New IPCC Report Confirms Humans Have Very Little Time Before Catastrophe Sets In

Google maps projection of  a +4C greenhouse world -on the verge of being unlivable. 

I have ten great nieces and nephews who will reach a youngish middle age by 2040. But I am pondering now what kind of world awaits them. Will they, indeed, be able to find shelter and prosper in the world now projected in an ominous United Nations report — prepared by The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.    These dire manifestations are certain if humans collectively fail to change their fossil fuel gobbling ways. Surely, this latest report  ought to have every sentient member of homo sapiens quaking with forebodings.

This is given that it is the embodiment of the United Nations issuing its most urgent call to arms yet  and painting a far grimmer picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought.  Basically, thick-headed humanity is warned  that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.”

As if to insert an exclamation point for emphasis, we also learned (WSJ, p. A3, yesterday)  that on Monday, Yale University economist William D. Nordhaus shared the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work arguing for the implementation of global carbon taxes to reduce long term greenhouse emissions.    Quoted in the piece, Dr. Nordhaus said:

"There are billions of individuals, millions of firms, thousands of governments, hundreds of nations, and for them to take action, they're going to have to have incentives.  We can raise the prices of goods and services that are carbon intensive and lower the ones that are less carbon intensive."

This is very sound advice, but now that the IPCC report has come out, one wonders if the window available is simply too small to achieve what's needed. The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels by 2040.  Meanwhile, in the same WSJ issue (p. A17)  one finds a propagandist attempting to impugn Nordhaus' model by referencing the potential costs to limit the temperature increase to 2.7 F by 2100.. Uh sorry, guy, but that train already left the station.  

That would be bad enough but the fake news pusher (a "research fellow at the Hoover Institution") also claimed in that context that the cost of implementing Nordhaus' policy would have been vastly larger than doing nada ($37 trillion vs. $16.4 trillion). Which, of course, is BS. The cost of doing nothing until 2040 and allowing the now forecast 4C rise (more likely 6C) by 2100 will be well over $100 trillion in worldwide costs - from the mega-disasters including massive flooding, fires, to loss of jobs, homes, infrastructure - including power stations. Hence, the propagandist Henderson's take that "Mr. Nordhaus' work doesn't support the recent announcement by the IPCC" is total bollocks.  

Oh, another clown that needs slapping upside the head is Holman Jenkins Jr. (WSJ today, p. A15) who babbles deliriously about "the standard climate sensitivity envelope" and its being applied to "future forecast emissions".  Reading his ignorant spiel it's clear this overpaid hack lacks clue one about what data go into global temperature projections.  Still, even a broken clock is right twice each day so give little Holman credit for having at least the thermal physics guesstimate capacity to realize the IPCC authors' solution of injecting reflecting particles into the atmosphere is a non- starter. It would take an albedo coverage equivalent roughly equal to the lunar surface area to get the job done.

Prof. Nordhaus' work does support the IPCC report,  but look, we have to hit the ground running - and that means immediately (in the next year) retiring 500 million autos worldwide from spewing CO2,. Oh, and shutting down all coal-fired plants.

But after also reading the article in the WSJ Business and Investing section, i.e.:

Traders Bet on Return of $100 Oil

I am not sanguine that consumption of fossil fuel, especially oil, will drop one bit. Nope, we will keep guzzling the damned stuff even as the rising seas drown us or raging fire tornadoes cremate us as the runaway greenhouse kicks in.  Don't believe it? Just stick around - at least until 2040, or better 2100.

Where does the 4C increase come from?  Look at the Guardian UK article from May 17, 2015  which bluntly points out:

"A paper used for guiding future business planning at the Anglo-Dutch multinational assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will fail to limit temperature increases to 2C, the internationally agreed threshold to prevent widespread flooding, famine and desertification. Instead, the New Lens Scenarios document refers to a forecast by the independent International Energy Agency (IEA) that points to a temperature rise of up to 4C in the short term, rising later to 6C."

THIS is the unvarnished truth but you'd never know it by reading most corporate media  releases.   So, in fact, the new IPCC report is basically merely bringing most humans who don't follow climate science closely up to speed.  I guess the reason for the lack of clarion calls is to avoid "frightening" the somnolent public or appearing to always be in emergency mode. Well, newsflash, that's what we have! 

As for the newly released report, it describes a world of worsening food shortages and poverty; more wildfires; and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.  Certainly, alas, in the lifetimes of my great 6 great nephews and 4 great nieces.   Given I likely won't be around by then, I just can't imagine how they will fare - especially as half already live either on an island (Barbados) or a locale prone to wildfires.

