(no subject)
This entry turned somewhat political, but let me preface it by saying that I think it is very important to protect the environment and the balances and ecosystems that support life on this planet, I just think that there's a lot of unquestioned tenets of the eco-friendly lifestyle that people take for granted. There's also a dangerous sense of self-gratification and civic duty for people who do what "everyone knows" to be the environmentally friendly thing... I think it's much more worthwhile to scientifically examine whether or not a given action has actual real-world value.
I'm taking some exciting electives this semester, exciting meaning not having to do with either of my majors. The first is ASTR211, which is General Astronomy, the quantitative version. I doubt the math will be that hard, I just hope it's not painful. I'm probably long overdue for an astro course, seeing as how most people I know have already taken one. The syllabus looks really interesting, and there's no observation, just a discussion section for homework questions.
My other elective is EVSC350, Atmosphere and Weather. So far, hasn't been too exciting, though I'm sure we'll get to better things than just the composition of the atmosphere. I had a moment of panic when I saw that there was a lab I wasn't signed up for, but (I'm pretty sure) the lab is a separate class only for EVSC majors. The professor gave a whole bit about the heating/cooling trends of the Earth, and how the current press for global warming is alarmist (which isn't the first time I've heard that). Another professor here at UVA is also an opponent of the global warming theory, Patrick Michaels. I'm not sure if there is a conflict of interest there, but I do think there is a lot of work to be done in this area. The basic idea I heard in class was that on geological time scales, Earth goes into an ice age every 50,000 years or so, and undergoes rapid temperature fluctuations between glaciations, and we're about due for one. So not only are wild variations in temperature natural, but global cooling is an equally serious, if not more serious concern. The CO2 levels have risen (minutely) since the industrial revolution, but the argument is that it cannot be said conclusively that this is the result of man-made devices, and at the current rate, the temperature will be X degrees, and the sea level Y feet higher. Given the complex relationships between the atmosphere and biosphere, and the natural heating/cooling trends of the Earth, I think it's a case where someone who can speak with absolute certainty about it is ignorant, and someone who admits things are inconclusive is relatively wise. Also, it seems like the political atmosphere is such that if you were to try to prove scientifically that global warming is a myth, you'd be Incidentally, >99.9% of the Earth's atmosphere is N2, O2, and Argon.
I used to take everything I heard about the environment for granted, since kids are basically indoctrinated with Green propaganda from elementary school. Like most people, I assumed the logging industry was responsible for deforestation, which is false (logging companies that clearcut lots have a vested interest in restoring those lots so they can be cut again), and that the Amazon rainforest is valuable because it introduces large amounts of oxygen into the biosphere, which is also false (plant and animal decay consumes as much oxygen as is produced). Deforestation is bad, but for other reasons. Also, I'm fairly certain the deforestation in the Amazon isn't caused by large corporations, but poor people in the region who need to make a living.
Link to Wikipedia article on global warming controversy
Given that there are so many myths surrounding the subject, I can't help but question everything I hear. I also recommend everyone watch that episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit on environmentalism/recycling, though this is no substitute for a class/research. It's telling that Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, left due to the fact that the organization was becoming more concerned with activism and anti-corporatism as an end in and of itself, rather than actually doing good for the environment. On this issue, I won't take a specific partisan side for or against recycling, for or against the Kyoto Protocols... Like a Mentat, I NEED MORE DATA. In any case, Environmental Science class is going to be interesting, now if only it weren't at 9:30....
I'm taking some exciting electives this semester, exciting meaning not having to do with either of my majors. The first is ASTR211, which is General Astronomy, the quantitative version. I doubt the math will be that hard, I just hope it's not painful. I'm probably long overdue for an astro course, seeing as how most people I know have already taken one. The syllabus looks really interesting, and there's no observation, just a discussion section for homework questions.
My other elective is EVSC350, Atmosphere and Weather. So far, hasn't been too exciting, though I'm sure we'll get to better things than just the composition of the atmosphere. I had a moment of panic when I saw that there was a lab I wasn't signed up for, but (I'm pretty sure) the lab is a separate class only for EVSC majors. The professor gave a whole bit about the heating/cooling trends of the Earth, and how the current press for global warming is alarmist (which isn't the first time I've heard that). Another professor here at UVA is also an opponent of the global warming theory, Patrick Michaels. I'm not sure if there is a conflict of interest there, but I do think there is a lot of work to be done in this area. The basic idea I heard in class was that on geological time scales, Earth goes into an ice age every 50,000 years or so, and undergoes rapid temperature fluctuations between glaciations, and we're about due for one. So not only are wild variations in temperature natural, but global cooling is an equally serious, if not more serious concern. The CO2 levels have risen (minutely) since the industrial revolution, but the argument is that it cannot be said conclusively that this is the result of man-made devices, and at the current rate, the temperature will be X degrees, and the sea level Y feet higher. Given the complex relationships between the atmosphere and biosphere, and the natural heating/cooling trends of the Earth, I think it's a case where someone who can speak with absolute certainty about it is ignorant, and someone who admits things are inconclusive is relatively wise. Also, it seems like the political atmosphere is such that if you were to try to prove scientifically that global warming is a myth, you'd be Incidentally, >99.9% of the Earth's atmosphere is N2, O2, and Argon.
I used to take everything I heard about the environment for granted, since kids are basically indoctrinated with Green propaganda from elementary school. Like most people, I assumed the logging industry was responsible for deforestation, which is false (logging companies that clearcut lots have a vested interest in restoring those lots so they can be cut again), and that the Amazon rainforest is valuable because it introduces large amounts of oxygen into the biosphere, which is also false (plant and animal decay consumes as much oxygen as is produced). Deforestation is bad, but for other reasons. Also, I'm fairly certain the deforestation in the Amazon isn't caused by large corporations, but poor people in the region who need to make a living.
Link to Wikipedia article on global warming controversy
Given that there are so many myths surrounding the subject, I can't help but question everything I hear. I also recommend everyone watch that episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit on environmentalism/recycling, though this is no substitute for a class/research. It's telling that Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, left due to the fact that the organization was becoming more concerned with activism and anti-corporatism as an end in and of itself, rather than actually doing good for the environment. On this issue, I won't take a specific partisan side for or against recycling, for or against the Kyoto Protocols... Like a Mentat, I NEED MORE DATA. In any case, Environmental Science class is going to be interesting, now if only it weren't at 9:30....