Potpourri XXXIII

Another wild weather day in Huntsville: severe thunderstorm, flash flood, and tornado warnings. Spent some time in my "designated protective area" and everything. Best calm down by doing a little writing.

Here's a perennial chestnut: "Warp drive is possible!" Okay, fine. Send me the data when you've nailed that down, buddy.

Tip o' the fedora to Twila for this one: Some more useful data from the American Society for Engineering Education.

The Justice Department is unlikely to recommend prosecutions against the lawyers who gave legal advice to the government on interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists. Translation: They did nothing illegal. However, that won't prevent them from suggesting that these same lawyers should have their professional lives and reputations ruined by being sanctioned or disbarred by their state bar associations. This is a chilling message to any lawyer asked to give advice to the feds. Bottom line, if you're asked: "Just say no."

Tip o' the fedora to Martin for this: an FAA report on the economic impact of the space industry.

The Department of Homeland Security is trying to backpedal for defining peaceable conservatives like Your Humble Narrator as dangers to the state.

A refreshing take on foreign aid spending by New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The inactive Sun might indicate an oncoming ice age.

The mafia is being investigated for ownership in wind farms in Italy.

The UK is keeping annoying talk radio jock Michael Savage out of their country. Now mind you, I'd have different reasons for keeping away from the guy, but clamping down on him for his legal expressions of free thought is a bad one.

The economy might be showing signs of recovery...before most of the economic stimulus bill has been passed or spent. So now I must ask: was the stimulus really necessary? And the fact remains that even if the economy DOES recover, we will all now be stuck with Obama's increased spending and nationalization of the banks and the auto industry. As Rahm Emanuel has been fond of saying, "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Global Warming, Etc.

Despite the drop in sea ice this summer, it grew back in record time, up to 1979 levels: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

*

I’m going to meander through this mine field again, partially in reaction to my reading about the “science court.” The climate change is precisely the sort of thing that could stand a good, direct discussion in an objective forum. Of course I’ve already mentioned the difficulties there: one side says, "The issue is already settled! We need to do something NOW before it's too late!"; the other side is saying, “Hold on, all the data isn’t in yet.” This actually requires two separate discussions, neither of which has yet taken place, to my knowledge:

• What’s going on? What is the actual data concerning climate change? Are we getting warmer or colder, and how much of that is related to human activity? What can be done to ensure that we have all of the necessary data? What experiments, if any, can be performed to verify particular theories?
• What do we do about it? Once we are clear on what’s actually happening with the planet’s climate, we need to give serious thought to what should be done—if anything. The idea of doing nothing doesn’t appeal to folks who prefer an activist government (liberals, neo-cons). The idea of taking drastic, expensive action with vast economic consequences probably won’t appeal to large segments of the voting public in the U.S., and other nations (China, India) might not participate at all. And what will the cost/benefit statement look like? Environmental activists bristle when crass “economic arguments” like that are used. However, costs and benefits need not be just a matter of dollar and cents. Why should large segments of human civilization be slowed down drastically NOW, especially if the payoff isn’t that great. Bjorn Lobmorg’s recent book on this issue deserves further attention.

In any case, until a civil and conclusive discussion or debate can be held regarding point 1, point 2 will always be problematic. Will our new president take this sort of caution to heart when he starts modifying U.S. environmental policy? I’m not particularly hopeful on the score, but the idea of a discussion is at least preferable to an enforced mandate from above.