Meanwhile, Traitor Trump, who has mocked the science of human-caused climate change, cut the American contribution to a global fund that supports climate mitigation and assistance efforts in developing countries by two-thirds, to $1 billion. He has also  tried to cut government funding of climate-related research — an effort that Congress has so far resisted.

Predictably, the  Dotard White House issued no public response to the United Nations report, which was issued Monday in South Korea at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders.  In the immortal words
 of one Bill Shine, the White House communications director:

“Not today.  It’s a Kavanaugh night.”

Right. So Donnie Dotard would rather rest on the laurels of an almost certain Pyrrhic victory than address the number one emergency facing the whole planet. Why am I not surprised?  I guess, like my great nieces and nephews, his doting supporters can go suck salt (sea salt).

So the reptilian spawn Kavanaugh - arguably the most disreputable SC justice yet - gets precedence and props over the five alarm report issued by the UN.    Am I making too big a deal of the IPCC report? Hardly!   According to  Bill Hare, the author of previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a nonprofit organization:

"The report is quite a shock, and quite concerning.  We were not aware of this just a few years ago.”

Well, I was, since the Guardian UK article came out 3 years ago. All the signs and data in fact had been pointing to lowballed temperature increases - leaving most citizens living in a fool's paradise So there have been numerous warning blips that the rate of global warming may be much larger than previously thought.

The bottom line?

Without aggressive action NOW, many effects that climate scientists once expected to happen further in the future will arrive by 2040, and at the lower temperature, the report shows.

Myles Allen, an Oxford University climate scientist and an author of the report. quoted in one NY  Times piece said:

“It’s telling us we need to reverse emissions trends and turn the world economy on a dime,”

To prevent 2.7 degrees of warming, the report said, greenhouse emissions must be reduced by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, and by 100 percent by 2050. It also found that use of coal as an electricity source would have to drop from nearly 40 percent today to 1 to 7 percent by 2050. 

Seriously?  Are we really going to be able to remove 500 million autos worldwide? I doubt it. But... when a species like ours is faced with the proverbial hangman's noose maybe it will finally focus attention. Maybe.  As Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University and an author of the report put it:

“It makes me feel angry when I think about the U.S. government.  My kids feel like it’s their future being destroyed.”

Join the club, Mr. Shindell, because my great nieces and nephews feel pretty much the same way!

See also:
Climate report understates threat

Excerpt:

So far, average temperatures have risen by one degree Celsius. Adding 50 percent more warming to reach 1.5 degrees won’t simply increase impacts by the same percentage—bad as that would be. Instead, it risks setting up feedbacks that could fall like dangerous dominos, fundamentally destabilizing the planet. This is analyzed in a recent study showing that the window to prevent runaway climate change and a “hot house” super-heated planet is closing much faster than previously understood.

And:

What Does Science Demand? A Global Energy Transformation With Focus on Inequality of Consumption

The Kavanaugh Circus Will Anger Reeptards & Generate A "Red Wave" Next Month? Poppycock and Twaddle!

The corporate media now appears to be chocked full of entries claiming - in the wake of Kavanaugh's questioning by Senate Dems -  that there is a "surge in GOP enthusiasm that could recalibrate the political landscape to the Democrats' disfavor".  Do not believe this malarkey for one solitary second.  There is nothing, NADA, that is going to stop or diminish the Blue tidal wave now building to epic proportions   especially as educated and sensible women across the land have seen and heard how one of their own (Christine Blasey Ford) was so contemptuously treated by the Reptiles.

But it seems all the weenies and milk toast, entitled white males have crawled out from their parents' basements to start whining and crying about how the women are grinding their miserable butts under their high heels. Well, in a way this is true - but more arising from male failures -  including at the college level where females are not only demonstrating significantly greater attendance but graduating with better degrees and at higher rates.  See e.g.

At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust - The New York Times

And:

Search Results

Web results

Why Men Are the New Minority in College - The Atlantic

Of course, the whiners and bloviators in the media - like Sean Hannity and Lush Limburger - want you to believe all these poor guys are the victims of an academic structure and system that ensures female success but obliterates it for males.  Well, cry me a river and please pass the world's smallest violin and I can play a little dirge.  The real problem, of course, is not any male victimization by the women - but rather the women righteously working their butts off to get ahead while the guys head for the keggers at frat parties.

