Economics 101

I spend a lot of time reading Facebook posts and the comments ordinary people make on them.  Either there are a lot of ignorant people about or the majority of the informed, those able to reason, do not post.

I get tired of hearing people complain about the president not doing more to bring back employment or to lower the cost of gas while, at the same time, they complain about big government and over regulation. Among the regulations they disagree with are those related to the economy.  An example is the minimum wage.  It seems to me that they want mutually exclusive things.  They do not want government intervention but they do want jobs and low gas prices.  They believe that, if the government just left the market alone then prices would fall, gas would be cheap and plentiful, jobs would return to America and it would be a veritable land of milk and honey.  However, they forget that we do not live in the 1950's.  The world has changed.  Deregulation means that the market is free to exploit those changes.

It is also true that the failure to recognize the changed realities means that people hold views and vote in ways that are actually contrary to their own good and that of society.  They also lead to people wrongly attributing blame, such as to the president or to the poor.

Extremes are dangerous.  This certainly applies to societal models.  Both extreme capitalism and the extreme socialistic world view: communism are dangerous and doomed to failure.  America has moved ever closer to the extremes of unregulated capitalism.  I will show below why any rational individual should consider the current situation unsustainable.  I will also show why many of the criticisms and suggestions for solutions are simply ridiculous.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the world changed dramatically.  Population levels rose massively, technology took great leaps in terms of transportation and communication, and less developed nations rapidly caught up with Westernized countries in terms of investment and infrastructure.  As other nations advanced, the expectations and demands of their populations increased.  An American who wants to buy beef, pork or bread today competes for those products with those in China, whose economy has changed radically.  In 1960, the US consumed about 8 million metric tons of pork.  Today the country consumes about 9 million tons.  In 1975 the Chinese also consumed about 8 million metric tons of pork.  Today they consume 52 million tons of pork!  To feed those pigs, they now buy 60% of the annual global crop of soybeans.  That makes soybeans more expensive for everyone and the cost is passed on to the producers of anything, including meat, that is based on soybeans. Chinese consumption is set to increase by 2.5% again in the next year.  Prices here will rise accordingly.  The current forecast (by US Department of Agriculture bureau in Beijing) is that Chinese beef imports for 2014 will be around 550,000 tons.  That's an increase of 19 times in just three years.  China is also increasing it's own home grown cattle production as well as importing more beef.  Of course that means it is importing more cattle feed, mainly corn and alfalfa from the US.  At a time when the Western US is experiencing drought, it is effectively exporting water in the form of alfalfa for Chinese cattle to eat.  Again, that increased Chinese demand will raise costs here in the US.

In an unregulated market, where the government does not intervene, companies are free to sell to whichever customer is willing to pay the most.  America is a resource rich country and could probably stand alone and meet many of its needs - as some commentators suggest - but to make it so, the idea of an unregulated market would have to be abandoned.  Would Americans tolerate the idea of government telling companies, big and small, who they could sell to?  True, there are already restrictions on the sale of technologies and weapons that could be used against the US or its allies, but every day trade?  Few Americans would accept such draconian regulation.

Oil

The above applies to oil.  All Americans want cheap gas and accuse the president of not magically reducing the cost.  However, America is producing more oil than it has for decades.  Peak oil production occurred in November 1970 when the US produced 10 million barrels a day.  From that time production fell steadily to the low point of 2010, when global demand dramatically contracted due to the virtual collapse of the global economy - following the US collapse.  At its lowest point, production was 4.7 million barrels a day.  While it had a slow downward trend from 1970 to 1985, from then onward, the fall was dramatic.  Since Obama has been in power, production has soared back to 8.4 million barrels a day, as at May 2014.  In the last 5 years, oil production has jumped 65% in the US.  So why aren't gas prices low?  Well, apart from an embargo on selling crude oil, refiners can sell petroleum products, including 'gas' for vehicles, to whomever they wish.  And they are.  Mirroring the rise in oil extraction, the level of exports has risen too.  Exports follow the same pattern as production. In 1975, the US exported 180,000 barrels of petroleum products.   By the 1990's exports had risen to around a million barrels a day.  This remained stable all through the 1990's and the first decade of the 21st century.  Since Obama took power, exports have reached 4.4 million barrels a day.  People demand that Obama do something about the cost of gas, but what?  The only thing he could do, at this moment, is to forbid producers from selling overseas.  The uproar can only be imagined.  The president telling corporations who they can sell to!?  Meddling in the 'free market'?!  There would be outrage and he would be accused of overreaching his power.  Could he increase production?  That has been suggested by one of my less knowledgeable conservative Obama-hating acquaintances.  But production is not the limiting factor.  Infrastructure is.  Refineries and storage facilities can not cope with the current levels of supply.  Many (Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Marathon for example) are investing in new infrastructure.  But NOT for domestic distribution to lower gas prices at home, for export!  Others are pressing the government to lift the embargo on oil exports.  The increased oil production is not being used to lower the costs for Americans, but to sell overseas.  In an unrestricted free market, gas prices are dependent upon international demand.  Unless the president becomes a dictator and intervenes directly in the sale of oil, producers sell where they can get the best price and there is nothing the government and president can do about it.

Jobs

We no longer live in a society of high demand for manual labor.  Technological advances mean that more and more tasks become automated.  This applies to everything from food to cars.  Large, complex machines do the work of hundreds of people, with minimal oversight from human beings.  One man driving a combine harvester does the work in a day that it took tens of people days to do, harvesting crops.

Bulk transportation of goods in planes and container ships means that those goods can be produced by cheap labor overseas and shipped back to the US to be sold at high profit.  Communications technology means that many jobs can be sent overseas and customers may not know where those providing the service are based in the world.  Theoretically, we could return some jobs to the US by lowering wages here to be more like those earned by foreign workers.  However, the consequences would be catastrophic.  As we have seen, prices are rising in real terms due to international demand.  Lower salaries in the US would not mean that goods and services simply become cheaper and US workers more competitive, it would mean that they would be even less able to compete with advancing nations for the limited supplies of many items like oil and food.  Additionally, many people overseas lead simple lives and work for subsistence wages.  That sounds good, and is good for the environment.  However, their jobs are provided by the relatively wealthy in the West, who are able to purchase their products.  Ok, so we move the low paid jobs back to the US.  To think of our own interests, suppose we reduce wages to the point that sending jobs overseas is no longer attractive.  We won't worry about foreign workers but think of our own. We end up with millions of Americans who can not afford the goods and services provided by other working Americans.  That reduces demand, which reduces jobs and so on, in a downward spiral.  It may be better for the environment but what we will do is basically roll back the societal advances, the growth of the middle class, that has occurred over the last 80 years.  However, with the advance of technology, we will not return to a time of simple agrarian society with high employment, we will devolve to a state with a few, relatively wealthy people, and masses of poor.  Rather like the middle ages of Europe.  There would be mass ill health, ignorance and population decline.  For the planet and the other living things upon it, that might be a good thing.  But, for human beings, the golden age of the late 20th century would be over.

Of course this is a totally unnecessary outcome.   It comes back to the idea of extremes being dangerous.  Communism is dangerous because it results in a lack of incentive for people to strive for improvement.  While many people are altruistic, the majority do expect to receive some reward for effort.  If extra effort brings no reward and the lazy get the same reward as the hard working, why bother?  The extreme of American style capitalism is also dangerous (as well as unfair) and leads to economic instability.  In current American society, more and more of the available wealth is accumulating to fewer and fewer individuals.

In 1988 the average income in the US was $33,500.  In 2008 the average was $33,000.  However, the top 1% saw their income increase by 33%.  Since 1970, the stock market has boomed an incredible 1,300%.  However, the average American has not seen any benefit from this increase.  At the same time prices have soared.  In 1988 the cost of a gallon of gas was $1.08.  A dozen eggs cost 88 cents and a gallon of milk was $2.30.  Today the average costs are $3.69, $1.95 and $3.62.  Everything costs more, for the above discussed reasons.  So, the majority of Americans have seen wages remain stagnant while prices soar.  The rich get richer.

Favoring wealth redistribution has been described as the politics of envy by that same conservative acquaintance of mine.  However, it is rather, the politics of sanity.  As the majority of Americans find their disposable income waning, their spending decreases.  This reduces demand for goods and services.  That lowers the number of jobs required to meet the reduced demand, and so on, as previously described.  The real income to society has increased, as shown by the increases in the stock market and the incomes of the top 1%.  So there is money available to pay people more.  Lessening income inequality stimulates the economy.  A few very rich people can not support an economy.  A rich man can only drink one drink, eat one meal, watch one TV, drive one car, etc at a time.  It is the demand of the masses, with income to spare, that creates demand and so provides jobs.  Yes, some of that disposable income will be spent on goods and services provided overseas, but much of it will provide jobs here.  Many services can only be provided locally or in person.  Wealthy investors are required, within reason, but even they go bankrupt if no one can afford to buy the products of the companies they invest in.

