THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE

THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE
Here is how I am structuring my views.

1. Is global warming factually established?

Probably. The issue is whether the warming observed is outside the boundaries of what has been observed in the past in the unending cycle of climate shifts.
World temperatures do change. Saskatchewan was once tropical, then a glacier, and now it is just dry.
I have been suspicious of the science since the main researchers have not released their underlying data to enable replication. Replication is essential in science.
The recent hack of e-mails from East Anglia University reveals that some of the researchers would consider deleting data rather than releasing it. That scientist even have that thought flit through their mind is deeply disturbing.
see http://eastangliaemails.com/.
An excellent article in The Economist of March 20 2010, with its clear description of the theory and the measurement has now convinced me that measurable climate warming is occurring. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719298

2. If it is, is it caused by human activity?

I can believe that human activity has some impact on climate. I can even believe that the belching of cows also has some impact. What I cannot believe is that the farts of dinosaurs caused the glaciers of Saskatchewan to melt. So what did? That remains an open question but both theory and measurement establish that increases in carbon dioxide produce warming and a major source of carbon dioxide is human activity.

3. If it is, what are the upside and downside consequences?

I have not seen any analysis as to whether the displacement of coastal inhabitants and coastal land loss is balanced by increased inhabitable and arable land in the northern hemisphere.

4. If the net is downside what options are available and what is the cost?

It seems all options have a high cost. So decisions should be based on a cost/benefit analysis. See:
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1148 for the global warming consensus paper.
An executive summary can be downloaded to .pdf

5. Relative to the net downside costs where does this problem rank in the realm of world problems?

This is the bottom line.

I found the Monk debate which was aired on CBC Ideas useful to my thinking.
"Be it resolved that climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response."

George Monbiot and Elizabeth May for the pro side and Bjørn Lomborg and Lord Nigel Lawson for the contrary.
http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/
The discussion forum following is also useful,

A 16 minute video lecture by Bjorn Lomborg can be seen at:
http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
The video is short, clear, and places attempts to deal with climate change, while worthwhile, near the bottom of a clear list of problems to be dealt with.
This too is based on the conclusion of the researchers who participated in the Copenhagen Consensus.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1143 for
The ten challenges examined in Copenhagen Consensus 2008

My conclusion is that reasonably cost effective steps should be taken to reduce global warming but that such efforts should not detract from the more pressing global problems.


Here is the ranking of global problems from the Copenhagen Consensus.
1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) Malnutrition
2 The Doha development agenda Trade
3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) Malnutrition
4 Expanded immunization coverage for children Diseases
5 Biofortification Malnutrition
6 Deworming and other nutrition programs at school Malnutrition and Education
7 Lowering the price of schooling Education
8 Increase and improve girl's schooling Women
9 Community-based nutrition promotion Malnutrition
10 Provide support for women's reproductive role Women
11 Heart attack acute management Diseases
12 Malaria prevention and treatment Diseases
13 Tuberculosis case finding and treatment Diseases
14 R&D in low-carbon energy technologies Global Warming
15 Bio-sand filters for household water treatment Water
[SOURCE:http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Projects/Copenhagen%20Consensus%202008/Outcome.aspx]
Image: http://www.arctic-warming.com/poze/pozaBb.jpg

AFGHANISTAN IS SUNK COSTS

An earlier blog SUNK COSTS IN BUSINESS AND IN POLITICS [2010.02.16] dealt with the topic of sunk costs . Now, an editorial in The National Post of April 6 clearly reveals that the concept is not well understood even by well informed editorial writers. The key point of the editorial is in the following paragraph.

