Writing – Page 48 – a sibilant intake of breath

Dreams from My Father

For those hoping to gain an understanding of the life and thinking of Barack Obama, his first book is probably a better resource than his second. Given his new position of power, it is impossible to read Dreams from My Father while thinking more about the ideas than about the man expressing them. While reading the full story certainly provides a grit and nuance that is lacking in the campaign speech version of Obama’s autobiography, the book doesn’t take the reader up to the present day. Both chronologically and conceptually, it leaves a big gap between Obama’s decision to leave Chicago for law school (after visiting Kenya) and his subsequent political ascension.

The major topics covered in this book are Obama’s family history and the development of his views on class and race. There are hints about the emergence of his personal politics and religiosity, but those are definitely not the major thrust of the account. All told, the book is best understood as a description of the process through which Obama answered key questions about himself, thus leaving him in a position to move forward with that foundation under him. Actually, the book doesn’t even go that far; it leaves the reader with the sense that Obama has collected the basic materials for that foundation, but ends before giving a clear image of the shape and structure that it will ultimately have.

One unescapable question that arises from the book is whether the author has an essentially perfect memory, or whether he was willing to take considerable liberties in describing his thoughts and conversations. The introduction makes it clear that this was not the book he originally set out to write, and that he didn’t have voluminous primary source recordings to draw upon. That produces the major question of just how accurate and complete an account this really is.

It will be very interesting to see the expansion of this biography, both by outside scrutineers and Obama himself, once his time as president has come and gone and his attentions have turned to other things.

Misusing the verb ‘to ensure’

I think ‘ensure’ might be one of the most misused words in the English language. At least 90% of the time I see it used, it is being seriously misapplied. Cariboo altering their migration patterns in response to climate change are not ‘ensuring’ their survival. At best, the behaviour makes their survival more likely. Similarly, new laws cannot ensure that children will be protected from sexual predators. At best, they will make such occurrences less frequent. Military and police power can never ensure an end to terrorism.

In short, the verb ‘to ensure’ should only be used in situations where genuine certainty is being produced. Generally, this is only the case in matters that are strictly logical or those that are strictly empirical. For instance, the fact that all bats are mammals ensures that there are no non-mammal bats. Similarly, the fact that matter attracts other matter ensures that very massive bodies will be roughly spherical. In terms of actions, those where something is ‘ensured’ are those where an inescapable cause-and-effect relationship exists: the failure of the O-ring on the Space Shuttle Challenger ensured that the vehicle would fail catastrophically. Virtually nothing in politics is certain and, as such, political pledges to ‘ensure’ things are usually misleading or empty.

Book on communicating climate science

Over at RealClimate, they are encouraging people to read a free book on communicating climate science: Communicating on Climate Change: An Essential Resource for Journalists, Scientists, and Educators. It was written by Bud Ward for the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting. It is available online as a PDF, and printed copies are available by mail for US$8.00.

Given how much public communication on climate change is of low quality, we should hope that good books on this topic get the attention of authors and editors.

Most visited posts of 2008

As the year comes to a close, it seems worthwhile to link back to the posts that got the most attention over the past twelve months:

1) By far the most popular was this post on Greyhound bus security, arguing that incorporating airport-style security into the bus system doesn’t make sense. Largely because it got linked by Bruce Schneier, the post was viewed over 2,000 times – more than 1,000 of them on the first day when it was linked.

2) Second post popular was this post on Health Canada’s climate change report. It’s not much of a post, really, when it comes to new content from me. What it does do is make the PDF files of the report available for easy download: something Health Canada itself opted not to do.

3) The third most popular post came very early in 2008, and was about how high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission could be a major enabler for renewable electricity generation.

4) The fourth post once again demonstrates the power of getting linked on a popular site. Zoom directed a lot of people towards my odds guessing experiment, the results of which were posted subsequently.