But it's petulant male grievances of this type that we are supposed to believe were hatched amidst the animus of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.  Also, that the recent Kavanaugh circus (crafted by the Reepturds, mind you)  is causing all the entitled little males to get their dander up enough to outvote  the millions of raging women next month.  Don't believe it! These guys will still be playing Grand Theft Auto in their moms' basements while they also pout and cry on some dreggy Reddit forum - maybe dedicated to the incels.

What is undeniable is that millions of young, college educated women - mainly in suburbs, but also beyond them - are furious at the patriarchy on display last Friday in ramming through Kavanaugh  - which commentator John Oliver described as "A 'fuck you!' to all women watching".  Especially those women who've been marked as survivors of sexual assault by some over eager young ape with loose paws. Those women - an estimated 25- 30 million-   are now holding their fire but ready to unleash it at the polls.  They won't hold back.

The display by the Reeptard Right was beyond the pale in painting themselves as the aggrieved victims despite controlling both houses of congress, the presidency and now the Supreme Court.  Especially enraging was Dotard claiming the whole thing with Dr. Ford was a "democratic hoax" when the only hoax is the criminal one this Russian stooge traitor tool - who ought to be hung by the neck,
 
is perpetrating on all of us - while having the audacity to appoint the Reptilian turd Brett Kavanaugh to the highest court.  We also know Dotard coached him to be a "whiny little bitch" in the words of Bill Maher (Friday night, on Real Time)  to get through.   As for the bitch fest claim (e.g. by Republican strategist Alice Stewart) that "Democrats were willing to use Dr. Ford's testimony to launch character assassinations on Judge Kavanaugh" - that's total horse pockey.  Indeed, as journalist Rebecca Traister explained last night on 'All In', the Repukes brought the whole acrimonious process on themselves (in 'he said, she said' format) by not interrogating all parties, and especially only offering up a sham FBI investigation.

Look, in the words of former Senate Judiciary staffer Lisa Graves (last night) everyone in the country who isn't a partisan knows the GOP Senators who rammed Kavanaugh's confirmation through  "participated in one of the biggest whitewashes in American history"  Hell, I'd say at least on a par with the bogus Warren Commission which used the lone nut rubbish to whitewash the JFK assassination.

When protesters then erupted, as they had every right to - the people sensing a railroad job - the high and mighty white Reepo patriarchs proclaimed they were the last bastions of "law and order" standing in the way of anarchy! Bull fucking shit! THEY were the ones using lawless minority rule to divide the country in ways not seen since the Civil War.

Even more egregious and outrageous was the Traitor -in-chief yesterday, spouting the following unadulterated bullshit in the packed East Room of the White House:

"On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure. Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception.”

Adding,  like the insufferable maggot he is:

"What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency, and due process. Our country, a man or woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."

And then capping it with another lie:

“And with that, I must state that you, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent."

Except it wasn't a trial, you fuckfaced orange baboon, so he can't be 'proven' innocent! It was basically a JOB interview (as journalist Soledad O'Brien explained on Real Time) for one of the most important jobs in the land!  So the miserable, swine ratfucker thereby rubbed more salt in open national wounds instead of healing them. But what do you expect from a traitor who ought to have been swinging from a tree by now as opposed to inserting a guy into the highest court  with the potential to give him a 'get out of jail free' card in the Mueller probe?

All this followed the growing media narrative (e.g.. as expressed in an AP release in The Denver Post Monday) that  "internal polling - by GOP operatives-  has shown that Kavanaugh's acrimonious confirmation has given the party a much needed boost, with GOP voters viewing Democrats as overzealous partisans".

The implication by these operatives being that the Dem takeover of the House is now at risk given the Red "tide"   (like the toxic one now killing sea life in FLA) will wash in and overcome the blue wave. Horse manure!  Then, according to another AP report, a poll late Monday "suggested independents view the Democrats' response to Kavanaugh even more dimly than Republicans."  Well, if such a poll exists it's either statistically skewed - or- the claimed "independents" are really morons or Reepos in disguise. I just don't buy it.

All the most reliable polling now shows the Dems with a huge gender gap advantage - female voters up to 30 points for Dem candidates - with white (mainly non-college educated)  males tilting 9 points toward their favorite Reeptards.   This spells disaster for the GOP in a month and they KNOW it! That is why they are spinning this yarn about a "recalibrated political landscape" that even has Nate Silver biting. (Silver now gives the Dems only a 50-50 chance of retaking the House).

