Vaclav Klaus’ Washington CEI speech

May 29, 2008 — xanthippa

This President is one smart cookie!

Yesterday, he delivered a speech in Washington, in which he said:

“It is interesting that you came up with the name Josef Alois Schumpeter (to intentionally use the Czech pronunciation). I don’t expect all of you to know that this great economist was born in 1883 on the territory of my country – the Czech Republic – in the small Moravian town of Třešť, belonging at that time to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. He was part of an important group of Austrian Moravians which includes names such as Sigmund Freud, Gustav Mahler, Karl Kautsky, Ernst Mach, Robert Musil, and many others.”

…

“Reading his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, which was published in England in the 1940s along with books such as Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four, one comes across a slightly different story, which is his evolutionary theory of the demise of capitalism based on its very success. His main argument – as I remember it – was that innovations would become a matter of routine, progress would be mechanized, problems would be “simply solved” by means of reason and science, entrepreneurship would be replaced by mere calculation, individual motivation would subside, collectivistic mentality would prevail and the growing importance of teamwork in modern large corporations would lead to the gradual obsoleteness and at the end disappearance of the crucial player (or perhaps mover) of capitalism – of the entrepreneur. That was his vision of the end of capitalism. He regretted it, but did not see it as the end of history, progress and development.”

…

“The first problem this theory has is its connection with the reality because the world has not followed Schumpeter’s predictions.”

The complete text is on Mr. Klaus’ blog.

This, to me, is a telling analysis:  this economist looks at the theory, evaluates its internal consistencies (or lack thereof) – and then COMPARES THE THEORY TO REAL-LIFE OUTCOMES !!!!

Not only did he do EXACTLY THIS with the IPCC-type AGW/ACC ‘theories’ (and I do use the term ‘theories’ loosely) in his book ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles – What is Endangered:  Climate or Freedom?’, he also points out the necessary consequence of actions currently being implemented to ‘mitigate’ AGW/ACC:  establishment of world government. 

So, why would anyone think there are any dangers in establishing this ‘world government’?  Mr. Klaus warns that we just might me passing world government into the hands of arrogant elitists who are convinced that ‘they know better than the rest of us’….  He asserts that some of the same people who are advocating establishing world authorities to regulate carbon emission – with the power of enforcment (that is, world government) – that were also advocating this 30 years ago in the name of world socialism.  Just listen to Glenn Beck’s second interview with him: 

Kind of makes you pause and think, does it not?

It should!

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, opression, philosophy, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Blue Planet in Green Shackes

May 22, 2008 — xanthippa

Finally, there is a release date for the much-awaited English version of Czech President’s Vaclav Klaus’ book,

‘BLUE PLANET IN GREEN SHACKLES 

What is endangered:  Climate of Freedom?’

President Klaus will be presenting it on May 27th, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington D.C..

Thanks to Lubos Motl from ‘The Reference Frame’ for the tip!

Posted in debate, education, freedoms, philosophy, politics, science. Tags: , , , , , . 7 Comments »

A letter to my PM

May 14, 2008 — xanthippa

For those of you not following the Canadian struggle for free speech, this letter, which I emailed my Member of Parliament today, may seem a little confusing.  Here is a REALLY quick recap:

In order to provide disadvanteged groups easy and affordable access to legal protection agains illegal discrimination, Human Rights Commissions (HRCs) were established several decades ago:  one federal (Canadian, or CHRC) and one for each province.  These HRCs have, lately, been interpreting their mandate in unforseen ways, asserting that any speech which ‘potentially could’ have negative impact on individuals or groups because of their race, creed, disablitiy, and other reasons, must be censored and that this censorship overrules any rights of freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of thought.

Many individuals, and some media organizations, have been going through several years long legal battles in their defense of their inalienable rights.  Even the very people who originally created the HRCs have been apalled at the misuse of their powers in recent years…  What is even worse, recently released tribunal transcripts contain admissions by some HRC employees which suggest that in their zeal to pursue (and entrap) people whom they are investigating, criminal laws are being violated.  That is a serious matter, because no government agency should be allowed to break laws in order to enforce laws…

The Minister of Justice recently said what I understand to mean that as far as the Canadian Government is concerned, all is fine…hence, my letter.

Dear Mr. [MP], 

Thank you for your kind reply, in which you say you will direct my concern over the HRCs and their actions directly to the Minister of Justice.  It arrived at about the same time as the Minister of Justice made his position on this situation known….   

How unfortunate that the official Government position is based on a brief by Mr. Tsesis, who is not regarded highly among the experts in this area and whose disregard for supportable facts required to assess causality can clearly be seen in the document he produced. 