5) Finally, the fifth most popular post of 2008 was my flowchart for voting in Canadian elections. Strategic voting was a big issue in Canada this year, as was the difficulty of interpreting any electoral result. Voters are simply trying to express so many different preferences through such a narrow channel that knowing precisely what any vote means is impossible.

Taken together, these posts demonstrate a few basic realities of the blogosphere: (a) the small fry get a lot of attention when they can catch the eye of bigger fish, (b) failing that, it pays to be Google-bait, (c) it pays to be the one providing access to something popular, and (d) posts with the most substantive content won’t necessarily get the most traffic.

My thanks to the 36,418 absolute unique visitors who stopped by this year, viewing 117,400 pages. Hopefully, next year will be even better, both in terms of the quality of writing, photography, and discussion and in terms of how many people participate.

Prose ‘translation’ of Paradise Lost

One of the best courses I took at UBC was an Honours Milton course I begged my way into, despite being an international relations major. The instructor was Dennis Danielson: a man extremely knowledgeable and passionate about Milton. The best part of the course was definitely portraying Satan in a spoken rendition of Book II of Paradise Lost.

Recently, Dennis Danielson (D^2 henceforth) released a prose ‘translation’ of the poem, hoping to make it more accessible. It includes the original text side-by-side with his interpretation.

It has been added to my lengthy ‘to read’ list, and I recommend that others with an interest in Milton, literature, or theology consider having a look as well.

Video on copyright in Canada

Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law is a 50 minute film about copyright in Canada, produced by Michael Geist and Daniel Albahary. It is largely a response to the Conservative government’s deeply problematic proposed copyright legislation.

Equitable copyright laws are an important issue. In the first instance, that is due to the overwhelming importance of information, who controls it, and who can do what with it. Secondly, it has to do with societal decisions about what kind of conduct is acceptable, who enforces the rules, and what the consequences for violating them can legitimately be. Rules on when technical means of copyright enforcement can be legitimately circumvented are especially important, since that is a new sort of right potentially being extended to content owners. As such, the balance between the societal interest of fair use and the content owner’s claim to protection needs to be evaluated in a more profound way than has occurred so far.

As with many of the new developments on this issue, I found out about it through BoingBoing.

Misunderstanding Antarctic science

The other day, a friend of mine directed me towards a blog post by Chris Mounsey that does an excellent job of misunderstanding the recent scientific study that found a discernable influence from anthropogenic warming in Antarctica. The study used 100 years of Arctic data, 50 years of Antarctic data, and four computer models to demonstrate that the observations that have been made in those regions are consistent with models in which human emissions are causing mean global warming, and inconsistent with models that include only natural forcings.

As in a great many other cases, the blog author confuses different types of certainty about climatic science. For example, while we definitely know that greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause more of the sun’s energy to be absorbed by the Earth, it isn’t clear what effect the inter-relationships between temperature, soil moisture, evaporation, clouds, and reflected sunlight are. The climate system includes a massive number of elements that have complex inter-relations. When it is reported that a scientific study “help[ed] reveal what drives climate change,” the claim being made is that our understanding of that whole complex system has been deepened.

The blog post questions whether warming is happening (it is), whether it might not be a good thing (above a certain level, extremely unlikely), and whether this is just a repeat of the Medieval Warm Period (it isn’t).

In general, it follows the same “toss everything into the pot” strategy found in many pieces of writing that question the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. I have previously written about the inconsistency of simultaneously denying warming, denying that warming is caused by humans, and denying that warming is bad. This blog also connects to another argument made previously on this site. The blog is written by a self-identified libertarian. The need to disprove the fact that all sorts of human economic activities have important consequences on third parties is essential if climate change is not to render that entire political philosophy nonsensical.

Hard Choices

Edited by Harold Coward and Andrew Weaver, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada is a mixed bag. The chapters vary considerably in their usefulness, as well as their contemporary relevance. Clearly, a lot has changed since the book was published in 2004. Topics covered include climatic science, projected impacts in Canada, carbon sinks, technology, economics, adaptation, legal issues, the Kyoto Protocol, and the ethics of climate change. Of those, the science section has probably held up best.