It is clear to this observer that all this huff and puff by the assorted Republican operatives is merely meant to try to pump up the GOP's forlorn loser base, while also attempting to depress Democratic energy and turnout. (Especially as so many in the media, even MSNBC's Steve Kornacki, repeat some form of this hog swill.)

But I take the position that the farce we witnessed this past weekend will only amplify the Democratic Party's pull with female voters, including independents and moderates who may have previously voted Republican.  As pollster Geoff Carlin put it (ibid.):

"Kavanaugh's confirmation will leave a lot of outraged and energized women in its wake"

And those millions of  outraged, energized women are just itching to make their displeasure known at the ballot box next month!

Above all what the whole Kavanaugh ordeal shows is that political party DOES matter! One party clearly is the one for reality and checks and balances - the other is indifferent to those, and intent on propping up a Russian tool.  It beggars the imagination to think any citizen - especially a young,  would- be voter - could argue that "parties don't matter".  The Kavanaugh atrocity perpetrated by the Reepturds proves that they do

See also:

From Kavanaugh to November

And: :

Kavanaugh Is Confirmed. Only Mass Organizing Will Save Us Now.

And:

For Trump supporters,'the cruelty is the point': Adam Serwer for The Atlantic 

DNA Variants - Now We Know There Are Links To Educational Attainment

On Monday, July 23rd, scientists published a study in Nature Genetics that analyzed the genes of 1.1 million people of European ancestry, including over 300,000 23andMe customers. Over 99 percent of our DNA is identical in all humans, but researchers focused on the remaining 1 percent and found thousands of DNA variants that are correlated with educational attainment. This information can be combined into a single number, called a polygenic score. In Americans with European ancestry, just over 10 percent of people with a low polygenic score completed college, compared with 55 percent of people with a high polygenic score. This genetic disparity in college completion is nearly as big as the disparity between rich and poor students in America..

We need to seriously consider this disparity as a nation given males who didn’t graduate from college have not seen real gains in wages since the 1960s, and white Americans without a college degree are increasingly dying “deaths of despair” — liver disease from alcoholism, overdoses from opioids, suicides. Now new research has found that college graduation, with all its advantages, is partly the outcome of a genetic lottery. As one research psychologist put it (Kathryn Page Harden) writing in The NY Times :  "College education is a fault line in American society."

Research like this makes many citizens nervous. Linking social inequality to DNA — isn’t this eugenics? After all, the term “eugenics” was coined by Francis Galton, whose 1869 book, “Hereditary Genius,” argued that British class structure was based on a biological inheritance of “eminence.” In the United States, the idea that inferior genes were to blame for poverty led to state-sponsored atrocities, including forced sterilization and institutionalization.

But people can chill given the study's results have no implications for understanding racial disparities in education. Also, when researchers looked at African-Americans, the genetic variants only minimally predicted educational outcomes. Many more studies will need to be done before we can come close to understanding fully the role of genetics in the American education system.

But it is true eugenic thinking is not safely in the past. Today, members of the “human biodiversity movement” enthusiastically tweet and blog about discoveries in molecular genetics that they mistakenly believe support the ideas that inequality is genetically determined; that policies like a more generous welfare state are thus impotent; and that genetics confirms a racialized hierarchy of human worth.

This has led people who value social justice to argue that, when it comes to issues like education, genetic research should simply not be conducted. For instance, in response to an earlier study on the genetics of education, Dorothy Roberts, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, asserted that this type of research “cannot possibly be socially neutral — and in fact will intensify social inequities.” 

Those of us who value social justice should instead be asking: How can the power of the genomic revolution be harnessed to create a more equal society? Discovering specific DNA variants that are correlated with education can help us in two ways.

First, these genetic results reveal the injustice of our so-called meritocracy. As a nation, we justify stark inequalities with the idea that people who stayed in school deserve more than people who didn’t finish high school or college — more money, more security, more health, more life. But success in our educational system is partially a result of genetic luck. No one earned his or her DNA sequence, yet some of us are benefiting enormously from it. By showing us the links between genes and educational success, this new study reminds us that everyone should share in our national prosperity, regardless of which genetic variants he or she happens to inherit.

 

Second, knowing which genes are associated with educational success will help scientists understand how different environments also affect that success. For example, it may well be for certain groups an education at a community college carries a bigger overall payoff than going to Harvard.  The essential  DNA sequence may simply not be there for Harvard, but may well be to succeed at "Central Community College".

The eventual development of a polygenic score that statistically predicts educational outcomes will allow researchers to control for genetic differences between people, so that the causal effects of the environment are thrown into sharper focus. Understanding which environments cause improvements in children’s ability to think and learn is necessary if we want to invest wisely in interventions that can truly make a difference.