As I said earlier, extremes are dangerous.  Unless the extreme capitalism of the US is modified, we are heading toward another economic crash like that of the Great Depression of the early 20th century.  In such a case, everyone suffers, rich and poor alike.  The trend of the top 1% taking an ever greater percentage of the national income must be reversed.  There should be an incentive for those who work hard and those who don't or can not work, should not get the same rewards as those who work - a la communism.  But there must be a minimum wage that provides people with enough income to live on, with money to spare to stimulate the economy.

Repeated cycles of boom and bust not only cause human misery but they waste the investment of time and energy expended by society.  They also ruin the future of those who have worked hard and lose out through no fault of their own, when the economy collapses.

Those on the right have to realize that there are no easy answers and that lack of regulation does not lead to their desired outcomes.  Without regulation, wealth accumulates to the rich, everyone suffers and presidents can do little to rectify the situation.

Our awesome God!

Our God is an awesome God.  A God of power and majesty!

Science tells us about the events that have caused the world to be the way it is today. I believe the things that science tells us. Geology, physics, cosmology, biology. I understand them. I accept the evidence and the conclusions. The Bible story of creation, I do not believe.  They are the tales of people who, long ago, did not know how the universe works. They are simplistic explanations.  However, none of these facts threaten God.  To me, what science reveals actually magnifies the power of our awesome God.  Our God is not a man working day by day to create a single planet in just six days and, in doing so, becoming so exhausted that he has to rest for the seventh.

There are so many things that have to be just right for us to exist and I think it unreasonable to attribute these to blind chance.

Firstly we live in a universe where the laws of physics allow complex matter to exist.  Change just a few of the basic constants of the laws our universe follows and energy could not give rise to matter or, if it did, it would not be the matter that makes the universe we see. Alter the power of gravity slightly and there would be no condensation of matter into stars. The universe would be filled with simple matter, floating in the void.  We are made of star dust, every single one of us. Without stars there would be no complex atoms that make up the molecules of everything from the atmosphere, to bacteria, to mice, to men. It is within the nuclear furnace of stars that our constituent atoms were made.  Even if gravity was the same, change the energies of the constituents of atoms and nuclear fusion would not occur. We would have condensed matter forming giant blobs. Black holes travelling through space, devouring the rest of the matter that did exist. Without the laws of physics, as they exist, no nuclear fusion means no complex atoms, means no life, no us.

We have observed planets around other stars,  there is no law that says that planets should be ordered as they are in our solar system: Rocky inner planets with massive gaseous outer planets. Other systems have things the other way around, with massive planets, larger than Jupiter, orbiting their stars so closely as to be boiling hot, instead of being out in the cold as our Jupiter is.  Our beautiful Earth is a Goldilocks planet.  Like baby bear's porridge, it is just right.

Complex life depends upon water.  Despite what science fiction writers have said, that statement isn't just a lack of imagination. It is a fact.  It is possible that lifelike processes could occur in other chemical media but other substances tend to liquify at much lower or higher temperatures than water. At lower temperatures chemistry itself slows down.  The available energy is much less than at the temperature at which water is liquid. Some form of life might exist in very low temperatures but it would progress so slowly that it would not become advanced in the period that the universe has existed.  At too high a temperature chemical bonds are too unstable. A living being has to be able to maintain its own integrity and be able to pass on information to the next generation.  Higher temperatures make this far less likely to happen.  Heat is energy.  Make bonds too energetic and they are unstable.

So, life needs liquid water. Water is only liquid at a short range of temperatures.  Too low and it freezes into a solid, in which chemical reactions are too slow.  Too high and water vapourises. No longer liquid, it can not be the medium in which chemical reactions occur.  Our Earth is in just the right place to maintain liquid water on most of the surface. Any closer to the sun and the seas would boil. Any further out and they would solidify.

Our planet is just the right size too.  If the Earth was smaller then its gravitational field would not be strong enough to hold on to an atmosphere.    Unless they are at absolute zero (-460F) all molecules are in motion.  High up in the atmosphere fast moving molecules can reach escape velocity and shoot off into space.   Escape velocity is the speed at which something has to travel in order to leave a planet. That speed depends on the gravity of an object, which depends on its mass.  A smaller planet, composed of the same elements as the Earth, would have a lower mass, a lower gravitational field and, therefore, a lower escape velocity.  It's atmosphere would boil away. Just as that of Mars did.   A planet could have the same mass as the Earth and be smaller but that would mean that it would have to be composed of different materials. If it only contained the heavier elements then it would not contain those required for complex life.  A planet with a larger mass than the Earth has a greater gravity.  It will, therefore, accumulate a larger atmosphere, like the familiar gas giants of our own solar system. This will include the heavier gasses like Carbon dioxide.  Such a planet would have a higher greenhouse effect and thus higher surface temperatures such as those found on our sister planet Venus.  Geologists also theorise that a rocky planet, larger planet than the Earth, would have too thick and rigid a crust to allow plate techtonics.  With no wandering, colliding plates there would be no mountain building, no erosion and complex chemical interactions between the materials of the crust and the atmosphere. Such a planet would not only have greater zoning of elements into layers within its rocky body but also rock and atmosphere would be separated by ocean.

Our planet has just the right amount of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make Earth habitable for complex living things such as ourselves.  Much more and the Earth would experience a run-away warming, similar to Venus. Much less and we would enter an ice age.

The Earth's orbit is virtually (but not quite) a perfect circle around the sun. This is true of most of the planets in our solar system.  Mercury is the exception.  Orbital eccentricity is measured on a scale of 0 to 1. With 0 being a perfect circle. That is, at all times of the year a planet with an orbital eccentricity of 0, is the same distance from its star.  The Earth's eccentricity is 0.017. That of Mercury 0.206.  Of the 1,000 or so planets detected outside our solar system, the large majority have much more eccentric orbits, many with eccentricities greater than 0.3.  This means that the temperature on the planet's surface would vary greatly between closest and furthest approach. Summers would be incredibly hot and winters terribly cold.  Life, particularly complex life, would have a tough time on such a planet.

Jupiter is in just the right place and acts as the guardian of the Earth.  In the majority of the other solar systems where planets have been discovered, the large gas giants are close to their star.  They zip around it in a few days rather than the 12 Earth years that Jupiter takes to go around our sun.  In its distant orbit, Jupiter acts a gatekeeper. There are all sorts of giant lumps of rock and ice travelling around space at high speeds. If they reach the inner solar system then they can hit the Earth.  Some do get through but most that do are small.  The majority of the large rocks out there get picked up by the massive gravitational pull of Jupiter and destroyed long before they threaten us.  The Earth has been hit many times.  However, it would be much worse without the protection of Jupiter. Constant bombardment with asteroids that rework the surface of a planet, is not conducive to the continuation of life on Earth.

I can not believe that all these things are mere chance.  One or two occurring together could be coincidence.  I therefore believe that, taking all these things together,  it is reasonable to conclude that we exist because our place in the universe was deliberately chosen for us, by our amazing God.

Climate change\Global warming Denier Myth Busting 2. Attempting to spread truth.

"Global warming is a recent hoax, a con trick, designed by lying climatologists to get funding." bleat the deniers.

Not so and any such accusation is the result of ignorance or deliberate deceit.

Any rational study of the historical evidence shows a growing worry, about the influence of CO2, among people who had no vested interest in over-hyping the problem:

1896 Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927), Swedish physical chemist and 1903 Nobel laureate, publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

1938 English engineer Guy Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway. Published 10 major scientific articles, and 25 shorter ones, between 1938 and 1964 on global warming, infra-red radiation and anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

1956 Canadian Gilbert Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

1957 American Roger Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.

1960 Charles Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise.

1963 Calculations by Fritz Möller suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.

Same year meeting on “Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere” was convened by the private Conservation Foundation.

1965 U.S. President’s Science Advisory Committee reported that “By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO ... may be sufficient
to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate...”

1970 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study on
“Man’s Impact on the Global Environment,” suggested that greenhouse warming might bring “widespread droughts, changes of the ocean level, and so forth,”

1977 report on “Energy and Climate” from a panel of geophysicists
convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated there would be
“significant effects in the geographic extent and location of important commercial fisheries... marine ecosystems might be seriously disrupted.” Stresses on the polar ice caps might lead to a surge of ice into the sea, bringing a “rise in sea level of about 4 meters within 300 years.”

