was taken FROM the wealthy specifically to be given TO the poor. In order for this to be a solid transaction, one needs 100% assurance and compliance that the money will be given to those that can use it. However, assumption cannot guarantee assurance (in fact, they are nearly polar opposites), and when the typical person donates to a charity, they just assume (while they get their tax-write-off receipt) that their money will help those advertised.

The only logical and ethical thing to do is to tell the wealthy man he overpaid, and give him his correct change; otherwise, the act is stealing.