"While we still have doubts that Afghanistan will ever even partially achieve those goals, Ms. Clinton’s request is a reasonable one. Canadians have tired of war and have paid a heavy price in blood — 141 Canadian soldiers have been lost in that distant land. But certainly, having already come so far and sacrificed so much, Canada can continue to contribute in a demonstrable way to Afghanistan’s security". [Editorial "We can still contribute" . [National Post 2010.04.06
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/06/national-post-editorial-board-we-can-still-contribute-in-afghanistan.aspx ]

Put simply their analysis says.
1. Canada has "..come so far and sacrificed so much…"
2. There are anticipated future costs "Canada can continue to contribute in a demonstrable way to Afghanistan’s security"
3. Those future costs will not result in any benefit, "we still have doubts that Afghanistan will ever even partially achieve those goals."

Past deaths and past spending are sunk and are entirely irrelevant to the present decision. Point 1 is irrelevant.
We are where we are regardless of how we got there. Part of where we are is what has been learned, if anything.
If the prognosis is that we will not even partially achieve goals then further sacrifices of lives and resources is unwarranted.

The future costs [point 2] exceed the future benefits [point 3].

Logical decision. Quit while we are behind because we are never going to be ahead.

TAXATION: OF INCOME OR OF CONSUMPTION

I don't like taxes. I often feel strongly that my government is spending too much and unwisely. Yet there is a valid role for government and therefore for taxes to pay for that valid role. In our Province of British Columbia there is now a vigorous debate regarding the increasing use of a consumption or sales tax.

There are two broad targets of taxation. Tax income i.e. productivity, or tax consumption.

My view is that an income tax tends to inhibit productive activities. I can reduce my income tax by working less. From a broad social perspective this is unwise. An additional factor is that income taxation is an incredibly complex mechanism that absorbs an inordinate amount of time and resources.

A consumption tax tends to inhibit consumption. While much of consumption is on necessities, our modern society has drifted to consumption of non essentials. I can reduce my consumption tax by reducing my consumption and I will focus on the non essentials when doing so. The collection of consumption taxes is relatively straight forward when compared with the income tax.

Yes we must be concerned with those on very low income who can barely pay for necessities. This is best done by a generous social support network.

HOUSE FOR SALE 32502 BEST AVE MISSION BC

This is a marketing test of the extent to which blog posts are indexed by search engines such as google.
AND
I really do have a house for sale. One with spectacular 360 degree views over the Fraser Valley of British Columbia.

Full details click on:

http://picasaweb.google.ca/danatmission/4WAYVIEW4WAYPRIVACYMission02?authkey=Gv1sRgCNa32PCB7aSqEA#

Once on the site click on "slide show".

The exercise is also part of a test of how well the MLS Multiple Listing Service serves the buyers and sellers of homes. The MLS system is now being challenged by the Canadian Competition Bureau.

MY STANCE ON GAMBLING

MY STANCE ON GAMBLING

For years I have been ambivalent about gambling. My libertarian inclination is that individuals should be free to spend their money as they wish, even if I think it is foolishly. My humanitarian inclination is that society has some responsibility to inhibit dangerous or foolish acts.

Locally the provincial government is allowing, even encouraging, an expansion in casino gambling and is directly operating its own lottery system. Is there morality involved? If so, then where do I stand?

I do not believe it to be a moral issue. Gambling does not directly harm anyone.

Should gambling of all forms be free of all government restraint and regulation?
I think not.

Some politicians and social activists describe gambling, and in particular casino gambling as a "tax on the poor". I do not think that conveys an accurate view although a "tax on the foolish" is closer. If the poor gamble more than the rich it is because, in general, they are less educated. As for foolishness; is it more foolish to risk your money gambling or risk you life in dangerous adventures or sports?

I believe government should not be directly involved in gambling. It is an activity that warrants a degree of regulation. The conflict of interest is unacceptable if the government both operates and regulates.

So let gamblers gamble and the dens of such activity operate.

As for the regulatory role of government I do not advocate a laissez faire stance. There is a role for government and that is enforcing transparency and honesty in advertising. I give some specific examples.

Just as the government enforces uniform measures of weight, distance, and temperature; a proper role is to specify a uniform measures of gambling risk. I advocate the measure "expected value". Expected value is the average payoff from an identified game of chance.