1983 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, studied sea-level rise. The experts concluded that by the end of the 21st century they “could confidently expect major coastal impacts, including shoreline retreat... flooding, saltwater intrusion, and various economic effects.”

Such concerns accelerated during the 80s, resulting in the formation of the IPCC. Their conclusions were difficult to reach and based on a vast array of data.

A conclusion that the observed warming is the result of human induced modification of the atmosphere is a rational one, based on the work of generations of scientists. That does not logically indicate that it is the correct conclusion, since not all evidence is available at all times, but it is a rational conclusion given the available evidence. That is how science works. Any accusation of deliberate, wide-spread conspiracy to deceive is irrational and either the result of historical ignorance or deceit.

Myth busting: Deniers and the phrase 'Climate Change'.

"Lefties have had to change the name from Global Warming, to Climate Change since it hasn't warmed since 1998. Why would they do that if they weren't up to no good?". Such claims we hear the deniers cry. As with the fact that warming has not actually stopped (but rather slowed) this statement is simply untrue. Leaving aside the obvious fact that the very organization that the ignorant constantly criticize is called the IPCC (CC=Climate CHANGE!) and was founded in 1988 (That's ten years before the supposed halt to warming), there are many other references to the actual phrase, or near enough, "Climate Change" that long predate the term global warming. When Climate Change is used in the 1950's, it is usually in terms of warming.

There simply has been no great change in the interchangeable usage of both the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change". Deniers who use this argument are one of: stupid, ignorant or liars.

These are the references I found in an hour with my friend Google:

 1916 Hartford Courant "FOSSIL ROCKS IN CANADA STUDIED: Remains of Earliest Animal Life Found SCIENTISTS SPEND MONTHS IN NORTH Measurement of Ice Flow Shows Climate Change."

1937 Miami News 1937 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=13&ved=0CDQQqQIwAjgK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DiMYuAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DVNQFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D6066%2C4768002%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=WY9hUpL2LePkyQG-w4GwCQ&usg=AFQjCNEWPyutlE0-LwiE8H_UiaH2n8thDw&sig2=PcSVRsaKACCgp3dObLlwGQ&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1939 Christian Science Monitor "World Climate Getting Warmer, and it's not the humidity. Although not a part of the climate change evidence, the world s coldest and hottest figures may be involved in the change." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/doc/515570988.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov%207,%201939&author=&pub=Christian%20Science%20Monitor&edition=&startpage=&desc=World%20Climate%20Getting%20Warmer%20--And%20It%27s%20Not%20the%20Humidity

1952 Los Angeles times (Archive) "Weather Expert Finds Little Climate Change"

1953 Advert in the Spokesman Review http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=slsVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LeYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1951,3695705&dq=climate-change

Dec 2, 1955 The Hartford Courant "Climate Change Seen As Hurricane Cause"

1956 "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change" GILBERT N. PLASS (The Johns Hopkins University)

1956 New York Times "Pines 4,000 Years Old Found in California; Oldest Things Alive, Experts Say After Count of Rings 4,000-YEAR TREES GROWING IN WEST Response To Climate Change Dry and wet Alternation"

1958 Education documentary "Unchained Goddess" refers to climate change.

1958 New York times "Science In Review: Antarctica, preserved for research" refers to the phrase "climate Change" http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1061FFF355F13728EDDA80994DD405B8889F1D3

1961 Geography "LAMB, HH. "Atmospheric Circulation, Climate and Climatic Variations." 46.3 (1961): 208-222.

1962 New York Times "Science Notes: Powerful Scope; ION Microscope - Climate Study.  In an effort to ferret Out clues to the nature and causes of climate change, " http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50817FD3B551A7B93C5A8178DD85F468685F9

1971 Geological Society of America Bulletin 82.10 (1971): 2741-2754. Kent, Dennis, N. D OPDYKE, and Maurice Ewing. "Climate change in the North Pacific using ice-rafted detritus as a climatic indicator."

1972 Palm Beach Post "Greenland Ice Study" contains the phrase Climate Change http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=22&ved=0CC0QqQIwATgU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DiaM1AAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DILcFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D912%2C3895668%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=2Y9hUu_JAoGGyAHUt4GQAw&usg=AFQjCNFYzFmgNI5yS2ObQyWDsb0ZBDTAjA&sig2=B989zZbFHET3YJ7Q8aQLJg&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"

1976 Gadsden times "climate Change worries Soviets" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=48&ved=0CEQQqQIwBzgo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DcJdGAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DoP0MAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D2855%2C1701489%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=C5JhUuCLI87lygHgm4GQAw&usg=AFQjCNH_1mYAcWZ8BMcSeiRI_ni9sYFlOA&sig2=oqwsd19vRTkGnXLPqdXO7A&bvm=bv.54176721,bs.1,d.aWc&cad=rja

1977 The Journal "Climatic Change" established.

1977 Deseret News http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=3&ved=0CDgQqQIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DSMdSAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DLX4DAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D4384%2C5842345%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=hI5hUsySGaWzyAH95oGoAQ&usg=AFQjCNEubvXthxbkNVgu4N2_1j2vnaaSbw&sig2=VKWLut_NnqTP0VToFNiqBw&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1977 Deseret News "Great Lakes to Shrink Says botanist" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=70&ved=0CEcQqQIwCTg8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DlWVTAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DnYUDAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D7097%2C5753233%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=jJJhUvekCaWGyAGS8IGYDA&usg=AFQjCNE9Q5yGM_GVKGC9s9NI0NIIcfE_5A&sig2=ICW5mtfyBbLp2VSUFfOoFQ&bvm=bv.54176721,bs.1,d.aWc&cad=rja

1978 "Scientists: Earth may be a desert by the year 2025" uses the phrase "climate change" https://www.google.com/url?url=http://news.google.com/newspapers%3Fid%3D2DpVAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3Dyz0NAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D6602,6834609%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Z5NhUs_7L-jhyQHTtYCoCw&ved=0CD4Q-AsoADAGOEY&q=climate-change&usg=AFQjCNFynH6Vu2CtazKmQGsHSB2nekoErw&cad=rja

1979 Gadsden Times "Scientists Warn of Drastic Climate Change". http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=21&ved=0CCsQqQIwADgU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3Dm6QfAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DLtYEAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D2526%2C1052831%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=2Y9hUu_JAoGGyAHUt4GQAw&usg=AFQjCNF8Njd186ABF1tws-ZiFgJPvafaYw&sig2=XbFQwT3F5t6vZ62oW_tPsg&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1979 New York Times "worldwide Errort is proposed to Study climtae and its impact" Contains the phrase "climate Change" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=89&cad=rja&ved=0CE8QqQIwCDhQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fselect.nytimes.com%2Fgst%2Fabstract.html%3Fres%3DF20D10FC3A5D12728DDDAA0994DA405B898BF1D3&ei=KpRhUvnpAaGwygGbj4DQCg&usg=AFQjCNGJQxG8FmAL351JtlaDxgeepYIyLA&sig2=3o0pGxelxXUobo-ht5j5bA

1980 Bangor Daily News http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=4&ved=0CDwQqQIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DAXg-AAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DtVkMAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D1088%2C1955014%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=hI5hUsySGaWzyAH95oGoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFgs3_HjedDtWgX23a8jl1emHYo_Q&sig2=tAf_6qgprkykGrjdiNgTdg&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1980 Journal of Atmospheric Sciences " On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere."

1980 Science "Detecting Climate Change due to Increasing Carbon Dioxide"

1981 "Climate change and society: consequences of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" Barnes & Noble.

1984 Technical Report: "Response of unmanaged forests to CO2-induced climate change: available information, initial tests and data requirements" Solomon, Allen M., et al. Response of unmanaged forests to CO2-induced climate change: Available information, initial tests and data requirements. No. N-85-21817; TR-009. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (USA), 1984.

