Congratulations America

So, Barack Obama has not (yet) been revealed as America's new alien lizard overlord in disguise, or even the Antichrist. (Will the Antichrist be capable of placing his/her hand on a Bible, I wonder? Maybe he can, but with wisps of smoke emerging from under his palm.)

But enough silliness, and no further snide remarks (apart from saying that the largely unseen invocation prayer by Gene Robinson a couple of days ago really was outstandingly awful,) and instead let's all be happy that the most powerful nation on earth remains a robust democracy which manages transitions of power peacefully and with considerable grace.

More on expert opinion and climate change

Further to my complaint that prominent greenhouse skeptic bloggers don't place enough emphasis on the question of qualifications and experience of the scientists they like to quote in support, here's a story of a recent survey designed to get a better idea of what those closest to the field think:

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Of course, skeptics will say "well, that's just climatologists defending their funding", but honestly, doesn't the greatest fame in science often come to those who do the groundbreaking work that shows the established beliefs of the majority in his or her field are wrong? Why wouldn't that work to encourage those in climatology to publish work that disproves AGW?

The other point is: why are oil geologists such a contrary bunch? What is it about looking for oil that makes them think they know better on climate change?

The tunnel problem

There's a good article in Slate about possible technical solutions to preventing tunnelling from Gaza to Egypt. Unfortunately, there are no obvious easy answers, and a lot of ideas have been considered seriously, including building a moat! (It's amazing how hard it is to secure even a very short border, isn't it?)

While you're at Slate, it's worth reading Christopher Hitchens' "no regrets" column.

(And while I am at it, can someone tell me if I am placing that apostrophe correctly when a person's name ends in "s". I can't recall lately, and both choices look wrong to me.)

UPDATE: there's a follow up post at Slate in which Saletan expresses his annoyance at the way a Foreign Policy blog ridiculed the idea that technology can solve the Gazan problem.

Saletan's response is well argued (he never claimed it was the sole solution), but also, it argues along the lines I was suggesting recently. Namely, that the issue of the potential for legitimate "above ground" trade via Egypt is an important one, despite (I would add) it seeming to attract very little in the way of commentary from a media which is happy to keep running commentary that blames Israel for creating a "prison" state. (Only it's a prison with a potentially open door to goods from a neighbouring arab State.)

Improbable stories from the near future

[Yes, I have realised, I still don't know how to spell "Barack" correctly. So sue me. Anyway, what's wrong with being "Bruce" or "Barry" instead?]

Answer: None

If there is some award for the silliest "Jews are as bad as Nazis" comparison in the press, this one from an opinion piece by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in The Independent would have to be in the running:

How many Palestinian Anne Franks did the Israelis murder, maim or turn mad? Unless the Israeli state can see that equivalence there is no future for Palestine...

Let's remind ourselves from Wikipedia:

After the war, it was estimated that of the 107,000 Jews deported from the Netherlands between 1942 and 1944, only 5,000 survived.

The comparison with Gaza (for the current conflict) is about 1,300,000 with 1,298,700 survivors. Yes, I can see the similarity.

After all, as Yasmin likes to point out, Israel's blockades have created a Gazan prison, although she forgets to note that there is a border with Egypt. So I suppose it's a bit like that tragic situation in Holland in World War II when that long established Jewish country on the border wouldn't let Anne Frank or her family flee from the Nazis, or even let proper trade be established with the Jews.

Spookily similar, I say.

Fighting Arabs

Why the Arabs splinter over Gaza - International Herald Tribune

Not a bad summary here of the rivalries within the Arab world that has stopped them from having anything like a uniform response to the Gaza situation.

The famous landing

As I have missed all TV news since Friday, I hadn't seen 'til tonight this video of the actual river landing in New York. It's very impressive:

Bourdain on Saudi Arabia

I happened to see an episode of Anthony Bourdain's culinary/travel show No Reservations this week, in which he travelled to Saudi Arabia.

It was pretty interesting, as we virtually never see that country through the eyes of a Western tourist. Bourdain seems to be surprised to find that people there can laugh and have a sense of irony, even without alcohol, and in a way I can understand his reaction. It's hard to think of a country with a bigger reputation for inhibiting fun, but of course life no where is completely without some pleasures.

But still, I did get the feeling that the country and culture ended up being treated too softly. for example, his female host is said to be the first woman film maker allowed to move around with her camera crew and not have a male relative with her. That would explain such oddities as Bourdain and her being able to eat together alone in the Saudi equivalent of Kentucky Fried Chicken in the "family" area, I suppose.