Talking about including genetics as a variable in statistical models doesn’t have the same dark allure as eugenic proposals to screen embryos or assign children to schools based on their genotypes. But the widespread use of polygenic scoring in research aiming to understand how environments shape children’s lives will yield big payoffs for knowing how to maximize a child’s potential. We can’t change someone’s genes, but we can try to change how she grows up.

Yes! The Humanities Are In Decline And It Exposes A Moral Vacuum In Our Cuture

In her recent WSJ op-ed ('The Humanities' Decline Makes Us Morally Obtuse') English Professor Paula  Marantz Cohen writes:

"Few people seem to be able to reconcile two overlapping truths - that someone can have a valid grievance in one context and be guilty of some version of the same thing in another. I see this as a failure of education. By 'education' I do not mean the workshops that teach us what not to say or to avoid offending others. That is training, not education."

Which is absolutely true. As an example, one can consider the case of  Asia Argento, Italian actress and one of Harvey Weinstein's original accusers. But who- in a radically divergent context - paid out $380,000 late last year to Jimmy Bennett who had accused her of assault. (See e.g. TIME, Oct. 1, p. 31).    As the piece goes on to note:

"The news came after Argento delivered  a rousing speech at the Cannes Film Festival in support of #MeToo and change in the industry."

But incredibly, after the Bennett revelations many mistakenly then took Ms. Argento to be a villainess, which is typical of the less (humanities) educated individuals Prof. Cohen writes about. These include those deficient in humanities exposure - which can range from classic literature to ethics, to metaphysics and philosophy-  as well as people who innately hate the humanities as inferior to science and technology.  As Prof. Cohen puts it:

"The humanities teach understanding but they also teach humility, that we may be wrong and our enemies may be right, that the past can be criticized without our necessarily feeling superior to it. That people's professed motives are not the whole story, and that the division of the world into oppressors and victims is a simplistic fairy tale."

For my own part, I think of how much more restricted my writing would be without the exposure to the humanities I had at Loyola University, for example. Those years and courses -  in everything from English lit, to metaphysics and ethics as well as comparative religion -  set the stage for my much larger framework of experience and education. This was beyond the standard STEM subjects one takes in the course of specialization for one's chosen major.  Were I to have been solely restricted to the STEM subjects, I'd never be writing about ethics, economics, religion, history now.  This blog Brane Space would be vastly limited to just math and science topics.

It strikes at the core of what Prof. Cohen is getting at that too many scientists even today confine themselves strictly to their specialty areas and seldom - if ever -  venture outside them.  So terrified  are they of being criticized for stepping out of their assigned academic cubby holes. It kind of reminds me of the Albert Bartlett Physics Today essay from 2004 in which he expressed the fear any physicists have of writing about the population explosion our planet faces.

The core problem as described by Prof. Cohen seems to be (ibid.):

"Science, engineering and finance may be hard but literature, history and philosophy are complex - impossible to resolve with a yes - or no, right or wrong answer. This is precisely what constitutes their importance as a tool for living. Metaphysics takes its name from the idea it goes beyond 'hard' science into the realm of moral and intellectual speculation, where no empirical proof is feasible."

This is a spot-on observation and also one that explains why most physicists, for example, would never write a book such as 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God' - which I wrote five years ago.  Why not? Because in that book my Loyola Liberal Arts- Metaphysics- Ethics persona emerged, in particular in those chapters dealing with quantum  mechanical conjectures, consciousness and how these affect human ethics and even religious propensities. (Explaining also why most physicists - though admitted atheists or agnostics - would never write any atheist or agnostic texts, as I did.)

In like manner, most physicists would not write a book such as 'The JFK Assassination - The Final Analysis'.  Why not?   Likely because most physicists either are not that invested in recent history, or not confident enough to write a 650-plus page book on one defining historical  event (like the JFK assassination) or more inclined not to veer out of their 'yes-no' cubby holes for specific research.    Informed history thus drove my writing of the book, but also the application of Newtonian physics in multiple areas - such as the kill shot, not to mention echo correlation analysis for the acoustic impulses.   In other words, I had no problem applying scientific principles where I found them to be warranted.

What we are talking about then is a process whereby one transcends the realm of binary-leaning physical reductionism to more complex analysis based on effective critical thinking.   As I've noted in previous posts, this is precisely the benefit of a strong liberal arts education, leading to the ability to evaluate the validity of information - social, historical, religious or ethical - and the credibility of the sources underlying these.  Thereby, one is enabled to not only distinguish false physics (e.g. perpetual motion machines) from the genuine form, but false,  revisionist history from the more genuine entity, and fake news from real news.

