Global changes in temperature...

A couple of years ago, I was definitely the odd one out when it came to the whole story of "climate change" and "global warming". However, the worm seems to have turned and while there is still an overwhelming weight of opinion on the side of climate change in the media, that consensus has definitely gone and much more questioning is now happening.

If you think about global warming and carbon dioxide and emissions trading schemes there are two very basic distinctions to make.

Firstly; do you believe in global warming or not?

No - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Yes - continue...

Secondly; do you believe that global warming is anthroprogrenic (man made) or part of the earth's natural cycles?

Natural - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Man made - continue...

Thirdly; if humans are warming the globe, are our emissions causing lots of warming, or just a little bit?

Little bit - don't worry about carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, they're not relevant.
Lots - continue...

Forthly; If we are warming the globe by a lot what are the ramifications? Will we have increased food production and more trees or droughts and flooding rains?

I think that's the one that's a little bit hard to answer.


I want to once again put myself out there as a sceptic. While belief seems to be a strong word, I do accept that there has been some warming of the globe happening over the past couple of centuries. However, I do have a few small queries about the consensus view pushed forward by the media. Some of my doubts are:

This global warming seems to have happened over a period of a couple of hundred years, not just in the last 50, which isn't really in keeping with the whole anthroprogenic theory.

There hasn't been any increase for a few years now, the actual peak temperature was when, 1998?

There's been no accounting for the impact of sun spots on the earth's temperature cycle, something we're going to know a lot more about in the next few years as the current sunspot cycle finishes, with an accompanying reduction in solar radiation.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but increases in atmospheric CO2 don't result in equivalent direct increases to global temperature. Double the CO2 you don't double the temperature, you only get an increase of 1 to 2 degrees.

Previous examples of extreme global warming (in the record of things such as ice cores) seems to indicate that previous spikes in CO2 have FOLLOWED spikes in temperature

Previous examples of warming that we have records for (such as the Medieval Warm Period) were obviously not caused by burning of coal and oil and indeed saw periods of unprecedented prosperity in Europe. It would seem likely that increased temperatures combined with increases in CO2 would see the potential for greatly increased food, fibre and timber production.

Many of the sites that are used to measure temperature (around the world) have over the last 40 or 50 years been increasingly developed, to the point where they are now surrounded by concrete, air conditioner outlets and other items which could all influence the temperature reading and certainly bring into question data from the individual sites.

So, basically, what I'm saying is that I personally can accept that there is some global warming and that it might even be man made, but that there probably doesn't really need to be that much done about it.

I can see lots of other reasons why you might want to limit CO2 emissions, from national security to improvements to our environment, especially in built up areas, but I DON'T believe that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to somehow save the planet.

That being said, if you do want to reduce emissions, I believe that a carbon tax is the best way to do that. It's simple and effective and means that there is a massive incentive to actually find alternatives. An ETS I can't conceive as being effective, simply because it becomes too complicated. This makes it expensive and it makes it easy to rort.

Far too many people take a quasi-religious view of this whole situation, wanting to "cut emissions" without thinking about the whole picture. And often while driving a nice car, living in a nice house and having overseas holidays. ????

Who's more aboriginal?

This white lady, above, has been attacking this black lady, below, basically because she doesn't agree with on issues to do with aboriginality.



Here's a couple of articles about the situation here and here.

One nice quote from Warren Mundine about Larissa'a 2010 NSW Australian of the year award:

"They become awards for trendy inner city-type people and don't recognise the tremendous work Aboriginal people do on the ground."

There's also a very powerful article by Marcia Langton about the whole situation in today's Australian.

So basically, we have Larissa Bernherdt, a woman who is so thin skinned that she is suing Andrew Bolt because he dared to suggest that maybe she didn't really suffer from discrimination because of her aboriginality. She than says that Bess Price is more disgusting than watching a man have sex with a horse, because she dared to say that the aboriginal intervention might have had some positive outcomes. I wonder if Bess will now sue Larissa?