For example, Mr. Tsesis claims:  “[Hitler fomented] a mass delusion that Jews were responsible for bad times, and as a result, a Holocaust could be perpetrated against them without general opposition.”   This displays blatant ignorance of (or disregard for) the fact that during the 1930’s, Germany did indeed have ‘hate speech’ laws, which (ironically?) were almost identical to those we have in Canada today!  Jewish leaders in Germany in the 1930’s expressed satisfaction with the protections from persecution which they and their community received under these ‘hate speech’ laws. 

Since ‘hate speech’ laws were present in Germany of the 1930, proposing (as Mr. Tsesis does) that our current ‘hate speech’ laws are the one tool necessary to prevent another Holocaust-like event is an error of judgment at best, intentionally misleading at worst.  Either way, it clearly demonstrates the unsoundness of the conclusions in this document.   Basing our national Justice policy on it would be ill advised.

How embarrassing for our Government, to reveal that this is indeed its intention!  How embarrassing for our Minister of Justice!

 Yet, my original comment was not intended to request a simple review of the policies of the Human Rights Commissions by the Government.  It is essential that the Government maintain its ‘arm’s length’ distance from judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.  That should not change.   

The HRCs answer directly to the Parliament of Canada.  It is essential that the Parliament of Canada ensures that bodies such as the HRCs do indeed perform the tasks for which they had been created, and that they conduct themselves in accordance with the laws of Canada, the very laws they were created to uphold!  

 There is a widespread perception among the citizens of Canada that employees of these commissions may have broken criminal laws of Canada while performing investigations on behalf of the HRCs.  This perception is largely based on the information in legal documents, transcripts of hearings from the HRCs themselves.  These statements were given under oath, and in them an employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission describes actions he took while acting on behalf of the HRC which appear to be a clear and direct breech of the criminal laws of Canada, as well as a blatant breech of the very ‘hate speech’ laws the CHRC was created to uphold.

 It is not, and must never become, tolerable for an Agent of the State to break the laws of the State while acting on behalf of the State.  In order to assure the integrity of our governance structures, it is essential that a full criminal investigation be launched immediately, to determine whether laws were indeed broken, or not. 

 If it is found that criminal laws were broken, a further in-depth investigation will be required to determine whether some rogue employees broke criminal laws on their own, or if the policies of this public institutions are the root causes of criminal behaviour by its employees – in which case, a full evaluation of all the procedures and methodologies of the HRCs would need to be done.  If a criminal investigation determines that laws were indeed broken, laying criminal charges will be required against every employee who broke our laws as well as against all supervisory personnel (currently or in the past employed by the HRC’s), who, through ignorance or complicity, allowed this illegal behaviour within their department to take place. 

 If the perception that criminal laws are being broken at the HRCs is erroneous, it is important that we, the citizens of Canada, see them exonerated, so that we may again place our trust in our government agencies and institutions.  

 This determination cannot be made without a full criminal investigation of the HRCs, their procedures, methodologies and practices, as well as of the conduct all of its employees, past and present.  Therefore, I ask that you, Mr. Poilievre, as my Member of Parliament to which the HRCs report directly, channel your efforts and energies to launching a full and thorough investigation into this whole mess.

 Thank you.

If you wish to read more on this saga, please see the excellent sites Blazing Catfur, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Small Dead Animals, and many, many more…

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, language, philosophy, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . 12 Comments »

Obama’s apostasy

May 5, 2008 — xanthippa

It is unusual for me to write about the US presidential race, because, frankly, it is a bit overdone.  We are inundated with the minutest details and the wildest speculations over and over, whether we care or not.

Yet, there is one very important speculation that I have never heard voiced.  Perhaps it is my own fault for shutting out so much of the detail, and it has been covered and dealt with.  If that is the case, then I beg your forgiveness.  But, if it has not been addressed, then I would humbly request that people give this some sober, realistic consideration.

Different people – and nation states – react very differently to identical ‘facts’.  Mundane example: I see a rabbit, I will think ‘pet’.  Another person looks at a rabbit, they may see ‘dinner’.  It would be unreasonable to expect the same reaction from both of us to being served a rabbit-burger.  The same is true of many, many things, not all of them mundane or witout deep impact.

Many supporters of Mr. Obama’s bid for the Democratic nomination, and ultimately the Presidency of the USA, say that he would be well received in the world, and enjoy much more credibililty than either Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain.  While his lack of experience and specific policies he suggested may have come under attack, his supporters maintain that his multicultural outlook would be great assets giving him (an by extension, the USA) great credibility, especially in Africa.