This is why Prof. Cohen's ending words are so important:

"If we want our nation to heal and thrive, we just put the study of literature, history and philosophy back at the center of our curricula and require that students study complex works - not just difficult ones."

To the last point, that means being able to read and understand Sartre's 'Being And Nothingness' -  and not just Sir Arthur Eddington's 'Space,  Time and Gravitation',  or Paul Dirac's 'Principles of Quantum Mechanics'.  The truly well-educated person should be able to do both!

See also:

Liberal Arts Astronomer | Carl Sagan and the Tradition of Science ...

If You Claim That Money Is Speech You Ought To Be Prepared To OWN It - And Not Hide It!

Just over two years ago on the topic of money presumed to be speech, I offered this perspective:

"Money is a medium of financial and economic transaction, not speech in the accepted definition. "Speech" implies an individualist aspect whereby a person's unique consciousness is able to assemble specific words to convey an original thought or opinion."

I have not budged from that since, and argue even more strenuously now that if you are going to claim money as "speech" it must be individualized and owned not interjected as an abstract agent devoid of  human responsibility.  This is germane now as we read in a recent WSJ editorial:

"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck again, handing California's Attorney General the power to intimidate political donors. "

The editorial's complaint hearkened back to a 2016 case decision (by a lower court) that found on behalf of the Koch brothers'  dark money outfit, Americans for Prosperity. In that decision the federal judge Manuel Real imposed a permanent injunction against the California AG's demand that nonprofits hand over the unredacted names of their donors.  In other words, if you are going to go the route of dark money, your money is divorced from any "free speech" privileges.

But as we read in the editorial:

"A Ninth Circuit panel swept past the trial evidence to vacate the injunction and reverse Judge Real.  The Judge (Real) had noted that the attorney General 'struggled to find a single witness who could corroborate the necessity of [donor names] in conjunction with their office's investigations.. The Ninth Circuit brushed this aside on grounds that the AG had a 'strong interest' in donor names to investigate fraud."

The editorial seems not to appreciate the enormous potential for fraud, say via hiding criminal identities in giving money donations for political agendas.  It is as if that AG concern doesn't count.   The WSJ then whined how the Ninth Circuit "waived aside security lapses and dismissed the 'undeniably' real threats against foundation supporters."

Again, claiming special privilege for these donors on the basis of their money donations. But that does not compute, and if free speech is advocated on the basis of equal justice under the law it's a no go.  To be sure, I've no objection to political campaign speech. Let the politicos and their super PACs take over air time on the tube and make their attacks to their hearts' content. Indeed, they can say whatever the hell they want, within limits. But it is foolishness to claim this is the same as personal free speech. 

The editorial would have done better to consider the case along side how Prof. Ward Churchill's free speech rights were seriously violated some 17 years ago.  This transpired  when then University of Colorado professor Churchill wrote an essay "On Roosting Chickens" about the 9/11 attacks in an obscure journal.  Some collegian with too much time on his hands found the essay then circulated it widely on the web, and it ultimately ended up in the hands of U of C honchos who declared Churchill unpatriotic and also, unfit to teach.

A special university "panel" was convened which rummaged through all of Churchill's  existing drafts, academic papers and communications - which they did to no other prof. They then pronounced their "verdict":  finding hum guilty of "plagiarism".   In the wake, every little anti-free speech dunce in Colorado went batshit crazy calling for Churchill's head,  with the university - and The Denver Post - complying in full.

The Post hung Ward Churchill out to dry in a number of editorials and op-ed columns, The guy was convicted and hung, drawn and quartered before he could ask 'why'.  The whole episode showed the "free speech" meme for the hypocritical bollocks it is because,  while someone could depict Muslims as "ragheads" in cartoons, he couldn't dare call into the question the U.S. role in inciting blowback to trigger 9/11 - as Churchill did.

The UC vendetta - via its specific ID of Churchill as the essay author - led them to a base violation of his free speech rights and also his equal protections under the law.  In effect, NO other UC professors had their bodies of published work scrutinized, only Churchill. (Even as many wrote in support of him.) This singled him out and the questionable methods caused him to be fired. (Churchill pursued an appeal case and "won" several years later, but again in backhanded fashion the jury awarded him $1.)