I wonder if she'll sue me?

NBN

Here's a great article about the NBN. I personally think we should be going flat out installing fibre-to-node all the way around the country, than after we've done that we can re-assess where we go from there, in response to changes in technology. Is that crazy?

You really need to read this...

Or I'll cut your frakking throat...

Laying cable...

So there's been no blogging of late, basically because I'm lazy. Still, I've had a few things mulling around in my head for a while, especially to do with the National Broadband Network.

Now this is one of those things that people seem to be very "for" without having any qualifications whatsover.

"Broadband good, Liberal bad, Broadband good, Liberal badddddddd....." said the sheep as they trotted one by one down the race. Having an opinion doesn't automatically mean that you hate the internet (a topic for another post), just that maybe you think you're smarter than Julia Gillard (and let's face it, who of us doesn't think that occasionally?).

Anyway, reading the print edition of the Australian today I came across a couple of stories that galvanised me to put some thoughts down onto paper, or rather, onto the interwebs, so here they are.

Point One.

I think it's a bit ridiculous that the Government wants to tear up the existing copper cables that currently connect our country, so that anyone who wants a home phone will be forced to go through the National Broadband Network. Surely the point of the privatisation of Telstra was that people were sick of a Government owned monopoly in the telecommunications sector trying to control how people did things while offering expensive and mediocre service? We're going to be paying a lot of money to provide a Universal Service Obligation (currently provided by Telstra and paid for by the Government) along a fibre connection. This fibre connection will be expensive to connect to the household (whether paid for by the householder or the taxpayer, in the end someone pays) and not only that, it will require an ongoing provision and maintenance of a battery in the home, since fibre won't work without power at each end (with a copper cable the power can be sent from one end to enable the system to work). In addition, those people who simply want a cheap, low cost internet connection will be forced into the NBN's high speed service even though it's probably not appropriate for what they really want.

Why not leave the existing copper in place and allow the private telcos to continue to compete with the NBN? This will keep prices down and service up and enable real competition.

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

Point Two.

Apparently 30% of Australian households are currently already serviced with a cable (I believe Foxtel or Optus, can't remember right now) that will provide them with internet at a speed of approximately 100Mbps (the speed which is being advertised as the big selling point of the NBN). Not only are very few customers actually utilising this opportunity for very fast broadband, but the Government is actually going to pay a great deal of money to prevent them from being able to and forcing them to use the new NBN.

Why not leave the existing cable in place and if users want superfast broadband let them use that? In the meantime, effort could be spent improving access to those non-metropolitan areas that might actually have service delivery issues.

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

Point Three.

Points of connection. Noone actually cares about these, they don't actually mean anything. Except that the NBN wants as few as possible (I think 14) and all the other companies who have existing fibre in the ground are suddenly not happy because this will mean even less competition.

Why not let other companies use their own pipes to carry data?

(The answer is of course that the NBN is such a dodgy proposition that it can't possibly pay for itself unless all internet users are forced to use it and nothing else and even then it probably won't pay)

My big problem with the NBN is this. If it's such a great idea (and who doesn't like the idea of a Government communications monopoly) than let's have one. It'll be so good that it should be able to beat off it's competitors using copper and wireless. It should just about write it's own cost-benefit analysis. It's business plan should be so awesome it's picks up chicks in a night club just by saying "Hey! How you doin?"

When the Government is doing tricky or sneaky things such as forcing households to sign up, or paying vast amounts to remove competitive providers than there must be something wrong.

Not only that, but how many houses actually want 100Mbps download speed? Not very many at the current prices.

How about this? Why not install cable into business districts and schools and hospitals? Why not put in fibre to every single exchange in the country and add a few more? After that, let's start thinking about fibre to the household, but fibre to every exchange will speed up things dramatically.

And the reason for this big essay?

The two articles in the Oz.

