Goodbye ice caps, hello neighbors

Al Gore, former Vice-President and noted environmental and internet democratization advocate, joined climatologists this week in declaring a planetary emergency after new observations revealed that in the last twelve months, the north polar ice cap has melted significantly, losing an area of roughly 300,000 square miles. As with all claims in the media, I think it is important to independently verify those claims. I have, and it's true, and furthermore it may be necessary to consider the possibility that these statements may have been delivered too conservatively so as not to detract from the overall message that climate change is real.

That's right, folks. Despite what you may have heard from the pulpit, a certain infotainment channel, or the talk radio host who still believes that FEMA camps are being readied to cart us away  – climate change is settled science. It is no longer a hypothesis (commonly but erroneously referred to as “just a theory”) but in the realm of fact, to the same extent that we can know that the earth is not flat. There is also a strongly supported hypothesis that this phenomenon is caused by human activity. The sheer percentage of scientists who agree—along the weight of those opinion—combine to form consensus. Since the discussion of how we can make the world a better place ought to be undertaken from the perspective of consensus, we shall take these considered opinions to heart. We are melting the polar ice caps.

I want to make the extent of the consequences of our actions crystal clear. I want to show you the sheer magnitude and speed of the change that's happening now. But first, please join me in an experiment. If you will, get a glass of water, a cube of ice, a timepiece, and something you can measure with. When you get back, check the time, drop the cube in the water, measure the ice cube in the water, and then figure out how you'll know when the ice cube is half its size. Try to capture the moment when the cube is half its size. Ready? Welcome back.

The area of north pole ice cap we lost—we melted—between early fall of 2010 and early fall of 2011 was roughly the size of New Mexico. Every time a mass of ice cap melts, it is proven that large quantities of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are released. It makes no difference if you believe that God put the gases in the ice or that natural emissions from animals like the wooly mammoth were frozen in the ice over tens of thousands of years. The important point is what these gases are known to do. They are greenhouse gases. They make the average global temperature higher, and methane has the strongest effect. How's your ice cube? If you look closely, do you see any bubbles in the glass yet? Measured? Good.

 

So just imagine the total animal population of the planet just broke wind. Now imagine that the entire animal population of the planet breaking wind for tens of thousands of years and every winter, a portion of the gases dissolved in the ocean—which the tides constantly stir in from our atmosphere—gets trapped in the two big chunks of ice on the top and bottom of our globe. If you can imagine that, and then imagine them all getting released very quickly, great. How's your ice cube now?

The other property of our polar ice caps which is very important to concept of climate change is called “albedo”. It the degree to which the sun's rays are reflected back or absorbed. The light sand on a beach might be hot, but it reflects light somewhat, as does the water, keeping everything much cooler than the blacktop on the street, which absorbs the light. Now you should be able to understand what's called “positive reinforcement” whereby the gases released make the earth warmer and the loss of bright, shiny ice does, too.
 

So the loss of polar ice cap material should increase more rapidly as time progresses, and that's what we're seeing. Between early fall of 2011 and early fall of 2012—just last week—we melted an area of north polar ice cap the size of Texas and Oklahoma combined. That's 300,000 square miles. And there is only 1,300,000 square miles left. You may want to check your ice cube now, if there's anything left of it. And say goodbye to more than your ice cube.

 

The report offered by scientists from NASA, Columbia University, et. al. (and Al) predicts that the north polar ice cap will melt by the end of the decade. You may be right to be skeptical of that claim, but not because it's too sensational, but because it isn't sufficient to assess a process which is being positively reinforced exponentially. Let's say that for the next measurements we take of the polar ice cap, we only lose the amount of ice we lost this year. That gives us a total loss in the summer of 2014 or 2015. Greenhouse gases from an area roughly four times the size of Texas will begin to work on the Greenland ice sheet and the south polar ice cap as well. Now we have a problem.

 

If we melt the Greenland ice sheet, a distinct possibility, sea levels will rise 20 feet. If we were actually able to melt Antarctica completely, the total rise in sea level would amount to 90 feet. But 20 feet is a big deal. This is Manhattan. This is Shanghai. This is Mumbai. This is London. This is Cape Town. This isn't just the greater Miami area. This is a good chunk of Florida. Seriously. This is the home of 90% of the world's population—our sea coasts. Say goodbye to the Seahawks, the 49ers, the Saints, the Rams, the Chargers, the Raiders, the Dolphins, the Buccaneers, the Giants, the Jets, and the Redskins as you know them. Say goodbye to the White House. Say goodbye to every coastal beach on the planet. And say hello to some new neighbors.