So the question arises: WHY should the Americans for Prosperity donors be afforded any more protection than Churchill?  Churchill - true - willingly attached his name to his controversial essay. But in a kangaroo court of public opinion it didn't matter and he ended up losing his livelihood while being selectively smeared. If an individual can be subject to such risk there is no justification  - barring major changes in existing law - political donors should not also face risk for their dark money contributions. You don't get a free ride, e.g. anonymity,  just became you have tons of money to donate.

The WSJ editorialists then bitch at the end:

"The polarization of American politics is raising the risks of disclosure for donors, though the judicial left won't admit it."

Yeah, well the civic  Left will.  But until that risk (for retribution) is also reduced for individuals who express their unpopular opinions, the monied donors do not get a free ride - e.g. to hide. At its core that to me is what the 9th Circuit decision is really about.   It shows the serious need to extinguish dark money speech as against the very basis of free speech, for which human conception and individual creation has been assured since the era of the Founders.

Selected Questions- Answers From All Experts Astronomy Forum (Becoming An Astronomer)

 

Question:  I am 16 in high school and interested in an astronomy career. Can you answer the following for me?

A) How much does the average astronomer make and what are the health benefits, opportunities for overtime etc.?
B). What are the chances for promotion in the field, i.e. to become boss astronomer?
C) What courses do I need to take, including in college?
D) What is the typical work day like?

Answers:

First, no one I know goes into astronomy for pay, health benefits, paid overtime or the like. You can probably find better options in a corporation! If benefits and remuneration are one's primary concern, it's probably better to re-think his or her choice of career. The average astronomer's salary, by the way, depends on many factors, not least is the institution with which one is affiliated, and the seniority of position.  But most base pay for the starting astronomer (associate professor, say) is in the range of $55,000 - 75,000 per annum.

 'Promotion' is a loaded term, because it implies that those in senior positions will soon retire - to make way for younger staff. This doesn't always happen, or at least as quickly as the younger staff want it in a field like astronomy.   For many, it may be necessary, therefore  - to work only in 'adjunct' or part time positions with few or no benefits. People understand this when they go into the field. (Especially as government funding for many astronomy projects has gone way down in the past 6 yrs. or so)

 The main promotion criterion is how many papers one has had published, and the quality of research. The key indicator in that regard - if one is university based - is getting tenure. Tenure may be conferred based on quantity and quality of research papers produced, but alternatively - in terms of academic works, books published.

Regarding necessary skills, of course, a great deal of mathematical and observational skills are needed, and computer skills certainly are indispensable - mainly since so much numerical modeling is done these days in astronomy departments. Perhaps above all, one needs an abiding curiosity in nature and the larger universe.

Re: education and skills needed - these are usually formidable.  In high school for example take all the math and physics courses available. 'Astronomy' is actually quite a large area to try to explain at one time because it includes a number of large sub-areas:

 astrometry - the study of star positions and how these change over time with celestial coordinates

 celestial mechanics - the prediction of the future positions of the planets, Moon

 stellar astrophysics - the study of the physics of the stars, and their evolution, changing properties

 solar physics - the study of the Sun, its physics and properties, as well as terrestrial effects

galactic dynamics  - the study of the dynamics and physics of the galaxies and galactic clusters

cosmology-  the study of the large scale motions and expansion of the universe including the derivation of its past properties from currently observed phenomena.

 Each one of these would probably take several large books to even survey, far less 'explain'. What this shows is that like many other scientific disciplines, astronomy has grown and developed beyond simple description or being one simple science. When people become astronomers today, in fact, they have to specialize in one area, say solar physics - they can't just do 'astronomy' - it's too much!

 The core courses needed for a specialist astronomy (B.Sc.) degree include:

Math:  Calculus, Advanced Calculus, Linear Algebra, Differential equations, Complex Analysis, Numerical Analysis.

 Physics: General Calculus-based Physics (with labs); Electricity & Magnetism, Thermodynamics,  Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Optics, Plasma Physics.

 Astronomy: Geodesy & Astrometry (coordinate systems, fundamental star positions and determinations); Celestial Mechanics (application of classical mechanics to celestial motions), Stellar

 

Astrophysics, cosmology, radio astronomy, Stellar evolution, Binary stars, astronomical observing and measuring.

 

The "typical working day"   depends on which type of astronomer you mean, which specialty field. To make it simple - let's assume the person is in a university- where most research astronomers are.

 The typical day probably then begins with giving a class, say in astrophysics, then holding at least one hour for office time - to allow students to come in and ask questions.