1985 Journal of Geophysical Research "Trace gas trends and their potential role in climate change"

1987 Journal 'Climate' "Testing for Climate Change: An Application of the Two-Phase Regression Model"

1988 23 June  U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change" 100th Cong., 1st sess.,

1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

1988 - Boston Globe "WORLD FOOD SUPPLY IN PERIL, GROUP WARNS" contains "climate change" http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/294498109.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct%202,%201988&author=Dianne%20Dumanoski,%20Globe%20Staff&pub=Boston%20Globe%20%28pre-1997%20Fulltext%29&edition=&startpage=&desc=WORLD%20FOOD%20SUPPLY%20IN%20PERIL,%20GROUP%20WARNS

1988 Nature "Response of Northern forests to CO2 induced climate change. Vol 334
 
1995 - Influence of plants on climate probably more dramatic than previously thought" Mentions the phrase. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=100&ved=0CFgQqQIwCTha&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DqxIxAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DEOAFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D4910%2C3207991%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=EZlhUorXGuqmyQHwyYHYCA&usg=AFQjCNFDvv9wmyiWBEwWH5SuEOz1L8JpEA&sig2=1JpDFJRklm6KVFwDGhCEjQ&bvm=bv.54934254,d.aWc&cad=rja

1997 Time Magazine "Climate Change Summit - turning down the heat" http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987564,00.html

On homosexuality

On homosexuality.

Is being gay a choice?

Is it unnatural?

Is it a sin?

Why are such questions important? Many members of our society are caused emotional pain to the point of suicide, physical damage to the point of death and denied the basic rights accorded to the heterosexual members of society, simply because they are sexually attracted to people who are the same sex as they are.  This is, to me, a question of human rights. No person, unless they are a threat to themselves or others, should be discriminated against, simply because they are who they are.  Every member of society should be treated equally before the law.  The last question on the list is important in a society like America which, contrary to the Constitution, bases law upon the Christian religion.

I shall argue that from both a purely theoretical and an empirical, scientific view point, being gay is not a choice.  That therefore leads on, for the Christian, to consideration of homosexuality being a sin.

Is being gay a choice?

Who would be willing to consciously be that which many in society, including family and friends, abhor?  Who would willingly expose themselves to ridicule, physical injury, the denial of basic rights and potential limitations of opportunity?  But, it may be argued, many young people rebel and follow paths that lead to rejection by the majority of their community.  People may adhere to other religions, or no religion for example.  However, that does not seem reasonable to me when it relates to sexuality.  I don't know about anyone else but I do not choose to start the day as a heterosexual.  I simply am, and always have been, attracted to women. I may be jealous of a better male physique or looks but there is no attraction and I would imagine that is the case for most other men.  To me, it is simply impossible for someone to choose to be gay.  They may choose to experiment, I suppose, but the basis of their sexuality is innate and beyond their control.

So what does the science say?  There is a great deal of evidence that sexual preference is not a conscious choice but a biological one.  That evidence also more strongly supports the idea that it is a physical rather than a social choice.  So, let's look at that evidence.

The incidence of homosexuality is comparable at about 10% in all cultures across the world.  If it was choice based then we would not expect this to be the case.

One of the biggest predictors of whether or not a boy will be gay is birth order with regard to other boys. (e.g. Separate studies by R Blanchard, Anthony F. Bogaert, EM Miller, JM Cantor, SJ Robinson and many others).  Many studies show that the likelihood of a boy being gay is directly influenced by the prior number of boys his mother has carried.  At face value, this still leaves the possibility that there is a social influence: the simple presence of older brothers influences the sexual preference choice of a boy.  However, the study by Anthony Bogaert deliberately addressed this issue.  That study, consisting of 905 men, found the birth order effect even when a child whose mother had had three or more previous male babies, was raised by another family.  This was true whether or not there were older non related brothers in that adopted family.  This strongly indicates that there is a major genetic factor involved.  However, this only applies to right handed gay men!  For left handed men, birth order was the opposite.  The majority of left handed gay men were more likely to be first born sons with older sisters.  So, it's complicated.  But whatever the case, it isn't a choice as these effects are purely biological and appear whether or not an individual is raised in the family that shares their genes, whether the adopted family has a similar make up as the birth mother's family or not.  So, if the family raising a child seems to be largely irrelevant with regard to that child's likelihood of being gay, what is it that can affect a child, no matter where they are raised? Answer: Their genes.

Some genetics

A common complaint from people who believe that homosexuality is unnatural and not genetically based is that if one half of a set of identical twins is homosexual then its partner must also be, because they have identical genes.  However, this ignores one very important fact: although we inherit our genes from our parents, not all the genes we receive are active in all off-spring, even if they are genetically identical.  For example, consider the human X chromosome.  We men only have one and we survive perfectly well,  In fact all humans, male and female, can only have one X chromosome and develop normally.  Men have only one X chromosome in each cell but girls two.  To avoid having too many products of the genes on those two X chromosomes, a girl's cells largely (but not totally) deactivate one of their X chromosomes at RANDOM!  No one knows what all the genes on the X chromosome do.  A girl gets one X from each of her parents but very early in her development, each of her constituent cells 'decides' at random that one will be silenced.  All the descendants of those cells within the developing girl inherit that decision.  It can be seen then that from their earliest beginnings 'identical' girl twins are not genetically identical at all.  While this obviously does not apply to boys with their single X chromosome, it illustrates the point.  More telling is the finding that the gene expression responsible for the development of disorders such as Arthritis is also different within identical twins.

Even though all our cells contain the same genetic code (except for red blood cells and gametes) they experience different life histories.  If they did not then we would remain single celled, undifferentiated organisms. In other words we would not have different cell types such as blood, nerve, muscle etc, if the genetic code was the whole story.  So, something else happens to the genes in our cells. They are expressed (have an effect) or they are silenced (they have no effect).  This is achieved by a process called methylation.  Technically, a methyl group is attached to a cytosine or adenine base in a DNA strand.  In other words a blocking chemical is added to one, or more, of the letters that make up part of the genetic code.  This prevents the expression of the gene that the code spells out.  It can be seen then that contrary to what many believe, the simple shared possession of a genetic code (genotype), does not mean that twins will be in all ways identical (have a shared phenotype).  Such influences are called epigenetic factors.    

That there is a genetic influence is borne out by twin studies. Twins are exposed to a similar family and environment, whether they share an identical code or not.  However, studies such as that carried out by J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, 1991, found that identical twins were more likely than other brother possibilities to be homosexual: 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers (adoptive).  This strongly suggests that in many cases, there are sequences of genes that do lead to a greater likelihood of homosexuality.  These sequences are then acted upon by epigenetic factors and birth order effect.

What might be the mechanism of the birth order effect?  There are two main possibilities:

1. Training of the mother's immune system.

2. Age of mother during gestation.

The first proposal considers that the mother's immune system may attack male baby's because they are seen as more alien than her own female cells.  With each male pregnancy this effect is said to increase.  One problem with this is that no immune factor has been identified that attacks only a woman's male children.

The second proposal is that the age of a mother quite naturally increases with each pregnancy.  It is a commonly known fact that the age of a mother has a direct effect on many genetically controlled aspects of her baby.  The incidence of genetic changes classified as abnormalities has been shown conclusively to increase with maternal age.  Older mothers are more likely to have babies who have Down's syndrome or Autism, for example.  Homosexuality is considered by this proposal to therefore be a genetic fault, the likelihood of which increases with age in the same way as other genetic conditions.

It is interesting to consider that the birth order effect (which is real and applies even to children reared apart) only affects right handed boys.  Do the conditions in the prebirth environment affect both sexuality and hand predominance?   Studies (McCormick, Whitlston, Kingston - 1990; A large meta study analysis by Martin L. Lalumiere, Ray Blanchard, and Kenneth J. Zucker Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and University of Toronto 2000, etc) have shown a direct link between left handedness and homosexuality.  Homosexual men are a third more likely to be left handed than the average man in the street.  Lesbians were nearly twice as likely to be left handed as the average woman.  There is a strong inheritance of left-handedness and in 2007 A massive study co-ordinated by Oxford university identified a gene linked to left handedness LRRTM1.  This gene is involved in brain organization and, if inherited from the father leads to an increased chance of left-handedness.  However, it also increases the chances of schizophrenia - also when inherited from the father.

From these studies it can be seen that brain organization (handedness), genetic code and prebirth environment all play a part in the development of sexuality.  A complex interaction between genes, maternal age/immune system and epigenetics all play a part in the likelihood of a child being born gay.

There is simply no evidence that homosexuality is a choice.  Michael Bailey is a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, working with genetically male infants born with malformed or ambiguous genitals. As he says,  in many such cases, surgeons construct a vagina, and instruct parents to raise the child as a girl, with no knowledge of his medical history. As adults, those prenatally male/postnatally female people were virtually all attracted to women. "If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him and rearing him as a girl, then how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?"

"Gays don't have children so why doesn't a genetic preference for homosexuality die out? It goes against Darwinian evolution!"