But are we not overlooking one extremely important point?  Mr. Obama is an apostate to Islam – and much of the Muslim world, including in Africa, consider this to be very bad thing indeed.

This has less to do with the views of Mr. Obama himself.  It does not concern anything a preacher he’d listened to may or may not believe.  All it has to do with is the fact that as a child and young man, Mr. Obama was a Muslim, and now he is not.  He does not deny that – nor has he ever tried to.  By definition, this makes him an Apostate.

The very fact that he has converted from Islam to another faith may make it impossible for many fundamentally Islamic nation-states to accept him.  After all, rightly or wrongly, many of them do interpret The Qur’an, specifically Sura (chapter) 4, verses 89-92: “If they turn away [convert away from Islam], then sieze them and kill them wherever you find them;…”. 

Also, many Muslims use several books in addition to the Qur’an.  These are not given the central importance that Qur’an is, but because they contain the collected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad and strories of his life, these are often used as a guide according to which the Qur’an is supposed to be interpreted.  One of these is often quoted as to the proper interpretation of the above verse: ‘Bukhari’ 4.52.260 – “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’ ”

In 2006, a man was sentenced to death in Afghanistan for having converted from Islam to Christianity.  This was well after the Taliban were out of power, but even the moderates in Afghanistan did not understand why people in ‘The West’ were upset by this.  Most of us are familiar with the case of Lina Joy, and others like her.

In fact, four of the major Sunni as well as the major Shia schools of Islam all agree that a sane, adult male who converts away from Islam deserves the death penalty. 

I offer this as an entirely pragmatic consideration:  will some people be able to see Mr. Obama, the man, or will they only see an Apostate? 

How will they react if the USA elects an ‘Apostate President’? 

Posted in atheism, debate, freedoms, human nature, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Climate Change Tales

April 30, 2008 — xanthippa

The whole ‘Global Warming’ – under whatever name one chooses – issue is a mess.  Unmitigated, tangled up and muddled mess.

So, how can a person make sense of it all?

Frankly, I don’t know.  What I do know, however, is that we are actively being presented with only a very small part of the story through the main stream media (MSM).  And I also know that reasonable points raised by bonafide scientists from the field of climate change are being shouted down or smeared before their ideas are even listened to.

That is not how scientific debate occurs.  It is anathema to science itself!  In true scientific community, people are willing to listen to dissenting points of view – provided these are scientific and  testable hypothesies (using the term in the narrow, scientific sense).  Why?  The reason for this is very simple:  sometimes, even what appear to be ‘crackpot’ ideas may indeed turn out to be better models of reality than the original theories.

Scientists are only human.  Yes, as much as this is contrary to some opinions, they are only human.  Many times in the past, the ‘current scientific consensus’ was just silly in rejecting even the consideration of ‘things’ that we now regard as integral tools of science: 

“… my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope.”

                                                                                        –     Galileo Galilei

Today, most scientists are careful to not have the ‘obstinacy of a glutted adder’, and tend to seriously examine ideas which run contrary to mainstream opinions.  How far are they prepared to go?  Well, consider the case of Dr. Peter Duesberg:  he came out with not just one, but two controversial theories. 

In the first one, he proposed that while there is a co-occurrence of the HIV virus and AIDS, he thought the causality had not been established with sufficient scientific rigour.  (I am not particularly versed in his theory – if I am misrepresenting it, I apologize.  The point is not his theory as such, but the scientific community’s reaction to it.) 

The reaction? 

Scientists actually went and checked his data, looked over his studies, and found where he had made mistakes.  Even so, his views are often referred to in scientific publications on HIV/AIDS, in order to ensure that the scientific basis for refuting them is easily available.

Long after this, he proposed another very controversial scientific hypothesis:  this time on the nature of cancer.  Even though he was one of the researchers to have identified one of the ‘cancer genes’, he now proposed that cancer may be more due to chromosomal abnormalities than to problems within individual genes.  Again, the details of his hypothesis are less important than the reaction it received.

Even though his first hypothesis has been flatly rejected, scientists listened when he proposed this one.  In May 2007, Scientific American published his controversial theory in an article called ‘Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer’.  Earlier in the same issue, the editor’s page was titled ‘When Pariahs Have Good Ideas’, where the editors explain that even though Dr. Duesberg’s ideas on HIV/AIDS have been discredited, he might have a good point here and that scientific ideas ought to be judged on thier merit. 

So, what was my point in bringing up Dr. Duesberg? 

To show how scientists tend to evaluate ideas, even from scientists who have been proven wrong in the past:  they tests them, then – right or wrong – they reference them.  One thing they certainly do not do is try to shut each other up.  That would be unscientific! 