There's a demographic which plenty of people understand—it's our electoral map. During the Bush years, the Pacific states came to be known as the Left Coast because of a strong Democratic leaning. Most of the Democrats live along the nation's coasts. Most of the Republicans live inland. If you are a Republican, you have an opportunity right now to choose the degree to which you respond to climate change and how well you play with others. But remember this. It is also settled science that altruism (good deeds done to YOU) increases as social distance (your barriers to others due to race, religion, nationality, and/or communication obstacles) decreases. Translation: be a Good Samaritan—a racial distinction you could easily apply to being good to others regardless of whether you identify with them. Whether you are from “Judea” or “Samaria” we are about to reduce our social distance dramatically because we melted the ice caps and made the seas rise. Please be civil and welcoming. Assume good faith. The earth is a closed system and we are all in it together.

How Libertarians and Progressives Can Defeat Fascism Now

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. That is to say, our knowledge is built upon understanding the notable thinkers of the past. Many of our ideas, innovations and practices in the modern world are poorly understood by a majority of people who are tragically misinformed. We use microwaves without honoring NASA who patented the invention or remembering James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the phenomenon. It's a tool which even children can use and we give it no major thought. We're like Homer Simpson - "Mmmmmm. Popcorn!"

Politically, also, a majority of people are sadly misinformed. Our national dialogue often takes place in an informational and contextual vacuum. My prime example today is a notion which many people would agree with: that our nation is correct to find an alternative to laissez-faire capitalism and communism to resolve class struggle. We give it our tacet consent when we listen to arguments about job creation, when we bail out a corporation or a financial institution, and when leaders encroach on labor disputes. The president thinks the NFL ought to make concessions to striking referees. He makes it known and we agree. We don't like hearing the words “class struggle” because it's not a unifying force in America. But some people still adhere, overtly or deep down, to the alternatives which have merit.

Free market capitalism keeps government's hands off of people's property and is okay with the notion that people of all classes will struggle to improve their position. It is a universal ideology in that all people everywhere should have the right to be free from government interference in economics. Libertarians are traditionally highly distrustful of communism. However, a republic can bear class struggle as long as the law is respected. We can point to Adam Smith as this ideology's founder and perhaps you might consider Thomas Jefferson as its heroic ideal.

Communism is a hands on approach which redistributes wealth equally and resolves class struggle by siding with the workers who produce capital. It, too, is universal in espousing that all workers everywhere should unite and win the class struggle by acquiring the means of production. Progressives in America, despite being maligned for it, have adopted largely peaceful and lawful means to perpetuate this struggle. We can point to Karl Marx as the founder of this ideology, and a lot of people who think this way tend also to think that a Che Guevara t-shirt is the pinnacle of chic. Disparage as you will, you can't deny that the left knows its history well.

However, the majority of people who approach economics from a third direction typically have no idea where their ideas first originate. If your giant happened to be a short nasty man with a bad mustache, wouldn't you want to know about it? The idea of a Third Way actually originates with Adolf Hitler's “Mein Kampf” and is the basic tenet of fascist economics. The unity of the nation is its overriding consideration; fascism seeks to eliminate class struggle entire to this end. This is not to say that consensus around an alternative to pure capitalism or communism is inherently incorrect, wrong, bad, or evil. However, in taking a third path, people should be vigilant against the problems of the fascist model of government intervention in economics. Specifically, we should be on guard against the moral and social failures of fascism. Historically, fascists do not play well with others. And I shudder to think of them someday wearing Ben Bernanke t-shirts.

If there is a problem with fascism in America, its main opponents, who are natural allies, have not yet learned to find a common ground. Libertarians have a strong understanding of economics but aren't always the most educated or well-informed. Progressives are hungry for information from a wide range of sources but don't always grasp important economic principles. The fascism we know from history has had the most unethical execution and the most inflammatory dialogue. A dialogue between the two most rational ideologies to oppose it is a good, good thing, and is the most important step in creating a better world. Principles of civil discourse can guide us in rebutting and refuting the most harmful aspects of fascism and making sure a harmful ideology doesn't flourish in America during difficult times.

The people where I come from, Kentucky, know about hard times. And I wouldn't have to explain to them who Jeff Foxworthy is. He's known for the comedy routine “You Might Be a Redneck If....” Well, there are certain other criteria we might use to evaluate ideas and policies to ask ourselves honestly whether they resemble fascist regimes in Germany and Italy leading up to World War II. Let's discard the widely distributed but poorly sourced “14 Elements of Fascism” and stick to the consensus about the topic as defined by Wikipedia, which is verifiably sourced. Where might we find fascism in America today?

You all know that the Republican party has nominated what it feels is the most electable candidate. This candidate, Mitt Romney, pays lip service to liberty and stands against progressive values unequivocally. According to Wikipedia, fascists promote national unity by perpetuating war. Fascists scapegoat foreign influences to that same end. Mitt Romney does, too. Fascists favor corporations which are easier to coerce and manipulate directly than the private citizens who corporations influence in turn. Fascists also enforce the idea of national unity by intervening in labor disputes. If you want to promote a war against Iran, if you disparage undocumented workers as “illegal aliens”, if you use “Islamist” as a scare word to vilify two billion Muslims, if you declare, “Corporations are people, too!” but fail to defend individual rights like habeus corpus and additionally you hope to limit the rights of labor groups like teachers' unions, you, Mitt Romney, might be a fascist. Therefore, among other goals, progressives and libertarians should unite against a Mitt Romney presidency. I didn't say unity was a bad thing.