Anyhow, it's not a bad show. You can see how they cook baby camel and eat the huge carcus with their fingers. (OK, so I am being too sensitive, but I didn't find the way the skeleton is gradually revealed as the gathering eats the flesh especially appealing.)

You can see all of the episode on Youtube.

Staying awake sometime helps

Mind Hacks: I struggle, fight dark forces in the clear moon light

So, a study in Schizophrenia Research has found a relationship between insomnia and paranoia in both the general public and people with psychosis. That's hardly surprising.

But here's something I hadn't heard before:

Sleep has an interesting relationship to mental illness. While sleeplessness and disturbed circadian rhythms have been linked to mood disorders for many years, sleep deprivation is known to have an antidepressant effect and is sometimes used to treat the most severe cases of depression.

Sleep deprivation in short bursts only, I assume they mean.

That'll teach them

Venezuela breaks off ties with Israel | International | Jerusalem Post

Go to the link to see the great photo of Chavez in a decorative tea cosy. At least, that's what I think it is.

Furthermore:

Venezuela's Foreign Ministry said Caracas also plans to denounce Israel's military actions at the International Criminal Court and the South American nation "will not rest until it sees them punished."

Expect lack of rest, then.

A suggestion

A love vaccine might be just the thing - International Herald Tribune

From the report:

In the new issue of Nature, the neuroscientist Larry Young offers a grand unified theory of love. After analyzing the brain chemistry of mammalian pair bonding - and, not incidentally, explaining humans' peculiar erotic fascination with breasts - Young predicts that it won't be long before an unscrupulous suitor could sneak a pharmaceutical love potion into your drink.

The report speculates that an "anti-love" potion could then follow.

Maybe it's been done before, perhaps in some 1950's or 60's Doris Day movie that I can't recall, but doesn't this sound like a good premise for a comedy movie?

How to blow $10 billion in one hit

Peter Martin: We've only just begun to try to stimulate the economy

Hmm. Peter Martin today explains why the Rudd government's Christmas bonuses were never likely to have lasting effect on holding off a recession, and didn't even really work to keep retail strong. (Adjusted for inflation, Christmas retail figures were not as good as they first sound, and in fact were barely above the preceding level.)

Funny, I thought he was pretty supportive of the idea when it was announced, although I must admit he did note that its effect would "fade" early this year. (This didn't seem to be an actual point of criticism though.)

Now he says:

Professor John Taylor of Stanford University devised the so-called Taylor Rule used by central banks to set interest rates. He told the American Economic Association's annual meeting in San Francisco this month that neither of the Bush government's two emergency tax rebates in 2002 and 2008 had made any difference to consumer spending. The problem was that they were temporary. We adjust our spending based on what we think we are going to be earning, not on the dollars that happen to fall into our pocket on any given week.

Given that the first of these failed rebates was in 2002, weren't Peter and other economics commentators aware that they did not make significant change to consumer spending? (I didn't know either, but economics is not something I profess to know much about.)

On 16 October last year I wrote:

I am still waiting to see more criticism of the short fuse of this spending too.

It seems economics commentary is a game anyone can play at these days.

A dissident on China's woes

A tidal wave of discontent threatens China | Wei Jingsheng - Times Online

The whole article is worth reading, but there was one point which surprised me:

China has a $2 trillion foreign currency reserve but it also suffers from a huge disparity between the rich and poor: while 0.4 per cent of the people hold 70 per cent of the wealth of the country, a fifth of the population - more than 300 million Chinese - have daily incomes of less than one dollar.

Now that's wealth disparity.

UPDATE: according to Wikipedia, the equivalent figures for the USA are:

...at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

So, does this mean that wealth concentration is roughly 20 times worse in China than the US? Gosh. Good thing they are communist, or who know hows bad it could have been!

Another observation

Has anyone else noticed how relaxing it is not to have Kevin Rudd's face or voice on TV for a protracted period. (I suppose Laborites used to feel the same when Howard was on holiday too, but he wasn't the media tart that Rudd is.) It's a bit like the relief when you stop and remove an irritating pebble that's got into your shoe.

High density good or bad?

In comments a couple of posts back, I noted how the writer of the Slate article about environmentalism claimed that the "greenest" way of living was in a high density city like New York; not by being in a city with lots of suburbs.

