Climate change is more politics than science

Following up my previous post on climate change, I have realised that the debate on climate change is much more politically motivated than scientifically based. Call me naive, but I thought such an issue would rely on the science more than anything else. Now I know better.

If you have been following the news, it is blatantly obvious most of the activists are politically left inclined whereas almost all of the skeptics (and outright deniers) are from traditionally right winged factions. It is not difficult to understand the reason behind this.

The right winged have always been known as "by the rich, for the rich," and it is easy to see that climate change policies, on the international scale or the national level, affects the rich more than the poor.

Taking action against climate change requires money from developed nations, but relatively speaking, benefits them little. True, the Great Barrier Reefs will be gone. But that is nothing when compared to losing your entire nation, which is what will happen to hundreds of island nations. Or, having insufficient water supply for your entire population. This is why, like the starving population of Africa, developed countries cannot care less.

On the national level, reducing emissions will greatly increase the cost of power companies, industrial companies and countless other companies who are million, if not billion, dollar profit making companies. Let's face it, we promote Earth Day to 'save the earth', but our individual emissions are no match for major industry players. Hence, the rich, which are relatively few in numbers, and not everyday folk, which make up most of the population, will be carrying the burden if such a legislation is passed. This is why the right wing politicians are so strongly against the carbon tax.

The sad part is, these politicians then go on to use scare tactics to win over voters. They say that the cost of the tax will be passed on to consumers as the companies will sustain higher cost of operations. My question is, why can't the CEOs of the companies, or the owners, or all the million dollar employees of the companies, take a pay cut? Will the $100,000 less in their $2million paychecks cause starvation in their families? Or just a few less Gucci?

From my point of view, the science clearly points to climate change from carbon emissions. Leaked emails are not scientific data. And the data does not come from just one study, or just one scientist. They come from all over the world from multiple different industries. Even if the evidence for it is not conclusive, there currently exist no evidence AGAINST it. It is safe to say, the debate is not about the science, but about the burden of it to the rich.

Who says you can't rule the world with money?

My Take on Climate Change

With the United Nations' Copenhagen summit on climate change just around the corner, I thought it apt to write on the topic of climate change. Not having an overwhelming interest on the subject means my knowledge on this issue is frankly limited. However, I do have a basic understanding of what climate change is and I have been following the news of late.

So far, the pledges by governments around the world have been pathetic, to say the least. President Obama's pledge to cut emissions by 17% of 2005 levels within ten years is simply not enough. That amounts to only 3% of 1990 levels, the level most countries base their targets on. Australia is planning to cut its emissions by 25% of 2000 levels. What's more? Both these legislation have yet to pass the Congress and Senate's vote respectively, and look increasingly unlikely to be passed before the New Year. The only promising sign seems to come from today's Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago: France and the UK pledge to set up a $10billion fund to help developing countries cut emissions. Hopefully, politicians around the world will face up to the situation in the next week or two.

As for climate change skeptics, all I have to say is, the Earth deserves the benefit of the doubt. Although there are no conclusive evidence that rising CO2 levels is the cause of global warming (but I think it's pretty convincing), doing something for nothing is definitely preferable over doing nothing and risk facing a catastrophe. After all, since this is a global phenomenon, the financial burden from cutting emissions will mostly go towards creating a new industry, and thus jobs. Therefore, drastic measures should be taken.

While I don't consider climate change to the biggest challenge of our times, I believe actions can and should be taken. So if you would like to make a difference, you should approach your local politicians as soon as possible and let them know you are in support of emissions cut. A simple email can make a difference.

Let's hope something productive comes up from the Copenhagen summit.

Summer, summer, time to read

Since I have such a long list of 'to-read' books, I have decided to come up with a list of books I will attempt to read this summer. Hopefully, I can finish them all. 24 in total. That is indeed a tall order for a slow reader like me, but I figured I have approximately 12 weeks, 2 a week should not be too much to ask for. When making the list, I tried to have a balance between fiction and non-fiction, as well as covering a wide range of topics. Below is some brief words about the books, and I hope to review at least half of all of them as I go along. Won't be reading in this particular order, but I will be starting with The Book Thief.


The Book Thief by Markus Zusak
This book has had some impressive reviews and is set in the WWII era. Since it is about the character's love of books (I think), I hope it will inspire to read more.

Candide by Voltaire
This one's said to be one of the best satires ever. I'm a huge fan of satires, so I am looking forward to reading this. It will provide some comic relief too.