This is another common complaint of those who believe that homosexuality is a conscious, unnatural choice.  However, they are wrong.  For one thing, even before the days of assisted reproduction, gays had children.  Gay women were raped and impregnated for example (it is disgusting to learn that lesbians have been raped to try to convert them to 'normal'!), and gays of both genders conformed to expectations, married and had children - Oscar Wilde was definitely gay but fathered two children.

But leaving aside societal pressure and force, there is nothing about Darwinian evolution that says that genes for homosexuality can not survive in a population.  The gene for sickle cell anaemia is recessive.  Each gene has an allele, that is at each point in our double helix of DNA, we have a version of a gene from each parent. If a person has a single sickle allele from either parent then they are a carrier.  If they receive a sickle cell allele from BOTH parents then they develop the potentially fatal sickle cell anaemia in which red blood cells are deformed and malfunction due to their sickle shape.  If sickle cell anaemia kills those who have it (without medical intervention) why does the Sickle Cell gene continue to exist?  Answer: because those people who inherit just one sickle allele, from one parent only, are afforded protection against malaria!  We therefore see that a genetic variety that also prevents its bearers from breeding (by killing them!) continues in a population just as homosexuality - which theoretically results in fewer offspring - does.

How would a homosexuality gene continue in a population?  There are two possible reasons:

1. Directly: As in the case of  sickle cell anaemia, a genetic sequence might improve the breeding chances of a none homosexual carrier.

2. Indirectly. Human beings are social creatures and have been for all of our known history.  As our brains have increased in size, so the nutritional demands of the newborn have increased.  It takes a lot of resources to raise human children to maturity and they are dependent upon those around them far longer than other species.  Those women who belong to a family group that includes homosexuals programmed to be so by genetics or epigenetic factors will have siblings who are less likely to breed.  They will therefore have more adults in the group available to provide resources for their nieces and nephews and not provide competing off-spring of their own.

It seems that both of these possibilities are true.  According to studies such as that carried out by  A. Camperio-Ciani, F. Corna and C. Capiluppi Proceedings of the Royal Society 2004. There is a strong connection between the maternal line of an individual and their homosexuality.  Homosexuals are far more likely to have homosexual relatives in their mother's family than their father's. In the reported study of a thousand individuals the rate of homosexuality in the maternal line was twice that in the paternal line.  But what has that to do with a gene providing a direct advantage to breeding success?  While the mechanism was not known, statistically the female relatives (on the female pedigree line) of homosexuals were found to produce more children.  Males did not.  There was no difference in fecundity for female relatives on the paternal side so this indicates that it is unlikely to be a simple case of birth order effect - i.e. that the female relatives of homosexuals simply have more children and are therefore consequently more likely to have a homosexual child.

Another indication that there is something intrinsically different about the genes, epigenetic factors or the prebirth environment within the mother in these families is the loss of uncles.  Again, this only affects the maternal side.  In a study of 500 hundred individuals by Richard Greene and EB Keverne, published in 2000 in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, a significant reduction in the number of male relatives was noted in the maternal line of homosexuals and transsexuals.

The same group led by Camperio-Ciani, who published the 2004 study noted above, published further research in 2012.  This showed a number of possible reasons for the increased fecundity of the mothers of homosexuals.  The mothers appeared to be more attractive to men - they were more feminine and outgoing - and they also had fewer gynaecological and obstetric problems.  However, on the negative side, they were significantly more likely to experience a divorce. (Perhaps precisely because they are more attractive to men and more out-going!?)

What conclusions can be drawn?  At least with regard to a large percentage of gay men, it appears that a genetic situation exists which leads to feminization of the unborn child.  If that goes too far then a male child is lost (hence lower numbers of male relatives).  Birth order effects might lead us to conclude that rather than being an effect innate to the child, it is something which affects the prebirth environment within the mother, most likely her immune system.  Each exposure to a male child seems to lead an increased immune response to a male baby.  Bear in mind that this explanation is largely applicable to right handed boys and not left handers.  But it does show that for a significant proportion of gay males all the evidence supports a genetic influence.  That this influence is X Chromosome linked is indicated by the effects upon the female line.  A boy always inherits his X chromosome from his mother who does not have a Y chromosome to pass on, of course, and hence a boy MUST receive his Y chromosome from the father.  X and Y make a boy.  The, as yet unidentified X located genes, also have the effect of increasing the breeding success of mothers by making them more attractive (feminine) to men.

There is, as yet, no similar evidence based explanation for lesbianism. However, there is evidence that there is a strong genetic factor (at least 25 - 30% of the influence is genetic).  A study in the UK, published 2011, Andrea Burri and Qazi Rahman Queen Mary University, London, followed a large sample (4000 individuals and therefore likely to be significant) Identical female twins reared in the same environment were more likely to be lesbian than non-identical female twins were.  Additionally, it is interesting to note that lesbians are twice as likely to be left handed as the average woman. Hand preference is not under conscious control it is innate and probably genetic.  This is supported by the fact that hand preference can be predicted by the study of a person's hair.  Right handers are far more likely to have hair that swirls clockwise at the crown. 95% of Right handers have clockwise hair swirls where left handers and the ambidextrous show no preference. ( Amar Klar of the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland).  It is also known that left handers are more likely than right handers to experience negative medical conditions.  They are twice as likely to suffer Crones Disease (2001, 17,000 sample size, University college, London).  Also left handed women are twice as likely to suffer breast cancer (British Medical Journal, 2005, University Medical Center Utrecht 12,000 sample size).

So, homosexuality seems to have a very strong genetic component, either within the mother - in the case of male, right-handed homosexuals, or within the child with regard to lesbians (identical twins and fraternal twins  all share the same prebirth environment, including the mother's immune system.  The influences are complex and more than one applies in different situations but one thing is clear: Homosexuality is most definitely not a choice.

Is homosexuality a genetic disorder then?   No.  Many genotypes provide positive and negative impacts.  Take height as an example.  The incidence of cancer increases 16% for every four inches of extra height (Cancer Research UK 2011, 1 million sample size).   Men over 6 ft tall are twice as likely to develop life threatening blood clots in their legs ( Aaron Sweeney, a consultant vascular surgeon at Lewisham Hospital.)  However, studies (Pierce, C.A. 1996; Cunningham, M.R. 1990; Pawlowski B, Dunbar RI, Lipowicz A 2000.) have shown that women find tall men more attractive and that they have more children.  This is theorized to be due to mate selection based on apparent fitness. A man has to have resources, and the skill to obtain them, in order to actually reach his genetic height potential.  That is attractive to potential mates.  We can see therefore both homosexuality and increased height can improve breeding success at the cost of some health problems.  In the case outlined most clearly above, homosexuality can lead to increase loss of male babies but the possession of a homosexual influence leads to an actual increase in the direct fecundity of 'carrier' mothers plus a theoretical benefit in terms of non reproducing uncles providing resources in less organized societies.  Additionally some studies, but not all, have shown an increase in intelligence and creativity among homosexuals (SATOSHI KANAZAWA, Journal of Biosocial Science 2012).  Anecdotally, this seems reasonable to me.  When HIV/AIDS first occurred in the 1980's it was the entertainment industry that was initially devastated. 

If we are to argue that being gay is a genetic disorder that causes ill health then we would also have to argue that tall people are suffering from a genetic disorder.  Being gay is a result of biological processes that have positive and negative consequences, just as many other phenotypes do.  It is, therefore, perfectly natural and certainly not the result of choice.

Since it is the result of developmental processes, homosexuality is also not a condition subject to treatment any more than being tall is.  The brains of homosexuals are simply wired differently to those of heterosexuals.

Conclusion

Homosexuals are just one version of humanity and, as such deserve all the human rights that the majority of society enjoy.

For we Christians:

Is homosexuality a sin?

Is it reasonable to accept that a loving, reasoning God would allow individuals to be physically created homosexual, following the biological processes that God created, and then condemn them for it?  I do not believe so.  Would God create a fish and then condemn it for being a fish?  Sin is the deliberate disobedience to the will of God.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that an unreasonable God would allow the creation of gay people but then tell them not to actually have gay sex.  In other words, being gay is not itself a sin, the sin is in gay sex.  That seems illogical to me but, Ok, what are the consequences.  Those who believe this way condemn themselves.  If we are to take the Bible literally, Jesus said that adultery is not just the physical act but the very thought of viewing a woman with lust.  Most of us can not control our thoughts anywhere near to that extent and are attracted to other people.  It is what we do about that attraction that is important.  I think the statement attributed to Jesus is unreasonable and largely impossible.  It is responsible for so much angst through out the ages.  So the same applies to gays.  A gay person cannot help being attracted to people of the same physical gender that they are.  If the statement attributed to Jesus were correct then a gay person would be created by the processes instituted by God and immediately condemned not just for gay acts but for the gay thoughts that their very nature can not help but create.  And that is completely unreasonable.  No sane, loving God could allow that situation.

