Welcome To Josh's Blog O' Thoughts: Books

I was recently sent a link to part of a Martin Bashir documentary about Global Warming. While the documentary doesn't try to disprove that Global Warming is happening (as some other "investigative" reporters claim), it does raise questions about the causes of Global Warming.

The overall message of his documentary is that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the primary contributor to Global Warming. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore uses ice core samples dating back thousands of years to show that there is, in fact, a correlation between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He doesn't give the level of correlation, but even an amateur can spot that the graph lines are mostly aligned.

In Freakonomics, the authors explain the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two things are correlated (they move together) doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other or vice-versa. Obviously, the movie is implying that the CO2 is the cause of Global Warming, but it can't be proved just from the data shown in the movie.

Martin Bashir's report, however, claims that the CO2-Temperature correlation is simply that, just a correlation. His documentary claims there is no causation there. He may or may not be right. This documentary claims that the true cause of Global Warming is an increase in activity on the Sun. The explanation is as follows. The Earth is normally bombarded by cosmic rays which combine with rising water vapor to form clouds. With the Sun's activity currently in a heightened state, the Solar Wind is "blowing" away many of the cosmic rays. This leads to less cloud coverage and higher temperatures.

The data presented in the YouTube clip show a negative correlation between cosmic rays and temperature (when cosmic rays go down, temps go up), and a positive correlation between sun activity and temperatures. This all sounds very reasonable, but unfortunately, I don't think it gets us any closer to a proven cause than Al Gore's CO2 stance. They both have correlations, but we haven't necessarily proven causality.

Either way, you can't argue that reducing our CO2 emissions is a bad thing. Even if it has very little effect on Global Warming, reducing emissions means that we are driving more efficient standards, and thus will be promoting cleaner living all around. Additionally, it will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, of which price will become a deterrent as extraction becomes more difficult.

So, don't watch this Martin Bashir documentary and think "CO2 isn't causing Global Warming, so I can continue on doing whatever I please without being responsible." Regardless of who is right about the cause of Global Warming, we still need to try to be more energy efficient.

In a recent story, it was reported that some employers are going to begin implementing programs which will charge overweight employees a higher insurance premium. This move is hopefully an inventive for these people to lose weight and lead a healthier life thereby reducing health care costs in the long run. Other companies are going to use programs which give incentives to healthy people.

I doubt that this will have much effect, unless the penalties are VERY steep. One thing I learned in the book Freakonomics is that incentives or disincentives have to be very high in order to cause change in behavior. Without this, people will likely continue their behavior and pay the fine, because the cost of the fine is outweighed by their enjoyment of their current lifestyle.

Anyway, it's an interesting idea. We'll see how much people complain about the companies infringing upon their rights.

I just finished reading a very good book called Freakonomics. The authors shed some light on some unknown correlations between everyday information. This is all done through the perspective of economics, but is written in a easily understood, yet informative way. I would highly recommend this book to anyone.

Among the correlations and conclusions drawn is the apparent cheating of school teachers for pay incentives, the correlation between legalized abortion and lower crime rates, nature versus nurture in regards to a child's school test scores, and the importance of having the 'right' name. These topics bring to light some interesting correlations while putting others to rest as myths. For instance, children who watch more television do NOT do worse in school than children who do not watch a lot of television. There is no correlation between the two.

Now then, I'd like to relate some of this to my own blog entries. If you've been here before, you know that I have taken issue with the rising price of gas. So a good economic question to ask is "Are gas prices too high?". The answer, surprisingly, is No. From an economic stand point, price points are set based on the balance of supply and demand. Since the price point of gasoline has been increasing with no major change in demand, it can be said that gas prices are not too high, and that gas was, in fact, under priced before. If people are able and willing to pay $3.00 a gallon, the laws of economics would say that this is an appropriate price point.

This, however, contradicts posts that I have made griping about these rising costs. But, in my view, just because the laws of economics say that these are fair price points, doesn't mean I can't complain about them.

I've been reading these stories about two whales that found their way into the port of Sacramento. Marine biologists are attempting to lure the whales back out to sea. It all reminds me of a whale watching tour I took in Hawaii. We saw several humpback whales and even saw a few breeching which was one of the coolest things to see in person. Whales are such amazing creatures. The fact that they can be so large and propel themselves out of the water like that is astounding.

It's unfortunate what we have done to whales in the past. I just finished re-reading Moby Dick and again was appalled by the behavior we showed towards whales during that time period. Whales were hunted primarily for the oil that could be used to power oil lamps. The whales were killed and dismantled in pretty brutal ways all for this oil. Much of the whale was just left behind. And just like anything we get involved in, we overuse and overuse until there is almost nothing left. It really is unfortunate that we always have to try to recover from our stupidity. I guess "look before you leap" never made it into the mindset of humankind.

If you read Angels and Demons, the popular predecessor to the Da Vinci Code, you were probably wowed, and maybe even dumfounded, at the ambigrams used in the book. As I looked at those things it made my brain hurt just thinking about the work it must have taken to come up with them. For people who don't know, and ambigram is a drawing of a word or phrase that can be read from multiple viewing angles or perspectives. Some ambigrams can be read exactly the same when rotated 180 degrees (this is the case in Angels and Demons). Others make use of the negative space or form a different word when rotated.

Anyway, the man who created the ambigrams for Angels and Demons, John Langdon (recognize the last name), has a VERY cool website where he showcases his artwork and ambigrams. There are some really amazing pieces there. Check it out and you'll be amazed at the work this guy does. It also looks like he can be hired for custom artwork. I wonder how much it would cost to commission an ambigram of my name? That'd be a cool piece of art to hang in my house.

JohnLangdon.net