The most problematic chapters are those on technology and economics. The technology chapter criticizes renewables, boosts nuclear, and promotes the ‘hydrogen economy’ without a great deal of strong analysis or argumentation. For instance, it argues that the costs of nuclear power are almost fully internalized: a very strange position to take given the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of subsidies, loan guarantees, and liability restrictions granted to nuclear operators around the world. The chapter also singularly fails to address the many problems with hydrogen as a fuel. Finally, the assertion that crippling the world economy would be “as deadly as any climate change scenario” underscores the degree to which this volume fails in general to consider the real but unknown probability of a catastrophic outcome that threatens civilization itself.

The economics chapter basically asserts that since the Kyoto Protocol would cost money and not stop climate change in and of itself, we should simply focus on adaptation. It ignores both the fact that international action on problems like climate change (ozone, acid raid, etc) needs to be built up progressively, starting with instruments not capable of single-handedly addressing the problem. Having the international community jump instantly from no legal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions to a regime that controls all emissions in an effective way is asking far too much. The chapter also fails to take seriously the possibility of catastrophic outcomes from unchecked warming. Not all levels of change can be adapted to.

The chapter on ethics is very strange. After a brief secular portion focused on which entities are owed moral duties, it becomes a survey of world religions, arguing that each one sees selfishness as wrong. From this, it is concluded that Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc all yield an ethical obligation to fight climate change. A more practical and serious consideration of who owes what to who on account of climate change would have been a lot more useful. Even in terms of comparative religion, the chapter feels rather sloppy. Just because you can point to a few statements about selflessness in the doctrine of many different faiths does not mean they would all come to the same moral position on climate change. All kinds of real moral questions persist: from how much risk it is allowable to impose on future generations, to who should pay the costs of adapting to the additional warming already locked into the climatic system. The chapter fails to shed light on issues of this type.

In the end, I don’t think there is anything in Hard Choices that isn’t said in a better or more up-to-date way somewhere else. For those seeking to educate themselves on climate change, this book is not a good investment of time.

Learning to write and edit

Writing and editing are both useful and important skills. Better students at every level from high school up quickly learn the value of having someone else turn an attentive and critical eye to their work, before a final version is produced.

Schools should consider assigning essays, then requiring students to submit their original drafts, editorial remarks from an assigned classmate, and the final version. Each student would then get graded on both their final essays and the quality of their editorial comments. A sensible balance might be 2/3 for their essay and 1/3 for their comments.

It would definitely be more work to grade, but I think it would be a worthwhile thing to do from time to time. In a great many professions, the ability to give and receive constructive criticism is an essential skill. People should start learning it while they are still in an academic environment.

Feynman on bad science

A serious section concludes Richard Feynman’s Surely You’re Joking, in which he denounces various forms of bad science. He talks about the pseudoscience of UFOs and reflexology, but also about problems with the work done by credible scientists, such as the bias towards publishing positive results and ignoring negative or inconclusive ones. He raises issues about the quality of school textbooks and the ethics of those who publish and select them. He stresses the importance of retesting your assumptions, properly calibrating new equipment, and providing detailed information on the sources of error you think exist within your experiments. He also provides an important example of scientists fudging their numbers so as not to contradict a famous result.

At the very end, he gives some advice to those who are called upon to provide scientific advice to governments:

I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.

…

So I have just one wish for you — the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

It is a warning that is especially pertinent today – particularly where science and politics collide in relation to environmental issues. The temptation to manipulate the science can be extreme. At the same time, the importance of transmitting scientific conclusions in a way that is both accurate and comprehensible is considerable. Maintaining scientific integrity while also providing accurate and applicable advice is a key ethical and professional requirement for today’s scientists, as well as those on the political and bureaucratic side who work with them.