  

Global Warming. The arguments in favour.

Let's start with some basic information about the rock on which we live.

Our planet, our amazing Earth, is a ball of mostly molten (to at least some degree) rock, floating in the vastness of space.  We live on the solid crust, the lithospere, which is approximately 50 miles thick and comprises less than half a percent of the Earth's depth.  The core of our planet is 'solid' but still extremely hot.  It's solid state is not due to it being cool then, but is due to the enormous pressure preventing free movement of its constituent atoms.

The atmosphere that surrounds us is about 600 miles thick in total, but 90% of the air that makes up that atmosphere is contained in a layer just 7 miles thick.

The heat in the Earth - some 6,700 degrees Celsius at the core - has a minimal warming effect at the surface because rock is a poor conductor of heat.   On average the warming of the crust by heat flow from within the Earth is about 0.087 Watts of energy per square metre.  The source of that energy is primarily radioactive decay (80%).  The remaining energy comes from that left over from the collisions that created the Earth.

How does that heat from within the Earth compare with that received from the sun? It is infinitesimally small in comparison.  On average the amount of energy from our closest star is 164 Watts per square metre of the Earth's surface.  However, that varies because the output from the sun is not constant.  The sun goes through regular cycles, waxing and waning in power.  These cycles occur at regular 11 year intervals and can be observed by measuring the solar wind and numbers of sun spots. As the cycle reaches what is called solar minimum, and the number of sunspots decrease, so the amount of energy hitting the Earth falls.  How do we know this?  Well, sunspots have been recorded for thousands of years (Earliest known mention was 364 BC by the Chinese astronomer Gan De) and their absence is correlated with lower temperatures.  Correlation does not show cause and effect but modern astronomy has directly measured the energy of the sun as the number of sunspots wax and wane.  Since the laws of physics are not known to change, it is reasonable to conclude that the amount of energy reaching the Earth was low during low sunspot periods of the past.  Take the period of roughly 1645 to 1715, known as the Maunder Minimum. During that period there were virtually no sunspots and the temperatures plummeted.  That the sun's output was low during such periods of cold is borne out, not only by sunspot numbers but also by the relative amounts of such substances as Carbon 14 and Beryllium-10. The amounts of these substances increase as the amount of solar radiation decreases since they are formed by cosmic ray interaction with our atmosphere.  Cosmic ray levels increase as the solar wind decreases.  This solar wind makes Earth habitable by screening us from these rays.

So, the primary source of heat energy on Earth is the Sun.  Further evidence of this comes from our direct experience (toward the poles) of reduced solar radiation per square meter of the Earth during each Winter of the year. As the inclination of the Earth toward this primary heat source changes, so does the temperature.  Nothing else steps in to warm the Earth in the absence of the sun.  But why do we experience the temperatures we do? Because of the atmosphere.

The moon lacks an atmosphere but is, to all intents and purposes, at the same distance from the sun as Earth.  It orbits our planet at an average distance of about 240,000 miles. A little under a quarter of a million miles, then.  Given that Earth is an average 93 million miles from the sun, the fact that the moon moves toward and from the sun by a quarter million is irrelevant.  So what is the temperature like on the moon, with no atmosphere?  The day time temperature of the moon is 107 degrees Celsius - more than hot enough to boil water. At night the temperature drops to -150 degrees Celsius.  If the Earth did not have an atmosphere then similar figures would apply to our planet.  They would not be exactly the same due to the different rotational periods.  Earth rotates more quickly than the moon and so there would be less time to reach extremes.  Less time for any point to be exposed to the sun or to have no sun exposure.  However, that only makes slight differences. With no atmosphere, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18 Celsius.

So how does the atmosphere regulate the average temperature of the Earth?  The atmosphere acts like a blanket.  Just as a blanket on a bed slows the heating of an individual in a warm room and slows the cooling of the same individual in a cool room, so the atmosphere does the same for the Earth.  It reflects some of the incoming radiation back into space (about a third) and also, once that radiation is converted to infra-red radiation on contact with the surface, delays that radiation going back out into space.  The secondary effect of the atmosphere is to allow the spread of heat around the planet.  Streams of air carry the heat from day to night sides of the planet and from Summer to Winter hemispheres.  In other words, the atmosphere softens the extremes of global temperatures.

Does the temperature of the Earth rise and rise indefinitely? No.  All the energy of the sun is either re-radiated back into space (in one form or another) or, to a very small extent, converted to more permanent forms such as organic compounds. Living things use the energy of the sun to build their structures and then those structures are converted to oil, coal and gas.  That energy is released when the fossil fuels are burnt and converted back into heat that is again radiated back into space.

How does the atmosphere hold onto heat?  The atmosphere largely allows light from the sun to enter freely.  What happens to it then depends upon what it hits once it has finished it's journey through that atmosphere.  The simple physics of matter mean that things we humans perceive as light in color reflect the suns light back out into space.  Progressively darker surfaces reflect progressively smaller amounts of the energy they receive back out.  A black object absorbs virtually all of the light hitting it.  That's why it appears black to our eyes.  There is no light radiation for us to detect.  The energy of that light is not lost - a physical impossibility - it is changed.  What it becomes is infra-red radiation, otherwise known as heat.  We humans can't see it but our technology, and other creatures can.  Warm things radiate their energy in the infra-red spectrum.  That energy is radiated into space too.  However, some substances capture that infra-red radiation as it heads back up from the surface of the Earth.  These are what we call the Greenhouse Gases because, although they use a different method, their effect is the same as the glass in a greenhouse - they delay the passage of heat.

Not all of the gases in the atmosphere have this effect of capturing heat and are therefore not Greenhouse gases.  Only those which consist of two or more different atoms fit the category.  So, Nitrogen (N2), Argon(AR) and Oxygen (O2) are not greenhouse gases, Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water vapour (H2O) and Methane (CH4) are.  The bonds between those atoms absorb the infra-red radiation and re-emit it in all directions.  Some will continue its journey out into space but some is sent back toward the Earth's surface.  How does it do this? Heat is simply the vibration of atoms.  This is basic physics.  As a substance cools, it's molecules vibrate less until at absolute zero they are motionless.  Photons of infra-red radiation strike the atomic bonds of molecules in the atmosphere, converting light energy into kinetic energy.  The increased vibration of these molecules is experienced as heat.  As the molecule returns to its pre-collision state and slows, its kinetic energy is converted back into infra-red radiation.

The more of these gases there are in the atmosphere, the more heat energy is retained and the higher the temperature we experience is.  We know this is the case because, as we saw above, simple physics which was developed long before any controversy over whether or not we are affecting the climate, states that the Earth should be some 33 degrees Celsius cooler than it actually is.   We also know the physics, described above, which shows why the Earth is warmer than it should be.  Greenhouse gases temporarily trap heat within the atmosphere.  This is what allows us to live on planet Earth in the first place.  This physical process also explains the temperatures of other bodies in the solar system. Venus is far hotter than it's size and distance from the sun would predict.  At 462 degrees Celsius the surface temperature is hotter than that of Mercury at 420 degrees Celsius.  This despite the fact that Venus, at a distance from the Sun of 76 million miles, is twice that of Mercury at an average distance of 35 million miles.  What is distinctive about Venus? It's massive atmosphere is 96% Carbon Dioxide!

This gives rise to one of the questions that opponents of global warming have to explain.  If the principles of physics tell us what the average temperatures of Earth and Venus should be, why are they not at those temperatures? How do we explain the observed differences from expectation in the two planets - consider the difference between Venus and Mercury especially the inverse relationship between temperature and distance.  One oft used argument is that water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas and it is that which is raising the temperatures of the planets and not CO2.  However: what causes water vapour levels to rise? The temperature!  Water vapour IS increasing and will add to the Greenhouse effect on Earth.  But increased water vapour is a symptom of increased warming not the initial cause!  Venus has virtually no water anyway.  But I get ahead of myself here.  Back to basics.

Ok, so the Earth is warmer than the physics of black-body radiation would suggest and it appears that this is because of its atmosphere and the presence of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon related gases such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane (the levels of which are also rising alarmingly) Methane has 25 times the greenhouse effect as Carbon Dioxide but each molecule only lasts about 8 years in the atmosphere, compered to over a hundred years for CO2.