Gambles on a fair coin have an expected value of 1. Betting $10 consistently over time would leave the gambler walking away with $10.

A gamble with odds of winning of 5 in 100 would have an expected value of .05. A bet of $100 at those odds done consistently over time would leave the gambler walking away with $5.

A fair government regulation would require that each game have a clear posting of expected value. A $5 slot machine would post, for example, "this $5 slot machine pays out expected value $3".

A casino may be required to have a large marquee posting the weighted average expected value of the various games weighted by the present level of play. "This casino has an expected value of $60 for each $100 spent".

It is also appropriate for the government to be involved in educational activities that benefit its citizens. Just as the government promotes knowledge of nutrition and health it can promote financial literacy.

If individuals knowingly walk into a casino to spend $100 and knowingly walk out with $60 on average they may still prefer the $40 net cost to attending 3 movies or any other $40 entertainment or excitement.

The next big question is whether the government should levy special taxes on gambling establishments. My view is that there should be a business tax designed to cover all costs of enforcing regulations and promoting financial and expected value literacy. The government should not profit directly from the profit of the gambling establishment beyond the normal income tax. To receive a direct cut of the action creates a conflict of interest.

LIFE, AFTER LIFE OR JUST LIFE

LIFE, AFTER LIFE OR JUST LIFE

Easter is here, and columnists often write about its significance. One such is
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/01/monsignor-frederick-m-dolan-betting-on-the-afterlife.aspx. He writes.

"That is the fundamental “Easter question” for Christians. Do they or do they not believe in life after death? It either does or does not exist. Both positions ultimately require an act of faith; after all, in this life it is impossible to “break on through to the other side,” to use the memorable phrase of The Doors’ Jim Morrison. Life and death come down to weighing our two options and hedging our bets, since it just might be true that death is only the entry point to an unending existence in the afterlife."

While he suggests this to be THE question for Christians I suggest that were it applicable it would be applicable to all. For me, the question he poses simply does not matter.

I suggest that a more fundamental question is whether or not how we live our lives here, has any bearing on what happens after death.

If it does, then best we know the rules of the game and exactly how our present life, beliefs, words, affirmations, or faith impacts on what happens after death. Is this a simple 2 possible outcome such as hell or heaven, or is there some gradation, and if so who does the judging of how we played the game of life and the portion of the rewards or punishments to be meted out.

If it does not, and our lives have no bearing on what happens after death, then best we learn to live a fulsome life. And for that, the ultimate responsibility rests with each individual to adopt a mode of life and being that does just that for them. If I do not assume the responsibility for this, then let me specify to whom have I abdicated the responsibility.

GUEST COMMENT FREE SPEECH

The March 25 blog "Free Speech and Politeness", in substantially the same content, was posted to the forum of the Simon Fraser University Retiree Association, of which I am a member. An early and thoughtful response was posted there and with the permission of the author it is copied below. It would normally appear as a comment to the original blog but blogspot comments are limited to 4,000 characters. The response follows and the format my be unusual as it was received by e-mail.

"Thanks for bringing Ozlem Sensoy's opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun to our
attention. I was a member of the Faculty of Education before I retired, so
I thought I would take up your invitation to comment on her opinion piece.

"First, her claim that Coulter's speech acts are not individual acts, but are
necessarily part of what Prof. Sensoy claims to be a "system of privilege"
places her argument into a framework that I cannot accept. Basically Prof.
Sensoy is saying that we do not act as individuals when we speak, but merely
as cogs in a system. In other words, it is irrelevant if I personally do
not use so-called hate language, for whenever I speak, because I am a white
female person of European ancestry, I necessarily am privileged and my talk
must always be viewed as the talk of a privileged class.

"Whenever someone claims that there are really no individuals, but only
members of classes, I can only assume that they have accepted a Marxist
philosophy.