Stiff by Mary Roach
This will fill the medical/science part of my readings and, I hope this is funny.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson
This, I hope, will fill the comedy part of my list. And I can't have a list without a book about drugs, can I?

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly by Jean-Dominique Bauby
I have not seen the movie, but this book seems to have won many prizes. If it's bad, at least its small size will mean it wouldn't take long.

Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
Can't have a list without a book on politics, right? Hopefully I can understand most of it.


The Holy Bible (International Edition)
We have all heard of fascinating stories from The Bible. This will be an interesting read and hopefully improve my understanding of Christianity. I wanted to read the King James edition, but I found the international edition on the shelve at home, so international edition it is.

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
After writing an essay on Darwin and the Nazis, I decided Hitler would be an interesting person to read about. What better place to start than a book by the man himself.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson
A suspense novel. Just for some entertainment, seeing as this book has had quite the hype.

The Iliad by Homer
I'm trying to learn poetry. Don't know if this is a good place to start, but Trojan War, should be interesting anyway.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
This should perhaps be counted as 2. About 1500 pages, depending on which version, I hope I get through it alive. I will trust the reviews on this one.

Old Goriot by Honoré de Balzac
A novel on social criticisms, I hope it's entertaining and interesting. Can't discount the fact that Balzac is Oscar Wilde's favourite author.

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
Said to be thought provoking, should be a good non-fiction to add to my list.

Little White Slips by Karen Hitchcock
One more to fill in the medical/science part of my list, not many so far.

The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
Again, have yet to watch the movie. But I hope the popularity of this book is justified.

Life of Pi by Yann Martel
Similarly, I hope this one is too.

Direct Red by Gabriel Weston
Having too few medical books, this biography will fill the void. Female surgeon, should be interesting.

The Thirteenth Tale by Diane Setterfield
A suspense involving a novelist. Might be interesting, or at least, entertaining.

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society by Mary Ann Schaffer
Another novel that somehow involves reading. Don't know why but I'm fascinated about that stuff.

Martin Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis
A medical novel published in 1925. Said to be underrated. Looks good. We'll see.

The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud
I need to understand my dreams and learn how to psychoanalyse people, just for the sake of it. Good variety for my list too.

Essays by George Orwell
I'm an Orwell fan, so some assorted essays should do me good.

Ideas That Matter by A.C. Grayling
I've read The Meaning of Things by Grayling. It was an interesting read and I hope this philosophical book would be just as good, if not better.

Soul Mountain by Gao Xingjian
Apparently an amazing journey of self-discovery and self-reflection, hopefully gives me something to ponder over summer.

Stupid White Man by Michael Moore
Another one for politics!

New Layout

Finally, done with my new layout, I hope you like it. New features include the cool, sliding widget at the top, as well as the links on the header. I tried my best to make things more organised.

Any comments, feedback, suggestions, feel free to use the comment box. I am still reluctant to open up comments to anonymous users as I hold firm to my believe that, you are free to say anything you like but, you need to be responsible for it.

So that's what free speech means

"Talking about free speech--you should have the right to keep them out as much as they have the right to bring him here." --Kay Anderson

Now I know. So Stalin was just exercising his rights all along. Preventing others from speaking is part of free speech rights. I see. Glad you cleared that up. So, can I prevent you from preventing others? My rights, isn't it?


Anyway, I have a few unfinished posts waiting to be completed. I hope to get them done soon. One particular one is my own reflections on why I write about the stuff that I write about. And I'm going to change the colour coding of the blog. Don't like it (anymore).


See you soon,
Free Speech

Knockin' On Heaven's Door

Some, perhaps most, of you would have seen the Youtube video of the cheerleader who was paralysed after receiving the Swine Flu vaccine. The caption even stated, "experts claim serious side effects of flu shots amount to about one in a million - well this is what that one in a million looks like."

If that sucked you in, you seriously need to consider doing more critical thinking. Here's why. From April to August, 593 deaths and 9079 hospitalisations from H1N1 swine flu were reported in the US. That puts the death rate at 2 per million Americans, and serious cases at 3 per 100,000. Furthermore, this is based on the entire American population, where many live in rural areas where contact with the virus is much lower. If you are in a city, chances are those numbers are lower than a conservative estimate would be. Plus, that's only up to August. If you don't live under a rock, you would have noticed that lately the situation has escalated. Hence, comparatively, one in a million chance of developing severe side effects to the vaccine doesn't sound too bad to me.