Given the effects of physics on basic physical objects and the fact that an atmosphere blankets such a body, increasing it's surface temperature, what else affects the temperature of the Earth?  Let's go back to the absorption of light again.  Technically the absorption of light energy is said to depend upon the albedo of an object.  Simply put - how light in colour it is, from the Latin for 'Whiteness'.  The whiter an object is, the more light it reflects unchanged back into space.  We can see then that the more snow there is on the surface of the planet, the cooler it is because it absorbs less of the energy of the sunlight which hits it.  As we know, the continents slowly drift across the face of the planet.  This is driven by the heat of the inner Earth forcing apart the continental plates at the mid-oceanic ridges and the further edge of the plate sinking into the subduction zones. As these plates move they wander closer and further from the poles.  Extensive land masses toward the poles give a surface on which snow can accumulate and therefore reflect sunlight, cooling the planet.  Without a land mass upon which to accumulate there would be no white surface.  The north polar cap of the Earth , while consisting mainly of floating ice, is anchored by the surrounding land and the sea is not very deep, not deep enough to be an ocean.  At an average 3,400 ft deep it is actually a sea, part of a flooded continent plate, rather than ocean (average 14,000 ft deep).  Antarctica consists of land, upon which ice and snow have accumulated, plus the surrounding ice anchored to it.  At other times in Earth's history the continents have come together at the equator and there have been no polar ice caps.  200 million years ago the land masses were much closer toward the equator.  Subsequently Antarctica has drifted south while Europe and the America's further north.  Not only do continents directly affect the temperature by providing a surface for reflective ice and snow to accumulate on, they do it indirectly too.  The presence or absence of a continental mass allows or blocks the flow of ocean currents which distribute heat around the planet.  This is important because although that distribution does not affect the total amount of heat within our atmosphere, it does affect where it reaches.  If an area is cut off from the heat transported by the ocean it cools.  As a result it is again more likely to allow the accumulation of ice and snow and thereby reduce the absorption of heat by increasing the albedo.

Volcanism affects the the temperature of the Earth's surface but not in the way that is often cited by global warming deniers.  Volcanoes do, indeed, release large amounts of CO2.  However, they also produce large amounts of particulates and sulphur.  The net effect of volcanoes is to LOWER the temperature in the short term and to have a relatively insignificant effect (compared to us) in the long term.  The amount of CO2 released by volcanoes each year is (maximum estimate 300 million tons) How much is released by our burning fossil fuels? 29 BILLION tons.

So, is the Earth actually warming?  All the evidence would suggest that the Earth warmed dramatically during the latter half of the 20th century and that while the rate of heating has decreased in the early part of this century, it has continued.  There are various lines of evidence.  The actual measurements of temperature show that the temperature continues to rise.  According to NASA, 2012 was the hottest year on record.  Far from warming having stopped in 1997 (as some would have us believe) the ten warmest years recorded have all occurred since 1998.  The September sea ice mass for the Arctic has reached its lowest point ever recorded in 2012, a trend continued for at least the last thirty years.  The global ice mass measurement is down 500 billion tons on 2002 levels.  A constant downward trend for at least the last decade.  The Greenland ice mass loss is particularly worrying.  In 2012 the mass loss was 1,000 billion tons, again a continuous downward trend for the last decade.  Sea level continues to rise.  In 1998 the average sea level was 5mm higher than that in 1993.  With a slight dip in 2011 the rise has been steady and average sea level is 65 mm higher than 1993. Each year the records for high temperature are broken, glaciers and ice sheets shrink.

A counter argument put forward by deniers is that ice is actually increasing in Antarctica so that in some way counters the idea of global warming.  It does not.  As the above figures show, global ice levels continue to fall. The fact that ice accumulates in Antarctica is exactly what would be expected in a warming world.  Global water vapour levels have increased. In any area in which the temperature remains low enough to accumulate ice rather than lose it, that increased water vapour will lead to increased accumulation. 

So, what is happening that might explain the changes we are observing?  Is the sun increasing its output, is the earth capturing more heat?  Let's see.

Prior to the industrial revolution ice cores show that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was around 270ppm.  Today it is far higher and the levels have consistently risen over time.  In 1959 the CO2 level was 315ppm.  Today it is 393 ppm.  Every year the level has increased.  Given our knowledge of the physics of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas, the question for deniers is: Why, in your world view, has the increased CO2 NOT warmed the planet?  Basic physics, unconnected with the funding of global warming research, tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.  But massively increasing its levels in the atmosphere is supposed to have done nothing?  Where is that extra CO2 coming from? The burning of fossil fuels.  We release 29 billion tons of CO2, that nature had locked away, out of the carbon cycle, every single year.

We saw earlier that the sun is the primary source of heat for the Earth's surface.  What has it been doing?  Can it explain the current warming? For much of geological time, yes, rises and falls of temperature tie in very well with solar activity.  But not recently. The sun has been very quiet.  In the last 35 years, solar output and Earth's temperature have been diverging.  While the trend was increasing solar output from the start of the twentieth century to about 1960, subsequently the sun's output has been in decline.  In 2009 the total solar output was the lowest recorded in over 100 years.  The sun, far from heating our planet, may actually lead to a reduction in the consequences of our increasing the CO2 levels of the atmosphere.  There is even talk in the astronomical community that the next solar cycle might not even occur.

How can we tell what the sun was doing thousands of years ago?  That takes us back to Carbon 14 and Beryllium-10.  These are stored in the carbon taken up by living things (giving us Carbon dating) in the case of Carbon 14 and locked in ice cores and sediments, in the case of Beryllium 10.  10B has a half life of one and a half million years before decaying into Boron 10.  This means that measuring the ratio of 10B to 10Be means we can see what the sun was doing millions of years into the past.  This is because the formation of 10Be is the result of cosmic rays causing a nuclear reaction between Nitrogen and Oxygen in the air. Cosmic ray levels depend upon the levels of the solar wind.  This means we can get a good idea of what the solar wind was like over long periods and hence the output of the sun.

There is one other piece of evidence that indicates that it is a change in the atmosphere that is causing warming rather than any other influence and that is night time temperatures. The difference between day and night time temperatures is falling.   Since there is no extra heat being put into Earth's climate system just at night, the logical conclusion is that the atmosphere is simply not releasing the heat accumulated during the day as swiftly as it once did.

In conclusion then, it is entirely reasonable to conclude, upon the basics of the laws of physics, that human increases in the levels of CO2 are causing the temperature to continue to rise.  The Earth has indeed had natural cycles of warming that have exceeded those seen today.  But those cycles do not just happen out of no where.  They are not unexplained.  There are reasons.  These reasons do not apply now.  While science can not tell us all the details, all the evidence points to increasing CO2 levels being the primary cause of recent and continued warming.  There is no alternative hypothesis which accounts for all the evidence. 

Breasts are for men NOT babies!

If that title doesn't attract attention I don't know what will!

Why would I want to blog about such a subject?  Well, for one thing, it's about one of my favourite topics! :)  For another it might prompt more responses than my usual posts! I like stirring things up and hopefully making people think.  I also like to argue :)  Additionally, it is quite an important issue that causes heated debate over womens rights, exploitation, objectification, public breast-feeding and so on.

What prompted me to write this?  Over the last couple of days I accidentally stumbled across a couple of on-line discussions around this topic.  One was actually a discussion between Muslims debating the size of the breasts of the virgins they would be rewarded with in paradise!!  Some women were commenting that breasts are for babies and so God and Muhammed wouldn't comment on breasts or breast size in the Koran, as it has nothing to do with men.  In the other conversation concerning breast-feeding, some women were blaming the media, men and society for sexualising breasts which were created\developed for the feeding of babies.

These women were wrong.  Breasts are not for feeding babies, although the milk producing tissue they contain obviously is.   Organs that were developed for one purpose have expanded, literally and figuratively, to include a new function: to attract a mate.  A little thought can show this to be the case:

If I see a woman walking away from me down the road I could, from her height, give you a very good estimate as to the size of her eyes, her heart, lungs, liver and so on.  Not so breasts.  Further more, even an assessment of her body fat percentage is no reliable indicator of breast size.  Some skinny women have large breasts, some larger women have small breasts.  Most other organs of the body are roughly in a fixed proportion in the average person - an exception is the penis (see below).  Yes, there are extremes but these are unusual.  Breast size varies enormously and unpredictably as the norm.  If every other organ has a relatively fixed size commensurate with its function, why not breasts?