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

                                                                                       –     Galileo Galilei

Sadly, this is not happening in the field of Climate….

Scientists who do not subscribe to the ‘bad humans making Earth too hot and this will be a disaster’ point of view have systematically been insulted, bullied, their reputations smeared and jobs threatened, and more than one has received threats of bodily harm.  As Dickens might say:  “What the Sheakespeare is going on here?!?!?!?’ 

Oh, but I have made some general accusations here:  I had better support them! 

Here is one article from the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, a scientist who had been threatened, and who has seen others under similar pressure.  In this April 2006 article, he also charges scientific publications ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ with bias and underhanded tactics.  He also names several other scientists who have faced threats.

If the Wall Street Journal is not your cup of tea, here is an article from ‘Telegraph’ from the UK about the death threats received by scientists who publicly question the ‘global warming catastrophy’ dogma.  But this is only a small sample of a large body of scientists who are speaking up.

Sadly, most people don’t realy get to hear what these scientists have to say.  Their views are not often published.  Why?  I don’t know.  However, here is an article from ‘The Australian’ about how journalists at ‘The Age’ (an Australian publication) had been ordered to not write anything negative about the ‘Earth Hour’ earlier this month:

“Reporters were pressured not to write negative stories and story topics followed a schedule drafted by Earth Hour organisers.”

All right, ‘Earth Hour’ is just fluff – what about real climate stories?

It seems that we may not be getting the true story there, either.  Earlier this month, BBC (yes, THE BBC) had done a big ‘no-no’:  they totally changed the story, without noting it!!!

When a story is edited or changed, this is supposed to be noted.  However, BBC ran a story on the topic of climate, was bullied by a ‘climate activist’, and changed the whole meaning of the story WITHOUT NOTING THE CHANGE!!!  That is not very nice at all.

Thankfully, wee have access to the full email exchange of the activist’s bullying and the BBC reporter giving in.  It is a little long, but here is a telling phrase the activist used:

“I would ask : please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.

Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently
educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically
manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.”

EMERGING TRUTH???

What about ‘documented truth’?

And ‘PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATED’? 

I cannot help but feel that we, the ‘unwashed masses’, are being manipulated here…  It seems certain that we are not getting an accurate picture of what scientists are truly finding out about these processes which might significantly impact us all.

 

Posted in debate, human nature, politics, religion, science, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Aspergers and writing

April 29, 2008 — xanthippa

Writing is one of the major woes for people with Aspergers. 

It is difficult to describe the depth of despair most Aspies suffer when trying to put pen to paper.  And it starts very, very early on.  There appear (to me) to be at least three different ‘subsystems’ in the brain that are conspiring to make writing next to impossible for young Aspies.

The first one to be encountered is the ‘mechanics of writing’.  Many Aspies have less ‘sidedness‘ differentiation, so their ‘writing hand’ is less ‘dominant’ – and thus has less fine motor control – than most peoples.  This is often encountered early on in childhood – as a result, the kids may not enjoy drawing, or they may draw with both hands.  Regardless of drawing, however, Aspie kids usually display severe difficulties when learning the mechanics of writing.  This is more pronounced in cursive writing, where forming letters needs to be combined with smoothly moving the hand along the page, so many Aspies end up printing instead.  

I suspect this is a motor issue, and could be overcome by ‘overdoing’ the practice.  This has, to a degree, been my case:  where I went to school, we started out learning cursive, and we were marked on our handwriting.  I totally sucked at it, for the longest time.  Then, I saw what handwritings the teachers marked as the best, and shamelessly immitated them.  And yes, I spent endless hours practicing, because I was going to be *%$#*^# if those air-headed girls with ‘pretty’ handwriting got better marks than I did.  The result?  I am told I have extremely beautiful, though almost completely illegible, handwrititng!

Another problem which Aspies encounter when writing is – and this is based on my observations, not an expert assertion – a problem with short term memory.  At least six different kids with Aspergers have described it as ‘the ideas going by so fast, by the time I’m done the first letter, I don’t know what word I am writing’.  Now, this is very interesting, but worthy of a post of its own (soon, I hope).

The third major problem I have observed is a little more complicated.  I do not know how frequent it is, but again, I have observed it in very many Aspie kids.  It has to do with language, its use and the very words that make it up.  Also, many Aspies perceive there to be a big difference between what is spoken and written.   Perhaps a little explanation is needed…

Asperger Syndrome is often described as ‘verbally expressive form of Autism‘.  Now,  it is important to make a distiction here:  just because Aspergers falls under the same spectrum of disorders as Autism does, or that the spectrum itself may have the word ‘Autism’ in it, does not mean that it is nearly as crippling as Autism can be.  Comparing Aspergers to Autism (as the Ontario Government recently did, in order to deny Autistic children proper treatment) is about as accurate as comparing a sinus infection to pneumonia – both are respiratory system infections, but they are not the same in severety or affect.  It would be an inappropriate comparison.