The first was about how it's now possible to deliver speeds of 100Mbps over a copper cable up to 1km from an exchange. It'll do 300Mpbs 400 metres from the exchange! While this doesn't seem realistic for much of Australia, it would probably be appropriate for 10% of the country. Not only that, but it shows once again that technology doesn't stand still, while the Government is betting all its chips on the one bet.

The second is about trialling new mobile technologies in Sydney that should deliver download speeds of 100Mbps.

Notice the magic number here? Both of them are looking at the same speeds that will be offered by the NBN, but without the vast expense.

I also remember a recent article talking about how an Australian company was trialling technologies that would enable internet access via satellite in excess of 50Mbps (I don't have a link and don't remember the exact speed, but it was fast).

Basically, there's more options out there than just fibre and for the Government to deny that and actively remove other options is practically criminal (in my opinion).

That's my two cents anyway

cheers

Dr Harry

Edit: Further news to hand. CSIRO are trialling technologies using the analogue TV bandwidth that will deliver similar speeds. Now it will only work in areas with low population, but that's not the point. The point is that the Government has all it's eggs in the fibre to the home basket, while technology is developing rapidly. It's like we're living in the future!

Let's roll out fibre, but lets not make it the be all and end all. Lets encourage other options as well. In other words, lets be smart about it.

Just for something completely different, here's a photo of Angus's favourite diva!

Spare the rod and spoil the child...

I'm not sure you could find a much more controversial topic than education to talk about. Check out some of the following links to learn more.

That video above is a preview for a new movie about charter schools in New York City. This article has a lot more information about these schools and the role that they play. They are basically private schools that are funded with public money but without the bureacracy and bullshit that public schools are afflicted by. It's a very interesting read and offers lots of things to think about. Speaking of kids and confidence, this book is apparently a very good explanation of many of the problems affecting education in the US. Also, that bit where the kid hits the roof on his mountain bike? Hilarious!

This woman above gave a very interesting speech to the Conservative Party Conference in the UK. There's some very interesting points, including the guilt she talks about experiencing when voting Conservative for the first time. I would suggest that a lot of the issues she talks about would also be experienced here in Tasmania. Read more about it here.

Boy on a Bike wrote a very good blog post about his son's schooling and some of the issues that he has encountered. This is exactly what education is about nowadays.

Too much of today's education is put back onto the students. They need to provide their own motivation, they need to choose what they should do. Unfortunately, the reality is that they're still CHILDREN! The biggest problem in education nowadays?

Students have lost their fear.

That's it, it's that simple. Not only do students lack respect for their teachers, but many parents just don't value education and as such are not willing to back up the teacher when they need to. It only takes a few students doing the wrong thing to drag down the overall level of the school.

Imagine a typical bell curve. On the far left are those students who are always going to be unable to function in a normal classroom (for whatever reason). On the far right are those students who are always going to achieve well, no matter what. In the middle, sitting on the bell, are the vast majority of the student population. Where things are going well, the entire bell curve can be moved further to the right, so that all students achieve to a high standard. When things are going poorly than the entire bell gets dragged to the left. One or two students getting away with doing the wrong thing sets the wrong example for all those students in the middle and allows that drag leftwards to occur. How can we fix this? In all seriousness?

Bring back the cane.

That's it. That's the solution to many of our educational problems right there.

Speaking of which, this woman is talking about how good teachers make more of a difference than anything else in schools and that we need to find ways to identify those good teachers. She's quite right, good teachers have a massive impact on a student's outcome. However, a teacher's impact, while large, isn't the largest influence on a student. What's number one? Parents and home life, by a long way. Remember the old Jesuit idea of show me the boy and I'll show you the man? (I'm paraphrasing here obviously). It holds true to an extent that many people maybe just don't recognise.

Will any of this happen? Not for a good long time. In the interim, standards will continue to slip as kids continue to get away with stuff they wouldn't have dreamt of doing in the past.

Dr Harry

If you disagree with me than you're EVIL!

What a great article, give it a read. This is definitely a phenomenon I've observed myself. I love that line about how for many people the moralistic is now more important than the moral.

cheers

Dr Harry