If breasts themselves are required for feeding babies, how do flat-chested women feed their off-spring?  Many women do worry about that but it isn't a problem.  Ask any mid-wife or check on-line.  Breast size is irrelevant to the ability to feed a baby.  Flat-chested women are perfectly able to feed their children and, unfortunately, the opposite is also true: many well endowed women have problems, through no fault of their own, in feeding their children.

Other animals don't have large breasts.  Elephant babies need huge amounts of milk but elephants don't have huge udders.  Those animals that do have large udders tend to be domesticated.  We have made them that way to give us unnatural amounts of milk for our breakfast cereal!

One argument, put forward by a female researcher Gillian Bentley - who blamed sexist male academics for the 'myth' of breasts being primarily a sexual organ - was that the large, round breast shape evolved to avoid suffocation of human babies since, unlike our ape cousins, we have flat faces.  Quite how potentially smothering a babies face with a big, squashy balloon avoids suffocating them, I don't know.  But the argument is obviously flawed anyway: in addition to being perfectly able to feed their babies, flat-chested mothers don't have any problems at all in not suffocating their child!

I am fascinated by primates, having many books and wall posters full of our closest relatives.  On my wall is a picture of a mother macaque feeding her baby.  Scaled up to human size, her nipple would be about a foot long.  Wouldn't that make more sense to avoid suffocation? A sort of external umbilical cord.  Why the need for a large, costly body structure which is totally unnecessary?

Another of  Bentleys arguments was that only in Western culture do we 'eroticise' breasts, whereas other cultures don't.  Such as Japan, where they focus on feet, so she said.  She obviously hasn't seen much Japanese porn... ummm,,, Don't ask..!!! A misspent youth....!

Henry Mackow PH.D argues again - in somewhat deranged fashion: he seems to actually hate breasts (describing them as ugly), the poor man - that again, only Western society sexualises breasts and that in other cultures, such as in Africa, women regularly expose their breasts without attracting constant unwanted male attention.... I like Tiramisu, but I don't lose control of myself in the chilled dessert aisle of the local supermarket, nor am I constantly hungry...!  Similarly, just because some African women may have their breasts exposed doesn't mean the associated African men are going to be jumping on them all the time. Yes, exposure reduces stimulation but that applies to anything.  I would tune out even my favourite music, if it was played too frequently in too short a period of time.  Human needs wax and wane with availability and satiation.  I find food appealing when I'm hungry not when I've just enjoyed a heavy meal.

Another counter argument is that, when we look at art, what is considered attractive in terms of breast size, changes over time, even in our own culture.  But that ignores the very fact that the sexual nature of breasts means that they get... how can I say this without sounding perverted.. 'bound up' with other concepts.  For example, religion.  It isn't difficult to see how, during the Puritan period, breasts would be hidden and given less emphasis in art, but in the more liberal Restoration, breasts, as well as many other sensual, more earthly aspects of life would again become more obvious.  Again: in times of shortage, those flaunting a fuller figure show wealth and access to resources which can attract jealousy and antipathy.  Whatever, large or small, all the evidence points to men finding prominent breasts more attractive than no breasts.

What is one of the defining traits of humans that differentiates us from all other animals?  Amongst the obvious others, a major one is: we walk upright.  The fronts of our bodies are exposed for all to see to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon clothing.  In the immortal words of Buck, the weasel, from Ice Age 3: "Why say 'I've got your back'? I'd prefer them to watch my front, that's where all the interesting stuff is!"  Being hairless, upright, visually biased creatures, the fronts of our bodies are excellent for signalling.  One of the things they signal is sexual status. In women, breasts signal age - indicating whether a woman is able to breed - and food reserve status.  Being made of fat, breasts indicate a woman has food reserves available to feed a baby. This is both biologically available, in her body, and by implication, the means to obtain more.

Numerous studies have shown that on average, men prefer larger breasts:

"Womens bust size and men's courtship solicitation" Gueguen 2007

Beck, Ward-Hull, and McLear (1976)
Wildman and Wildman (1976)
Gitter, Lomranz, Saxe, and Bar-Tal (1983)

Although the world over, the largest percentage of women in most countries fall into the B bra cup size, those who take a C or D, in most western countries, equal or exceed that percentage. This is with the notable exception of Italy where 68% of women are cup size B!,  and surprisingly, considering the incidence of obesity America where C and D cup combined percentages of 38% are less than B cup 44%. An interesting statistic to note is that the more well endowed women appear to come from Britain!  Despite having a lower obesity rate than America, only 19% wear a B cup, 18% a C cup while a whopping 57% wear a D cup. Either there is something special in the water here or a lot of bras are being stuffed with socks!  Statistics are from:  Triumph Bra manufacturer survey 2007. An alternative explanation is, of course, that for some unknown reason, different nations have different preferences for different sizes of Triumph bra. Perhaps D cup sized women prefer a different brand in Italy, for example.

In one interesting experiment, a young woman who normally wore an A cup bra was used as a lure for men in a nightclub.  For three, three hour sessions she wore exactly the same clothes and sat in exactly the same spot in the club.  The exception was that with each subsequent session her bra size was increased a cup size, with appropriate padding.  An observer counted how many times the woman was approached by a man in each session. The results were:

Cup size A 13 approaches.
Cup size B 19 approaches.
Cup size C 44 approaches.


It seems then, that because of the signals they convey, prominent breasts have been selected for by male choice.  Surveys (including the Triumph survey above) have shown that less than 10% of women wear a cup size A.  So, why don't all women have huge breasts?  For one thing, they are costly to maintain in terms of energy and their physical presence would be a detriment to physical activity during most of our evolution.  No use having an obvious but heavy fertility signal, carrying a large amount of fat, when trying to escape a hungry leopard...  For another: mate choice.  Assuming he isn't gay, Mr Mackow is an example that shows that although the average man prefers relatively (compared to our ape cousins)  larger breasts, some are not bothered or are actively turned off by large breasts.  Then there is the question of availability.  Fact and nature aren't interested in what is nice or not.  It is simply a fact that a flat chested mate is better than no mate.  That is not 'nice' but then neither is the consideration of the fact that, despite numerous studies showing that women find intelligence highly attractive, many dim men are perfectly able to find a partner.  Sometimes you settle for what you can get. Genes for smaller breast size are maintained within the human gene-pool, albeit at a low percentage.

The fact that larger breast sizes occur in Westernised, developed societies doesn't show that other societies have different preferences.  Take Japan again.  Traditionally, they are a people short of stature. As their diets have westernised, so their height - along with their ill-health - has increased.  The same applies to breasts. Whatever your genes code for can only be expressed if the environment provides the resources required.

Failure to act on the sexual signal at all times doesn't negate the fact that breasts have a primarily sexual purpose.  I would argue that, in western society, the natural sexual signal of breasts attracts more attention than in, say, some areas of Africa or the Amazonian Rain forest, precisely because breasts are less obvious.  So we are less attenuated to the signal. When we do get the signal, i.e. seeing breasts or part thereof, we respond more strongly.

There are consequences to these facts: men are going to be fascinated with breasts. They are going to peek and, if rude, stare.  A woman has the absolute right to wear whatever she wishes, but if she exposes flesh then she is going to get attention.  It is the most natural thing in the world for a woman to breast-feed a baby but again, it is equally natural for nearby men to feel 'uncomfortable'.  However, we are not animals.  We do not have the right to touch or worse. We know what is right and wrong and we have no right to violate a woman's rights.  But women also have to acknowledge that men are biologically programmed to check them out. It isn't society sexualising baby-feeding 'machinery' or men being perverts.  It is nature and part of the reason we have existed, as one related species or another, for millions of years.  It's instinct and we all do it automatically.  It's only when it become staring or when we are consciously aware of it that it is unacceptable.

In case anyone thinks all this shows that men are shallow compared to women: Compared to other primates the human penis is proportionally far larger than it needs to be.  The male gorilla, at about 510 pounds weight, in the natural environment, has a penis of two inches. The average human male (excluding obesity) weighs around 180 pounds and has a penis of six inches.  Methinks there has been some preferential selection going on there too: by women! Those signals again.  As Buck said: "... the front.  That's where all the interesting stuff is!"

Studies have also shown that the average woman is initially interested in what material goods a man can provide for her and her off-spring:


Borgerhoff Mulder,  1988,  1990

Buss,  1996;
Irons,1983
Symons,  1979


Betzig, 1989
Buckle, Gallup, & Rodd, 1996
Campbell,  2002

Sensible from an evolutionary point of view but not exactly how we like to think of ourselves.  So shallow.

But other studies have shown that this shallowness fades as we age and other, non physical, non materialistic attributes become more important.