While Aspies are usually able to speak extensively on a topic, most have a difficult time writing on a topic.  This is very curious and puzzling to many parents and educators:  it can appear as defiance! So, what is it that makes it OK to say things, but not to write them down?  Perhaps an unusual form of perfectionism could be at play here.

It is my observation that Aspeis, especially children, consider anything that is written down to be much, much more serious, important and permanent than what is spoken.  Even when practicing forming letters, some of these kids will be extremely anxious about not being able to get the shape just perfect.  Not Aspies are this extreme, but I certainly was, and so was one of my sons.  He was so terrified to commit an imperfect letter onto paper, we ended up getting him to practice writing onto clear plastic sheets (of the type you can put through the printer, to use for overhead presentations) with easy-wipe-off markers.  And even thought he could wipe off any letter he did not like, before anyone else could see it (and at first, he wiped off all of them), it was still hard for him.

It is my suspicion that in a similar way, it is difficult for Aspies to write ideas down because they are not sure if their idea is good enough to be commited to paper.  And even if they get over that, and judge the idea worthy – and this is the key here – it is next to impossible to express their idea accurately, using everyday language.

I have often wondered – and would appreciate feedback from those who have observed this – if something similar could be at play with Autism…  Many (not tall) autistic children are said to begin learning language relatively normally, but then at some point, they revert and begin to use language less and less.  Could it be possible that as they learned language, words attained ‘colouring’ – secondary, or implied meanings – unrelated to their ‘object or action definition’…. and that these words became perceived as no longer accuratley describing its original meaning, and therefore discarded?  I don’t know, but I would be curious what others think about this.

It is often asserted that Aspies use language somewhat rigidly, or sound very pedantic.  Could it be that a similar perfectionism in expressing an idea, a similar subconscious frustration with the inaccuracy of language, is at play when Aspies try to put ideas onto paper?

I love debating, and do it online.  And, people have noted, that whenever I get into a serious debate, I spend most of my time defining the specific and narrow meanings of every word I intend to use (plus a few others, that I exressly will not use).  Many people find it redundant, annoying and boring.  Some think it is a ploy to manipulate the debate.  But I do not intend it as any of these:  before I can express what I mean, I need to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the language I use to express my point.  General language simply cannot do the job!

There is no simple answer to overcoming this.  

Each Aspie may require a completely different approach, what works for one may not work for another.  It will take years.  And it will always take much more time and effort for an Aspie to write something than it would take most people.  (It usually takes me 2-6 hours to write any single post – and some, I have spent 14+ hours composing.)

Yet, Aspies can learn to write.  And when they do, the documents they produce are usually very well researched and accurately expressed!

Posted in Aspergers, debate, education, human nature, language, philosophy, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 138 Comments »

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

April 26, 2008 — xanthippa

While I have been taking a look at Aspergers, and describing some of my experiences and coping methods that worked for me, I have neglected a number of other very important topics. 

For example, I have promised to post on the topic of the climate.  And I promised that I would provide some solid information about why I hold the views I do.  Thus, I was preparing something on this. 

Alas, it is difficult to assess the information one is provided if one is not familiar with the underlying science behind the words.  More and more of what I have been reading from non-scientific (that is, MSM (main stream media) and many blogs, debating sites etc. – you know, all them places that have replaced the ‘watercooler chat’) has convinced me that before I can hope to provide useful information, it will be necessary to log in some explanations first.

As if to convince me that I ought to do this, in a coment on this post on a dime a dozen blog , somebody asked the following question: 

“say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????”

I thought this question needed to be addressed, the sooner the better.  Here is my (somewhat expanded) answer:

No.  CO2 does NOT kill plants.  Nor is it pollution!  It is plant food, and what plants use to make food for us.

There are 2 basic ‘gas exchange’ processes that occur in plants:  breathing (respiration) and photosynthesis.

RESPIRATION

Why breathe?  What is the purpose? ENERGY!!! 

To carry out the process of living, all cells need energy.  That is why we – and plants – need to breathe 24 hours a day.  So how do we get energy by breathing in oxygen?

An oxygen molecule is made up of two oxygen atoms  (hence O2 – the 2 means the molecule is made up of 2 oxygen atoms).  These two atoms are held together by a ‘bond’ – breaking this bond releases energy.  But an oxygen atom by itself has a strong ‘need’ to bond to something (we rate it a level 2 need).  If left in this state, it would harm the surrounding cells (it is called a ‘free radical’). 