 Then there may be a need to prepare a lab - and if not, one can make use of the campus library to get caught up on the research - and also - look to preparing one or more papers in one's field. In general, research astronomers are allocated more time for this (as opposed to teaching) because it is expected they will publish more.

 Lots of time may also be spent going over data - say obtained from a telescope or other facility. It may also be necessary to go to the Observatory and re-do photographic plates, or spectra if it is thought better resolution is needed. (Better optical results to determine what is going on with the objects under study.)

 

If one is. senior academic, then supervising research students will also be part of the day's duties.

 

Colorado Proposition 112 Will Be A Brutal 'Wake Up' Call For State's Oil Shale Frackers!

Shale oil fracking in Colorado has presented enormous dangers for inhabitants of our state and nothing clarified the need to increase distances between oil and gas wells and neighborhoods more than the home explosion in Firestone nearly 18 months ago that killed two men. The incident was blamed on a leaky flowline from a nearby well that hadn’t been capped properly.   

Now, what many portray as an existential battle for the "soul" of the state is nearing resolution as the November midterm elections approach. This concerns Proposition 112 - known during  the petition process as "Initiative 97", which adherents insist will bring long sought sanity to neighborhoods throughout the state.

 If it works as planned it will bolster the health and safety of tens of thousands of state residents living above or on the edge of Colorado's increasingly fossil-fuel industrialized landscape. The statewide ballot measure would dramatically increase the distance ("offsets")  from homes as well as waterways for new oil and gas wells.   However, standing opposed are a coterie of oil and gas allies who use insane PR ploys to try to terrify state residents into compliance with their frack happy images for the future. For example, they claim it will cost "147,000 jobs"  and "deprive cities and towns of millions of dollars in tax revenues".  

The truth? The loss of 147,000 jobs is wildly overblown. According to the University of Colorado's Leeds School of Business'  Economic Outlook, there were roughly 26,100 jobs in natural resources and mining in 2018.  That number of workers could easily be integrated into the state's burgeoning marijuana industry.  (In fact, the number includes not only oil and gas workers but also coal and metals mining. There were actually only 11,5000 jobs for oil and gas operations.)

Oh, another complaint is that Prop. 112 will  "rob thousands of mineral rights owners of access to their underground property" (Clarification: Some guy named 'Bubba' in the early days of development of a community bought up tracts A, B and C in a current development.  You now happen to live on tract A.  But Colorado law states that while you own the surface area, e.g. lawn etc., Bubba is the owner of anything found underneath, including any minerals, oil or gas. And so, he can extract those goodies anytime he desires.

These are the opposing narratives Colorado voters will have to resolve on November 6th. 

The real nexus of the clash, of course, is between the yen for the shale drillers to go on reaping their climate -destroying treasure and the state's ongoing population boom .     Given these colliding forces - increased population vs, increased drilling. - it was inevitable something would have to give. 

The graphic shown above basically encapsulates the issues as one beholds the far flung oil drilling active wells.  So given all the new people  (estimated half million since 2008) that have moved to the state, bought new homes - many very expensive - it was expected they'd not find proximate drilling activity conducive to their property values. (And many only learned of the activity after they moved in.)  

So there is an existential collision: On the one hand the people having moved to the state in search of quality of life, versus the intensifying hunt by fossil fuel companies for the resources  (natural gas and shale oil) that power modern life. The central question at the heart of the collision: Economy or citizen health? is quickly becoming a high stakes battle - especially in the governor's race.   That pits pro-fracker GOP candidate Walker Stapleton against Jared Polis, who advocates for sensible offsets and more local control of drilling activity.  

For perspective, the state currently requires oil and gas wells to be located at least 500 feet from buildings and 350 feet from recreation areas like playgrounds. The  Prop. 112 ballot initiative would increase those setbacks to nearly half a mile. Effectively, this would ban drilling  on 85 percent of the state's nonfederal public land, according to an analysis by state regulators.

All this has been used by the fracking industry to fan hysteria, while not informing people there are already nearly 50,000 wells in the state and also that the passage of 112 would not affect offsets of the existing wells.  

In terms of economic effect, the REMI Partnership - a nonprofit research group projects that if the measure passes it will reduce state and local revenue by $201 million to $258 million in the first year. It will also result in the loss of 33,500 to 43,000 jobs.  As I already showed above such job loss exaggerations are absurd given oil and gas fracking accounts for barely 1 percent of all Colorado jobs.

One thing for certain: Colorado voters will have to keep their bullshit detector caps on tight as November 6th approaches!