If you were brainwashed by one of those anti-vaccine groups. Here's an article for you to read. It dispels most of their claims. Just because Jenny McCarthy has big boobs doesn't mean you should always listen to her. (Megan Fox would be harder to resist.) There are no adjuvants or thimerosal in the H1N1 vaccine. Do the research for yourself and decide.

Then again, these anti-vaccine people aren't necessarily a bad thing. Although I believe everyone has equal rights to life, less stupid people in the world never hurts. And when an epidemic strikes, it will be those unvaccinated who dies. Win-win. Your choice.

Won't Get to Heaven

So, you have probably heard about the Texas Military base shooting by now, or at least I hope so. And guess what is the latest development? That's right! Right-wing media respond to attack by demonizing Muslim.

What's better, you ask? Less than 24 hours later, Orlando office shooting occurred. Wait for it, oh, man is not Muslim. Theory debunked. The man is probably Catholic too.

These religious conservatives should really stop blinding themselves. They choose to see what they want, and close out the rest, even if it means not seeing the truth. It's ironic they'd claim atheists "can't see the light." (You know the joke? "How many atheist does it take to change a light bulb? None, because they can't see the light." Though they fail to realise, without science, there would be no light bulb for you to change, idiot!) They like to believe what they believe is true, even with overwhelming evidence against it. When your 14-year old gets pregnant, why blame her for being a slut? Blame parthenogenesis (virgin birth) or blame the Pope for stigmatising condoms. Makes more sense to me.


Jesus is cool. The Bible is cool. The Qur'an is cool. But if you need to take them all literally, you might as well believe my shit smells like roses. They do.


Your friendly atheist,
TY

What a Wonderful World

This sums it up.

Playing God

(Yes. Title from latest Paramore. Don't get why all the hype though. It's good but not great to me. Maybe it's a Twilight type thing. Speaking of which, a forty plus year old lady was reading Breaking Dawn on the train. Oh My! It is the end of literature!)

This is an embarrassing attempt by a believer to defend religion.

A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

Seriously. How can something like that match up to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens or Singer?
The article is written by Greg Cravens, Vice Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.
I honestly feel sorry for Catholics and students of that university. His credibility is gone. I doubt any believers themselves would think that the article would do them justice.

Since you are unlikely to read the article, I'll show you some of the comedy.
He started off with:
"Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny."

but apparently attacking atheists is.
Why would anyone start an essay with that but go out of your way to try to be funny in their essay? Oh, hypocrisy!

Now for my favourite part:
"This is not to say that believers - and perhaps especially Catholics - do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny."

So he thinks Wilde is funny. Oh my, wait, Oscar Wilde? The atheist? HAHAHA!
Hypocrisy or misinformed?
Not to mention that in itself is a lame attempt at trying to be funny.

Next, for the most disgusting part:
"In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia."

He brushed those claims aside just like that. He rather devote his essay to unsuccessful attempt at wit, which he says isn't cool.
Let's see, Catholic sex abuse cases. Oh, not much, just an entire Wikipedia article about it. Let's not count the ones for each country. He offered no solution, no apology, nothing. As though it was not an important matter. Maybe he's part of it. Like wise for all the other "sins" he mentioned. No solution, just as though they weren't true. Only an idiot will think atheists made those facts up. Who's against Gay Rights? Who's against Feminist Rights?

Let me remind you, the upcoming atheists convention in Melbourne in 2010 (largest ever in Australia, which is what sparked the increased number of debate between atheists and believers lately) is funded entirely privately. World Youth Day 2008 in Sydney cost the government $185 million.

What's fair? You tell me.

If believers want to be taken seriously, they ought to come up with better arguments. So far, I have yet to witness a believer defeating a non-believer in one of these debates on religion. Either it's ignorance, or just not as intelligent. I think the former, they aren't stupid.

Believers, if you got this far, don't get me wrong. Most atheists don't hate you. We simply do not like you imposing your believes on to us. Public money in a secular country should be spent without the interference of religion. Islamic country can spend it on Islamic activity, it makes sense, but not secular country. If you want to practice your religion, do so, but don't impose it on others. You don't see atheists attacking Buddhism.


Your friendly atheist,
TY

Insane

I'm alive! Do not worry, just busy, will continue posting about religion and politics and what not soon. Here's Happy Halloween!



Scare FAIL!!