What's wrong with national unity? With political unity? Or with unity in your other relationships and associations? Nothing, if it happens as a product of a free, open, healthy, and constructive dialogue. The danger in perpetuating war to the end of unity is that we could make ourselves the enemy of nations. One of the important dangers of scapegoating foreign influences is that we risk alienating those who can participate productively in our economy, not to mention that we may fail to treat them with the respect which all persons are entitled. The danger of favoring corporations is that the tail can't wag the dog. You can't simultaneously favor corporations which are free to be multi-national in scope and work effectively to counter cronyism, corruption, and powerful lobbies. You might also tip the balance in favor of a system which excludes other rational voices like third parties from debate because the major media interests who exclude them are corporations as well. This kind of “limited government” seems a bit excessive just for the sake of beating our chests in rhythm. It isn't productive and it isn't necessary.

What about labor disputes? Mitt Romney says that “corporations are people, too.” What he means is that under our laws, corporations, being made up of people who are free to associate, are guaranteed the same rights as individuals.You may or may not agree with this decision, but that has been the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court. However, in commenting on labor disputes between teachers and schools, Mitt Romney favors intervening to limit their ability to contribute to political campaigns. This not only debases their freedom of association, it also debases their freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has upheld the speech rights and association rights of Super PACs to contribute as much as they want to political campaigns. Why? Super PACs are people, too. But by inference, according to Mitt Romney, teachers are not. This matches the dystopic vision of George Orwell's “Animal Farm” where everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others. It is in the vital interest of all mankind that we form a dialogue which prevents dystopic outcomes in the consensus.

So to whom should we listen? Everyone. At this point, progressives and libertarians are contributing the most rational and well-supported arguments to benefit our country and our world, but consensus can change. It changes, conservatives, when you stop believing everything you see on Fox News, hear on talk radio, or read in Newsweek. In other words, learn to think critically. It changes when you stop disparaging people with differing viewpoints, associations, and nationalities. That includes my lesbian co-parents, a few of my ancestors who were undocumented immigrants fleeing Czarist Russia, the nice moderate Saudis I chat with in the hookah bar who happen to be Muslim, and my roommates who need food stamps. It changes when you source your claims verifiably and reliably instead of blathering on for years about how Barack Obama isn't an American. In short, it changes when you learn to collaborate. For now, it seems, you are not in the consensus position – nor the majority.

What happens if the consensus fails? If Mitt Romney is elected president, we've blown it. Seriously. It should not be necessary this time for the rational consensus to vote as a bloc. The Republican party is divided, Gary Johnson is providing a clear and rational voice for fiscal conservatives who are dissenting, Barack Obama is ahead in the polls, and a Romney comeback would be rather unprecedented. So the consensus doesn't need to argue about “vote wasting” or form a voting pact. It just needs to vote. And until then? Right now, more than ever before, it is more necessary to wage a campaign of fact. Fact will improve our political process by countering harmful propaganda and disinformation. Fact will improve our political process by providing a foundation for a more civil discourse. Fact will improve our political process by promoting the most rational candidates. And yes, absolutely, fact promoted with conviction will energize the most well-informed electorate.

The most important facts we can propagate right now are those seen clearly in video. Going forward, accurate predictions by scientists and economists are very strong facts to promote in any form as well. They indicate the views which should carry the most weight. Please, everyone, keep the facts coming, turn out on Election Day, and vote your conscience. I welcome your comments.

Foreword by the author

Friends, countrymen, and fellow twonks, thanks for dropping into my new space on the web. It is intended to be a resource for those who don't see their views represented or represented reliably on the web or in media. Specifically, rational thought in the national and world arenas is my agenda, and to that end I will draw from many different sources and try to present the story of our times from a viewpoint which I consider to be:

• As unbiased as possible,
• Focused on making the world a better place,
• Skeptical to a fault,
• Talks and teaches up to the reader in employing formal logic and the scientific method wherever possible,
• And just as importantly, engaging to readers of all viewpoints by employing the principles of civil discourse.

To the end of that collaboration, I should reveal my bias. I am an atheist. I am exploring ethics from a morally relativistic point of view. My hope is that by engaging all people into a conversation about the faults of the world AND what the perfect world would resemble, and finally discarding those notions which would pose a dystopic outcome to others who have expressed their ideals rationally, we can hope to strive to build a world which approaches utopia in the practical execution of political will. This is classic liberal thought. In respecting the freedom of everyman, this is also libertarian. This is LibTone. Welcome.