But today, in the Sydney Morning Herald, someone from an organisation "Save our Suburbs" argues with figures that high density development in Sydney would make more CO2, not less. Here's some of his arguments:

The Australian Conservation Foundation's consumption atlas shows people living in high-density areas have greater greenhouse gas emissions than those living in low-density areas. A study by EnergyAustralia and the NSW Department of Planning shows the energy used by a resident in high-rise is nearly twice that for a resident in a detached house. Think of all the lifts, clothes dryers, air-conditioners and lights in garages and foyers. ...

Research in Melbourne shows people squeezed into newly converted dense areas did not use public transport to any greater extent and there was little or no change in their percentage of car use.

There is not enough difference in the emissions of public versus private transport to counter the increased emissions of high-density living. For each kilometre CityRail carries a passenger, it emits 105 grams of greenhouse gases, while the average car emits 155, and modern fuel-efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius emit just 70.

I am a little suspicious of the slant being put on some figures here. In the second paragraph, for example, he talks of little change in "percentage" of car use, but is that taking into account the much shorter distances that may be being driven when you live close to the city, even if you still use your car to get to work?

Similarly, given that air-conditioning is so popular now, I would expect that one saving in energy use would be that small apartments don't take much energy to heat or cool, and are insulated by the other apartments around them.

On the other hand, suburban gardens and plants must be given some credit for absorbing CO2, I guess.

Maybe (just guessing here) to get full credit as a low CO2 emitting city, you have to reach a threshold level of density where a very large proportion of residents almost never have to rely on a car, such as in New York or Tokyo.

I'm sure someone's looked at this, but I don't have time to find the answer now.

Not the wisest investment

Many home turbines fall short of claims, warns study | Technology | The Guardian

Here's an amusing bit of Green perversity:

Home wind turbines are generating a fraction of the energy promised by manufacturers, and in some cases use more electricity than they make, a report warns today. The results of what is thought to be the most comprehensive study undertaken of the industry show the worst performers provided just 41 watt-hours a day - less than the energy needed for a conventional lightbulb for an hour, or even to power the turbine's own electronics.

On average the turbines surveyed provided enough electricity to light an energy-efficient house, but this still only represented 5%-10% of the manufacturers' claims, said consultants Encraft. ...
It found the best performing turbines would generate "clean" electricity equivalent to that needed to manufacture them in less than two years, while the worst performing ones would take 40 years.

Nothing to dislike, except the price

Toyota pulls wraps off all-new Prius

Toyota says the new car, revealed Monday at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, will achieve an estimated 3.7L/100km in the city and 4.0L/100km highway, for a combined rating of 3.8L/100km. The first-generation Prius was rated 4.6 L/100km combined fuel consumption, the second generation was 4.1....

Toyota says the 2010 model, which goes on sale this spring, has the lowest drag coefficient of any mass production car - 0.25. A normal sports car often has a drag of 0.32 or higher.

According to the Courier Mail, it will cost $40,000 here.

I wonder what is environmentally best for a moderate driver living in a family home: spend around $20,000 on a 3 year old Camry, and use the other $20,000 to put solar hot water and a small-ish solar cell system on the house, or buy a Prius?

Rationalist Vs Romantic Environmentalists

Environmental writing since Thoreau. - By Johann Hari - Slate Magazine

Here's an interesting discussion of the two branches of environmentalism. The romantics see it as a spiritual crisis which could be solved by most people living in caves again; the rationalists see despoiling the environment as simply a physical problem that doesn't need spirituality in response.

Hari makes an interesting point:

I'm with the rationalists. And yet this division—which seems so plain and irreconcilable to me—keeps being muddied by the contributors to this collection. Wes Jackson offers the most romantic fantasy of the book—but he is a distinguished scientist. Al Gore offers the most lucid popular summary of hard climate science we have—and then attributes the disaster, in an unexplained leap of logic, to a "spiritual crisis." Almost all the rational accounts here let romantic tropes seep into their writing as rousing quasi-religious end lines. Why? It feels as though the rationalists don't have enough confidence in their own intellectual tradition to inspire and rouse people. It's an old Enlightenment fear: Are we too irrational and poorly evolved a species to respond to neat reason?

I would say that opposition to nuclear being a substantial part of the response to greenhouse gases is largely based on the romantic view, yet typically it will be dressed up by Greens with facts and figures (talking about the long half life of isotopes, for example) to give it a more rationalist sheen.