Organisms ‘solve’ the problem by taking a carbon atom (C) which has an even higher ‘need’ to bond (level 4).  Two oxygen atoms (with a ‘2’ each) are bonded to the one carbon atom (to add up to the carbon’s ‘4’).  (Yes, this is a major simplification – but the underlying principles are accurately described).  The resulting molecule is CO2 – or one carbon and two oxygen atoms.  All of its ‘needs’ for ‘bonds’ are met, so it is not harmful to the surrounding tissues.

Yes, it does require energy to bind the oxygen atoms to the carbon one.  However, because carbon has such a high ‘need’ for bonds, it takes less enegry to bind the oxygen atoms to it than was released by breaking the bonds between the two oxygen atoms.  In other words, when one breaks the molecular bonds between the two oxygen atoms in O2, then take a part of that energy and uses it to bind the two oxygen atoms to a carbon atom, one has some energy left over.  I stress again, this is a major simplification – there are many steps and other ‘bits’ (like glucose, which is where the carbon molecules for the reaction come from) are essential!!!  However, the underlying principle is correct.  If you would like to read more about this, here and here and here are good starting spots.

This energy difference is what cells use to carry out ‘living’.  We call this process aerobic respiration, both in plants and animals.  And though other molecules may be used in its place, oxygen is by far the most efficient one.  (Respiration in the absence of oxygen is called anaerobic respiration.)

PHOTOSYNTHESIS

During respiration, living cells get energy by breaking ‘bond’ betwen two oxygen atoms in an oxygen molecule (O2), and then use carbon atoms from glucose (simple sugar, made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms) molecules to stop the resulting oxygen atoms (free radicals) from harming the cell itself.  So, where does the glucose come from?

Glucose is produced by photosynthesis.

Plants have special organelles called chloroplasts.  These are specialized organelles (sub-section of a cell with a specialized function) in the plant cells which contain the green pigment chlorophyl.  Their function is to take IN carbon dioxide (CO2) form the air, and combine it with hydrous oxyde (H2O – water). 

The C (carbon) from the CO2 is combined with the OH group from H2O.  OK, I am simplifying again:  you need several molecules of CO2 and H2O to make it work, because the result of combining the carbons and oxygens and hydrogens together is the simple sugar, glucose:  and it has 6 carbon atoms in it. 

It is, in fact, pretty much the reverse of the chemical reaction during respiration.  But the reason for respiration is to release energy.  So, this process of photosynthesis needs energy from the outside to happen – and this is the reason why it occurs in the chloroplasts, which contain the green pigment chlorophyll, which is very good at absorbing light energy from the sun.  It then uses this energy to drive the chemical reaction of binding carbon atoms (from CO2 in the air) to water molecules to produce the simple carbohydrate, glucose.

This process is called photosynthesis because it uses the enegy from light (photo) to build (synthesise) glucose, a simple sugar.  Glucos molecules can, in turn, be joined up into long chains so they can be stored efficiently.  The end product, the carbohydrate chain, is called starch.

Plants can then use the stored up starch in order to breathe.  And animals, unable to make starch themselves, eat plants in order to get it.  Thus, energy from sun gets stored by plants (using carbon dioxide and water) as carbohydrates. The byproduct of this process in the oxygen molecule. Plants and animals use these carbohydrates and oxygen from the air to use this stored solar energy to ‘drive’ their cells.  The byproduct of this is carbon dioxide.  This is the basic energy cycle of our current lifeforms.

The more complex the plant, the more CO2 it requires to grow and thrive.  For example, the ‘Great Plains’ in the US used to be mostly covered by trees – until the carbon dioxide levels became too low to support them.  Then, they reverted to grassplains, because grass is a less complex plant and requires (and uses)less CO2 in the air.

If you love trees, as I do, you cannot but object to anything that will reduce the CO2 levels available for them to grow.  I am a self-admitted tree hugger – and a scientist.  I thought the ‘global warming’ thing sounded good when it was first proposed, so I have ‘looked into’ it (extensively – though this is NOT my field of expertise!!!  I do not wish to mislead!).  The evidence has convinced me that this is not dangerous.  To the contrary.  Incerases in CO2 levels are higly advantageous to lifeforms on Earth because historically, they raise food availability and are accompanied by greater species differentiation and increase in overall lifeforms supported.  And despite some claims, hard datea shows that we are nowhere near historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So, why the hype?