"Prof. Sensoy also claims that the power relationships upon which these class
distinctions are based do not change--"these relationships do not flip back
and forth." From her perspective then, our society is in a state of
permanent stasis. Factually, this is obviously a false claim. Not only do
(a) people move from one social class to another, but also (b) social
classes change in their number and composition. Examples: (a) I happen to
have originated in a social class where nobody in my immediate or extended
family had ever graduated from high school. I not only graduated from high
school, but went on to university and even ended up with a Ph.D. Clearly I
belong to a different social class than my parents did. (b) Back in the
1970s when I did educational consulting with native people on the prairies,
only 4% completed high school. Today, over 60% of native people complete
high school and there is now also a significant percentage who acquire
university degrees. Clearly, what used to be an underclass of people who
could be defined by locale (rural) and ethnicity (native) have changed; a
significant percentage of native people are now members of a rural working
or middle class that did not exist before. So I think these kinds of
changes in Canada argue against accepting Prof. Sensoy's Marxist framework
of analysis.

"Second, moving away from Marxism to a consideration of language, Prof.
Sensoy's analysis of language is uninformed. Referring to the author (James
Frey) of an autobiography that was initially widely touted as wonderful and
then denounced as a pack of lies by the same reviewers, Prof. Sensoy asks,
why did the reviewers denounce the work as a lie, rather than saying nothing
and allowing it to exist as an exemplar of free speech. I can only say that
it is unfortunate that an SFU professor does not know the difference between
biography and fiction, between claiming something is historically factual
versus producing a novel. We ask the historian who labels a work
"autobiographical" to be true to the facts; the novelist creating a work of
art is under no such constraint. An historian is distinguished from a
novelist.

"Third, Prof. Sensoy points out that we live with various types of speech
limitations every day. She claims that one of these includes some people
forcing others to shut up--"You can't just say whatever the hell you want."

"I think Prof. Sensoy here is extending the elementary school classroom to
the entire country. While it is appropriate for a teacher in a classroom to
limit the speech of children--they should not swear at one another, call one
another names, etc.--the world outside the classroom contains people who
have grown up. Some grownups present arguments, produce satire, challenge
mundane thinking, challenge political correctness. In a democracy, there is
no Big Teacher supervising the dialogues of grownups. The closest analogue
in the past to Ann Coulter is the French satirist Voltaire--his wit was
sharp, piercing, acerbic, unpleasant, and made others uncomfortable. Today
Voltaire's work belongs to the canon of great French literature precisely
because of these characteristics that disturbed so many in his time.

"Should the university lecture hall be subject to the same constraints as the
elementary school classroom? Well, the university is no longer either in
law or in fact acting as a parent (no longer in loco parentis). >From our
students we can and should expect grownup behavior. That normally has meant
exhibiting what you, Dan, have called polite behavior. And you have provided
a range of choices as to what a grownup does. I think you've given us a
good list.

"Finally, Prof. Sensoy's justifications for preventing certain persons from
speaking to university students demonstrate a problem that has arisen in
educational circles. Political correctness has become an area of expertise
for a large group of academics in Faculties of Education. Certain groups
have been singled out as recipients of special, even reverent, treatment.
These academics are the specialists who tell us who we are to revere, and
how we are to revere these special groups. PUBLIC POLICY HAS BECOME THE
CAPTIVE OF THIS ACADEMIC ELITE. This elite now tells us who can speak in
public and who cannot speak. The students who carried sticks and threatened
violence at the University of Ottawa "embody the spirit of student activism"
and, according to Prof. Sensoy are to be thanked.

"This politically correct elite is allied with government. This elite get
grants to support their publications. This elite provides input to the
provincial educational system. This elite trains the teachers who serve in
the provincial educational system. This elite explicitly pushes their
particular notion of "social justice" in the provincial educational system.

"Now this elite wishes to silence anyone who wishes to present ideas that the
elite does not like. A few years ago, who would have thought that the
greatest danger to free speech and free thought in our society would be
housed in the university?

"Sincerely,
Gloria Sampson, Retired Prof., Faculty of Education"