The same is probably true for opposition to geo-engineering ideas, although they are all so novel in concept that there is plenty of room for debate by the rationalists as to whether the cure will be worse than the disease.

I guess the thing the romantics have on their side is that nearly any urban dweller (with the exception of people like Woody Allen, I guess) likes at least some connection with nature, whether it be by having a garden with birds, or just visits to a nice beach or national park every now and then. Still, going wholeheartedly into the clutch of romanticism is bad for humanity overall. (The ultra romantics don't want us here at all!)

An observation

Fierce Focus on Tunnels, a Lifeline for Gazans - NYTimes.com

Like many bloggers, I have resisted getting involved in commentary on the current Gaza/Israel war. It's hard coming up with anything original to say, but the above article in the New York Times (well worth reading despite its title which sounds somewhat biased) does raise an interesting question.

Why does the fact that Gaza has a significant border with Egypt seem to attract so little attention? The talk is always of Israel controlling Gaza's borders and even sea access, but it doesn't control the border with Egypt. If Israel imposes a blockade, and Egypt does not provide much in the way of legitimate access to aid via its border, why does Egypt seem to never attract much in the way condemnation from the EU and others for not assisting the Gazans?

Yes, Egypt does not want to encourage Hamas either; but if it is good to criticise Israel for creating a humanitarian crisis, why be so silent on Egypt's role?

The apparent use of tunnels to import food and other goods would hardly be necessary if Egypt allowed it to regularly enter via the above ground border, would it? So why doesn't that happen? Is it because a search regime to ensure trucks are not smuggling weapons along with other goods would be too hard to implement?

I am also not talking about the issue of what assistance Egypt should give right now; I am questioning the longer term issue of how Egypt deals with Gaza. If there is a (literally) underground economy, why not make it a legitimate "above ground" one instead, at least if you can guarantee that it is not involving supplying Hamas with weapons?

This Pajamas Media article from 2 January also raised the issue of why the Western media does not question more why Hamas dithers about opportunities to take Egyptian assistance (in this case, to take some of the wounded.) It's worth reading too.

What do you suggest?

I knew my relative anonymity here would come in useful one day.

For the last couple of months, my wife and I have been suffering with new neighbours in the rental house next door. It's a father and his 18 year old daughter. The owner of the house, with whom I had contact before these new tenants arrived, told me that she was letting it to a "mature age" man, suggesting that this was a good sign. It has proved anything but.

The problem is, the father, perhaps because he is a smoker (or perhaps he was raised in a tent, or some other reason I can't fathom) virtually lives in the outdoor entertainment area that is very close to one end of my house. He also speaks, and argues, with the volume set permanently on "11". His relationship with his daughter is, um, erratic in the extreme. By which I mean: on any given evening, there may be several shouting matches, much swearing at each other, demands from the father that the daughter respect him, shouted demands from the daughter that the father stop drinking and asking for her money, screams from the daughter (on the few occasions he has actually entered the house) that he is "hurting" her, but then also at random points during the evening the sounds of the daughter laughing and teasing him. The father has told other people on the phone that he thinks the daughter is on drugs. However, it is always the daughter who at least has the common sense to know that her father's voice may be disturbing the neighbours. She repeatedly tells him to keep his voice down; he never does.

This has made one end of our house (where the childrens' rooms are) virtually uninhabitable before about 10 pm. Being summer, this has not proved a huge obstacle yet, as the children are spending a lot of time sleeping in the air-conditioned room at the other end, but it has been clear for some time that I have to either:

a. have a calm, try-to-keep-it-cheery type talk to the father during the day along the lines that he should really realise that he talks very, very loudly, and my house is very, very close at one end to his, and sound travels very well of an evening. I could suggest that I now know so much about him that I could write his biography, and if he has any desire for privacy at all he should really try to spend his evenings inside his house; or

b. start calling to them from the kid's window of an evening that for God's sake they have to stop yelling and carrying on at each other every bloody night, as they are invading my privacy.

I came close to taking option b tonight. In fact, I also came close to calling the police because the daughter was again shouting and saying that he was hurting her, this time repeatedly. Yet, I still had the feeling from the tone of her voice that nothing really serious was going on. I suspected he may have had her arm and was trying to force an apology for something or other out of her.

Still, it went on long enough that I did attempt to ring the police, but not as an emergency. Maybe the constabulary just turning up to check them at any point in the evening might make them realise they can't carry on this way all the time. However, while waiting on the line, the daughter went silent. Then, both of them were outside, and the daughter was clearly not under threat.