I don’t know.  In situations where things get as murky as this is, I like to use a very simple ‘rule of thumb’:  “cui bono?” 

Or, in other words, ‘Follow the money, honey!’ 

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in debate, education, human nature, language, politics, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Stop global warming now, or…

April 15, 2008 — xanthippa

‘Global Warming’ is a problem.  As is ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’.  And the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.  Yet, new hope is dawning on the horizon – and it may soon help all of us responsible people to solve these serious, man-made problems.  I just glimpsed it, and thought it so important I am breaking into the ‘Aspergers’ chain of posts in order to let you about it!

No, there has not been a new breakthrough in science, nor have we actually done much of the stuff the so-called ‘watermelons’ have been shrieking at us to do.  Not even a bit.  Yet, today, I glimpsed a new weapon!  A powerful weapon which has the power to make all these problems managable – if only we will have the perseverence to consistently apply it!

What is this wonderous weapon?  How can we wield it?  It is nothing less than humour!

The words “Stop global warming now“a ppeared on the TV screen, then faded.  Now the word “or” came and went, with a circle materializing about it.  “Or all the …(name of a chocolate confection)… will melt!” as the circle resolved itself into a magnificent, mouthwatering peanut-butter cup!  And just to drive the point home, it shimmered, as if ready to melt. Yuuuuum!

How shall this solve the problem of ‘Global Warming’, ‘ACC’ and ‘the Greenhouse Effect’?  The best way possible.

As I identified them earlier, these are all man-made problems.  Not natural ones, not environmental ones, even though they are global in their impact.  These things are a successful cross between a marketing campaign, a socialist income re-distribution scheme and a full blown cult.  And the only science contained within them has been taken out of context, twisted and perverted!

This manipulative watermelon chiamera has bullied scientists, hijacked political debates and intimidated journalists for years now.  But they have a real problem:  it is becoming more and more difficult to dismiss the 10 years of temperatures that show no increase, to hush up the indictments of fraud inside the very studies their holy scripture, the IPCC report, is anchored in, and to silence the ever growing number of reputable (non-oil connected) scientists, analysts and thinkers who are pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. 

Since the watermelons’ credibility has been slipping more and more, their  hysteria has risen to a new high.  If the pun were not so horrible, I might even have said the pitch will soon be high enough to shatter the glass from the greenhouse! 

Just as ‘Harry Potter’s’ ‘boggart in the cupboard’ could only be exorcised by the incantation ‘Riddiculus!’, so these militant activists can best be stopped by frequent and consciencious application of humour.  Because all the busybodies and ‘bannies‘ who are righteously bullying ‘the human herd’ – whatever stripe or denomination they take – cannot abide being laughed at. 

So, let’s let laughter be our medicine!

Posted in debate, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Easter: what’s in the name?

March 21, 2008 — xanthippa

This time of year, there are many religious festivals and events. Please, let me take a moment and wish you all ‘Happy Holiday!’

What’s in the name of a holiday, anyway?

Shortly before Christmas, on ‘Convince Me’ – my favorite online debating site – someone started a lively debate about that holiday and whether it ought to be celebrated by non-Christians. One position presented was ‘Of course it’s only about Christ! That’s why it’s called Christmas!’

Yes, I am sure there are many people ‘out there’ who – with a prim-little condescending smile – have said that very thing. Of these people, I would like to ask the following question:

If Christmas is exclusively about Jesus Christ, because his name is right in there, what about Easter?!?!?

I am not, in any way, shape or form, saying this holiday season is – or ought to be – only about the Goddess Eostre (also spelled Eastre, though I have also seen it spelled Eostera and Eastera and about 5 other ways). Everyone knows many other spring fertility festivals, like Luprenalia, are also going on. And, I think the Christians and Jews might also be marking holidays. :0)

All I am curious about is if the ‘logic’ about the name of Christmas also holds about the name of Easter!

If you are not familiar with her by her name, you may have heard of the Goddess Eastre in another way. She is one of the ancient fertility goddesses of spring. Her power begins to awaken on the winter cross-quarter day – the halfway point between the winter solstice and the spring equinox – the coldest part of the year…February 2nd. She is said to begin to drive winter away, so the weather turns warmer and paves the way for spring. Her strength is at its fullest during the first full moon following the spring equinox. As winter vanes, Eastre causes the Earth to sprout, green things to grow, nature to re-awaken.

When she shows herself to humans, Eastre is said to take on the form of either a rabbit or a groundhog. Yes, she is the ‘Easter Bunny’ and the groundhog of Groundhog Day!