However, this is still where it becomes more disturbing in a way. The daughter and father had a prolonged conversation about what the father was going to do about some man, who had "crossed the line". Her side went like this "you keep talking about breaking his legs, but I don't want it to be physical. I do want his life ruined. I want him in jail, and he has to know he can't live in Sydney. I want to live in Sydney. I want you to tell me exactly what you are going to do. You can't get anything physical done to him, because it will be traced back to you. But he has to be threatened, he has to have his life ruined; he has to know that what he has done is wrong, that he has crossed the line, and he can't live in this country. I was born in this country, he wasn't."

The father's responses was along these lines: "Don't worry I can arrange it. I can get him threatened all right. It's not so easy for me to get the physical stuff done now anyway. But I don't want you taking a phone call from him and then changing your mind and being manipulated by him again. Don't worry, I'll look after it" etc.

This would be followed by reassurances from the daughter that she was well and truly finished with the man (presumably an ex boyfriend), followed by more requests to have her father detail and promise exactly what he would do to him.

Ludicrously, the daughter frequently told the father to "just whisper" what he would do, as she didn't want the whole neighbourhood to know about this. She, however, was not shy about detailing her desires for (apparently criminal) action in a normal speaking voice so close to my house.

So, what do I do now? It half crossed my mind that I could simply tell them from the darkened window I was standing near: "well, too late now. I've heard all of this; I know who you work for and that they may not take kindly to this information. If you chose in future to live quietly inside your house for the rest of your lease, I may not have reason to pass on the information on." Maybe that could result in them both deciding against doing anything serious to the un-named Sydney man, as well as living more quietly. (I suppose it could also mean some threat being made to my well-being.)

I did not do that.

Now, I am left with information that a neighbour is apparently planning some serious interference with the life of some Sydney migrant, and while the father was indicating that he would not in fact arrange to "break his legs," it also sounded like what he does intend to arrange may well escalate into violence. Furthermore, the daughter insisted several times that she wanted the guy "in jail". How did she expect that to be achieved? The father did not make it clear exactly what he would do, but he did keep reassuring her that it would be something serious, and she had better not change her mind. There was, at the end, the suggestion that they would talk more about it in the morning.

Of course, if acting out of pure self interest, it would suit me to see the daughter move to Sydney.

I also can see the police not being particularly interested in an overheard conversation if it did not end up detailing exactly what the father would arrange to "ruin" this guy's life.

However, given that I know what the father does for a living, it is conceivable that he does have connections to arrange something bad for the guy. The funny thing is, he has talked to his daughter of the moral corruption of young people these days, and how his work has really "opened his eyes" to this.

I am inclined to talk to the police tomorrow anyway. Anyone else have any other suggestions?

UPDATE: police spoken to, note taken of general concerns about domestic violence possibly taking place. Headed home for my regular dose of evening shouting and swearing. Swearing becomes particularly loud and agitated at around 10pm. I go to the end of the house where I can hear all: daughter had put Tabasco sauce in father's mouth (I think) while he slept. Reason remains unclear (she swears as much as he does, so it presumably wasn't punishment for using naughty words). I think I heard her say from inside the house "you weren't breathing," but I could be wrong.

Maybe I should arrange for the Sydney guy's legs to be broken so she can move to Sydney and I can get some peace and quiet.

UPDATE 2: last night's outdoor discussions under my window went something like this:

Father: you manipulate me.
Daughter: no, you manipulate me.
Father: you lie too.
Daughter: I don't lie, or if I do, I learnt it from you. You lie all the time.
Father: So I lie, do I?
Daughter: Yes you do, you lie all the time, and you manipulate...
Father: it's you who manipulates
Daughter: Stop f****in interrupting me! You do that all the...
Father: You're the manipulator...

[Repeat with minor variations for the next 20 minutes.]

As for the fate of the Sydney fellow, things are looking up. It would appear that the daughter (aged 18) up and went to Sydney over Christmas to visit him, not telling her father where she was. (She was actually upset last night that her father had gone to a party on the second night of her absence, instead of staying at home and fretting about where she was.)

But, crucially, at one point of the daughter/father love in last night, she complained that, despite their discussions for days, her father had not yet arranged to "frighten" him. The father said he wouldn't, because she was still infatuated with him. (A point she strenuously denies.)

So, Ahmed of Sydney, (from Turkey originally, I think,) you may be spared an intimidating visit yet.