It is no coincidence that chickens only lay eggs when days are longer than nights. Nowadays, chicken farmers use electric lights to stimulate chickens to lay eggs all year long, but until electric lights made this possible, eggs were simply not available during the winter. They only reappeared each year when days outlasted nights…following the spring equinox…it’s almost as if Eastre brings the eggs with her ascent to power.

I suppose this is another way of saying that the Easter Bunny brings us eggs!

Now all I have to do is figure out how chocolate fits in. Because if I can’t, disposing of all these stores of it is bound to trigger a migrane…

Posted in atheism, debate, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 8 Comments »

Of Cellphones and Hijabs

March 19, 2008 — xanthippa

OK, these two do not seem too closely related. Perhaps a more accurate title would have been ‘Of Passing Laws Which Ban The Use of Cellphones While Driving And Of Passing Laws That Force The Wearing of Hijabs‘, but, somehow, that seemed a little long…

Every now and then, another spot on Earth passes a law banning the use of cellphones while driving – or flirts with passing such a law. A flurry of debates and discussions follows, weighing the pros and cons of such a law…often mistaking appeals to emotions for objective reasons, confusing symptoms with causes.

Typically, the pro-ban side (or, as I affectionately call them, the ‘bannies’) cites reams of accident statistics (real or imagined) which occurred while the driver was indeed using the cell phone. They usually present one or another variation of the following argument:

1. Talking on a cellphone can be distracting to drivers.

2. Distracted drivers do have more accidents.

Therefore, cellphones cause accidents and laws banning drivers from using them must be passed, in the interest of preventing those horrible car accidents. After all, anything less would be irresponsible!

Q.E.D.

Those opposed to the alarming increase in behaviour-engineering legislation usually put forth some silly nonsense like: “If a car is being driven badly, cops already have the right to ticket the driver, so a law specifically prohibiting cellphones is not only superfluous, it is redundant. Why pass two laws to cover one misdeed? If cops don’t apply one law they have, why give them a second one that does the same thing?”

These little arguments fall on deaf ears of the ‘bannies’. Usually, they counter with more statistics (but not those that show that even after cellphones were banned, the overall accident rates are pretty much unchanged in the long run). And if one begins to worry about the intrusiveness of the law, they invariably point out that drunk-driving is already banned, so why not cell-driving?

Perhaps it is commendable that the ‘bannies’ are looking out for us all – by banning all that is, or could potentially be, a source of harm to us. But what is not commendable is their basic mindset of attempting to legislate ‘common sense’, while they themselves fail to display an iota of it. So, I suppose it would be legislating ‘common nonsense’, n’est-ce pas? Having been in a debate with a vociferous ‘bannie’, I was unable to make her comprehend the difference between a chemically impaired judgment and a ‘distraction’…

Yet, that is not the only failure to apply logic in the ‘cellphone debate’. The real fallacy is in completely misunderstanding the nature of ‘distraction’: it is the driver’s responsibility not to become distracted by anything while driving. The cellphone is a symptom, not the cause of a driver’s distraction….only one of the many possible ways of abdicating responsibility to focus on driving. And as history has taught us, banning the symptoms never alleviates the underlying problem, it only masks it.

Which brings me to the hijab part… Please, consider this unfortunately real ‘reasoning’:

1. The sight of a beautiful woman arouses men.

2. An aroused man will want to have sex.

Therefore, the sight of a beautiful woman causes rapes and laws banning display of feminine beauty must be passed, in the interest of protecting women from those horrible rapes. After all, anything less would be irresponsible!

Q.E.D.

Yes, this is real! These are some of the reasons put forth in support of laws that require women to wear a hijab, a burka, or similarly concealing ‘modest dress’. Don’t believe it? The Mufti of Copenhagen Sahid Mehdi said in 2004 that women who do not wear the hijab are ‘asking to be raped‘. Australia’s Mufti in October 2006 was much the same thing, but in much cruder terms – comparing unveiled women to ‘uncovered meat‘….and how could you blame cats who came to eat it? And unless I am much mistaken, an Egyptian Imam said much the same thing in England (though I could not find a very good original article on this…happened too long ago).

But rape is not the only threat to women who do not don the veil: Palestinian broadcasters live under a death threat for wearing makeup and not covering their faces while on camera – I guess it is not so easy to rape a TV image, so the islamofascist ‘bannies’ content themselves with threatening to kill them a firebomb their houses instead.

The ‘reasoning’ in both cases – cellphones and hijabs – is eerily similar.

It may seem a chasm from banning the use of cellphones while driving to forcing the hijab on women, but bigger gulfs have been bridged, one little step at a time….each one facilitated by complacency and happy little ‘bannies’!

Posted in debate, freedoms, human nature, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »