Homosexuality and Global Warming: Are they Science-based or Something Else?

liberal debatesNothing is quite as amusing as waking up to the curses, insults, and angry voices from the uber-liberals reacting to a piece that challenges the narrative they hold sacred. Good Lord, the angry voices of these folks do sound like a bunch of jackals with hemorrhoids! So what did I do now? Ah yes, I voiced out an opinion against the Global Warming narrative. I suppose that makes me a “science denier” as science has conclusively established that industry and modern human activities that yield huge carbon footprints are the main causes of Global Warming, right? Everyone has conceded to this fact. That is undeniable and only the far right zealots shun that. Okidokie! I guess it is kind of like how “science” has conclusively debunked homosexuality as a mental illness. But really, is the far left’s passion for issues like Global Warming and homosexuality truly based on science or is it based on something else? Let’s assess.

Prior to 1974, homosexuality was a mental illness. Dr. Sigmund Freud even believed that paranoia are motivated by unconscious homosexual impulses. Of course, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), considered as the Bible of psychiatry (used by the American Psychiatric Association), listed homosexuality as a mental illness in the DSM-II. But Dr. Philip Hickey, from his article at the Behaviorism and Mental Health page, said:

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

Like Dr. Hickey, I give kudos to the homosexual community. They did liberate themselves from the oppression of the authoritative “scientists” which considered and stigmatized their sexual orientation as a mental illness without any real conclusive scientific facts.

Statistician William Briggs once said: “The love of theory is the root of all evil”. What a powerful statement! To expound on this statement I would like to share what political commentator Bill Whittle presented in one of his videos. Whittle looks at the difference between fact and theory, and shows you the effects misguided theories have had. He said:

At 7:30am on the morning of July 1st 1916, thirteen British divisions stepped out in no-man’s land near the River Somme in France. It was the most meticulously planned operation in the history of warfare. For months the best minds of the British Empire planned every single conceivable detail of the operation. The length and location of the artillery barrage, the speed of the advancing troops, the placement of the reserves, the whole thing. The perfect plan. Every contingency covered and accounted for. It was the epitome of theory! The triumph of the intellectual and the theoretical idea. That morning the British has suffered 19,240 dead, 35,493 wounded, 2,152 missing, and 585 prisoners, for a total loss of 57,470 individual people – most of them gone in the first 15 minutes. Sixty thousand men gone in a quarter of an hour because of love of theory. Now contrast that with the behavior of the US third Army in roughly 30 years later and not too far away. Patton’s tactics were so fluid, so improvisational, so reactive to the actual situation on the ground that they simply moved faster than theory could follow. When Eisenhower told Patton to bypass the German town of Trier because it would take four divisions to capture it, Patton radioed back: “We’ve taken over Trier with two divisions. What do you want me to do? Give it back?” That is the antithesis of the love of theory that doomed those 60,000 brave British soldiers a generation before them.

So if we invoke morality into the equation, would it be more moral to embrace acts towards an ideal or towards what is real? What if this ideal would result in people of certain sexual orientation to be ostracized and discriminated against? Would if the ideal would cost the lives of 60,000 people? Let us park this question for now.

So let us go back to Global Warming. I find it amusing that many of the ones who embrace the Global Warming narrative are into cherry picking of data. For instance, we would not typically hear from Global Warming alarmists that recent data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has shown a cooling trend over the last decade which contradicts the widely believed narrative that we are bound to destroy our planet beyond repair because of Global Warming with a continuously high carbon footprint human activity yields. Unfortunately nowadays it is not the truth of a theory or accuracy of predictions that count. It is what in people’s hearts that matter. Love and caring for the environment trumps reality. Dr. James Lovelock, a former Global Warming alarmist laments that environmentalism has become a religion and that this movement does not pay attention to facts.
Screw Science

The New York Times featured an article that explains why it is more costly to opt for alternative and renewable energy in times of recession. If a rich country like America under an anemic economic condition can feel the pinch of cost burden with alternative and renewable energy, what more for third world countries like the Philippines? The high cost of energy using alternative and renewable sources like wind and solar would drive up the overhead cost of businesses and in the end will affect the consumers. If the Philippines were a prosperous developed nation with a financially stable citizenry, then it can very well afford getting into alternative and greener sources of energy like solar and wind. But the reality in the Philippines is that the country simply cannot afford such a noble endeavor at this stage of the country’s development. Filipinos are already paying through the nose and they are already facing an energy crisis as it is. To venture into more expensive albeit more socially responsible options runs the risk of unintended economic consequences for the people.

I submit that it is more morally acceptable to act on what is more immediate and practical compared to what is, at most, speculative and idealistic.

forceI do not hate the environment nor do I deny the importance of caring for it. What I object to is the force-feeding of an ideal that seems to bully people into embracing just one narrative. It is like the case of a new fad featured at the New York Times wherein families are experimenting with gift-free birthday parties, suggesting that guests donate money or specified items to a charity instead. Here is an example of (probably liberal) parents putting their own ideals before what their kids want. Granting that this fad aims to teach philanthropy and altruism – this really is just a means for (liberal) parents to pat themselves on the back. I mean come on! What the heck is the point of birthdays for a kid but to get (cool) stuff? Sure, philanthropy and altruism are great but only if you don’t advertise or brag to the world that you’re doing it! Again, that’s the problem with fads like bumper sticker environmentalism. It is force-fed which can make people hate it. It is embraced to show other people how sensitive and caring its adherents are. Ugh! This phony feel-good mentality suggesting that as long as it is for a good cause, you are forced to accept and swallow it.

KrisTDBut I am not really taking anything against my haters. I understand that we just look at things differently and that they are just passionate about their beliefs. The nasty comments and outrage? No problem! I’m sure this will all be forgotten once Kris Aquino reveals another case of STD on live TV. Which I’m sure, will be the perfect time for me to start discussing another anti-liberal topic such as gun rights and the second amendment.

(Images taken from standforlife.net, themarysue.com, Funny or Die, and memegenerator.net)

print

15 Comments on “Homosexuality and Global Warming: Are they Science-based or Something Else?”

  1. What on earth does homosexuality have to do with climate change? This is a completely incoherent rant.

    Personally – as a scientist, an engineer, and a farmer, I see the climate changing in such obvious ways that I’m amazed that the tin-foil-hat brigade are still debating it. And just as the world’s worst-affected by HIV were the ones who invented pseudoscience that caused massive harm, so it seems to be the poor and uneducated who subscribe to the ‘global warming is all a hoax’ nonsense.

    Frankly, I wish people would just shut up about climate change entirely. Most of them have no clue what they’re talking about, on either side of the aisle. There are far more important practical questions to discuss: for example, the issue with (say) coal-generated electricity is not that it’s inefficient, not that it’s polluting, and not that it’s expensive: it’s that it’s technically impossible to make it work in countries like the Philippines.

    To run a coal power station, you need two things: a road infrastructure to bring it fuel, and a national grid to take the electricity away. Lacking either of those things – and Filipinos seem incapable of attempting either without stealing the funding – distributed power is the way to go. And ‘distributed’ generally means solar, wind, or river turbines. Take your pick.

    Any of those options are cheap and simple enough for a village to buy and manage. The only thing stopping them is self-proclaimed experts who think that because they read a book called “the truth about climate change” they’re suddenly experts on power engineering.

    1. What on earth does homosexuality have to do with climate change? This is a completely incoherent rant.

      Sorry if you missed the point. The history behind how homosexuality was taken out of the DSM as a mental disorder should have suggested the point. The point being that just because it was accepted by scientists at that time to be a mental disorder does not necessarily mean it is true. There were no compelling data to support their case. The science behind their declaration that homosexuality was a mental illness was inconclusive. Just because the majority of their peers accepted it as such does not mean the debate about it should stop. To do so would be tantamount to intellectual fascism. With regards to Climate Change, I would argue for the same principle. There are also arguments from the other side as well as data that do not match the predictions and assumptions by Climate Change proponents and alarmists; all those are available.

      Personally – as a scientist, an engineer, and a farmer, I see the climate changing in such obvious ways that I’m amazed that the tin-foil-hat brigade are still debating it.

      Why not? It is not as if this subject has truly been sealed yet. There are data that we have that don’t support the kinds of conclusions Climate Change proponents and alarmists wishes to reach. Most of the data available to support the hypotheses of the CC proponents come from computer models and extrapolations. We really do not have enough data yet to adequately explain the aberrant results from their predictions, let alone prove with adequate validation the data and explanations.

      And just as the world’s worst-affected by HIV were the ones who invented pseudoscience that caused massive harm, so it seems to be the poor and uneducated who subscribe to the ‘global warming is all a hoax’ nonsense.

      Can you provide proof or evidence that the world’s worst-affected by HIV were the ones who invented pseudoscience? With regards to the “Global Warming is all a hoax nonsense” is subscribed to by the poor and uneducated claim of yours, I trust that you have data to support that, right? But let’s grant (without accepting) that this idea that Global Warming is a hoax is embraced by the poor and uneducated, is there anything inherently wrong with that? Would rich and educated people who embrace the Global Warming narrative be better as human beings?

      Frankly, I wish people would just shut up about climate change entirely. Most of them have no clue what they’re talking about, on either side of the aisle.

      Well we could only wish, right? I, for one, do not share your wish. I still like to have a free and respectful exchange of ideas (and opinions) regarding this topic. As we have learned from Desiderata: “As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.”

      There are far more important practical questions to discuss: for example, the issue with (say) coal-generated electricity is not that it’s inefficient, not that it’s polluting, and not that it’s expensive: it’s that it’s technically impossible to make it work in countries like the Philippines.
      To run a coal power station, you need two things: a road infrastructure to bring it fuel, and a national grid to take the electricity away. Lacking either of those things – and Filipinos seem incapable of attempting either without stealing the funding – distributed power is the way to go. And ‘distributed’ generally means solar, wind, or river turbines. Take your pick.

      Good points. You see, nothing precludes anyone from discussing all these other things. Free market of ideas and opinions are great. If you don’t want to discuss the other things which are, according to you – “nonsense”, then please feel free to discuss your ideas on how to make coal work in the Philippines. Perhaps you can contribute to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) organization. According to them the main energy source in the Philippines is coal and natural gas (with coal having the largest share). So evidence shows that coal does work in the Philippines. Perhaps it is just not in the scale as you were thinking of. (Please see https://www.reeep.org/republic-philippines-2014 )

      Renewable energy, while promising and all are just too expensive at the moment in the Philippines. An article from The Guardian is illuminating with regards to this. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/18/philippines-sees-slow-take-up-of-renewable-energy ) So it really boils down to the bottom-line. While solar and wind and other green energy options may be socially responsible, businesses have to buy into that which means that they would need to be economically feasible and viable. When the financial benefit for green energy becomes higher than the cost then I would have no problems switching. But until then, renewables have a tough time in the Philippines.

      Any of those options are cheap and simple enough for a village to buy and manage. The only thing stopping them is self-proclaimed experts who think that because they read a book called “the truth about climate change” they’re suddenly experts on power engineering.

      I disagree. The numbers (bottom-line) currently don’t make financial sense to businesses at the moment. If power needs were merely as simple as powering a light bulb, then sure… as you said these are simple and cheap enough for village houses to buy and manage. But the reality is that we have more than light bulbs to power up. The majority of Filipinos demand more energy to power up their multitudes of appliances, gadgets, and toys. That is just personal or family use. Imagine the increasing energy needs of businesses? It won’t be as cheap and simple as you may have probably thought.

      Thanks for reading!

      Oh by the way, marius… this is out of topic. I’m just curious. Are you an atheist?

    2. Hector: Jerry Lynch gives a very comprehensive answer to most of your points, but I will add:

      The point being that just because it was accepted by scientists at that time to be a mental disorder does not necessarily mean it is true.

      Certainly. Scientists can be horribly wrong, and they can back themselves into a political corner from which there is no face-saving escape. But just because something is accepted by a majority doesn’t automatically mean there’s some sort of conspiracy going on. They could, you know, actually be right. The proof is in the pudding: does the theory predict or agree with the data; and is there a competing theory that fits the data better? The answer in the first case is a very confident ‘yes’, and the answer in the second case, to date, is ‘no’. As scientists, we therefore accept that anthropogenic disruption of the climate is the most likely explanation for, um, the well-documented disruption of the climate.

      Most of the data available to support the hypotheses of the CC proponents come from computer models and extrapolations.

      As I said to “Tom”, this is only true if you close your eyes and avoid looking at the evidence. There are all kinds of real-world phenomena happening exactly as they were predicted 10 years ago – or in some cases ahead of schedule. It was reported just recently that we’ve effectively lost the entire Great Barrier Reef, as scientists repeatedly warned was imminent.

      Even if you don’t care about loss of marine ecosystems, such “irrelevant” phenomena have real-world impacts: witness the recent protests by farmers.

      Can you provide proof or evidence that the world’s worst-affected by HIV were the ones who invented pseudoscience?

      I didn’t say that. I was referring to AIDS denialism in (for example) South Africa, where millions of people were denied treatment and instead prescribed quack ‘cures’ because the government “didn’t believe in” HIV.

      With regard to the “Global Warming is all a hoax nonsense” is subscribed to by the poor and uneducated claim of yours, I trust that you have data to support that, right?

      Well, your article, I’m afraid. 90% of denialist echo-chamber material is written by unqualified individuals, ie., people who get their opinions from right-wing blogs and don’t have the scientific training to assess the data.

      But let’s grant (without accepting) that this idea that Global Warming is a hoax is embraced by the poor and uneducated, is there anything inherently wrong with that?

      Of course there’s something wrong with it. When city folks like yourselves tell poor farmers that climate change isn’t happening, and that their crop failures are due to .. what, lack of nuclear power stations? – what are they supposed to think? The evidence is in front of their eyes. Planting and harvesting seasons are changing. Rainfall patterns are changing. “Educated” people are telling them not to believe what they can see for themselves, and then deny them the means (and the psychological will) to change their circumstances. Do I really have to explain to you that this is Bad Thing?

      even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.

      That they might. But we don’t want the dull and ignorant setting national policy. You only have to look at the current crop of idiots in government to see the truth of that.

      According to them the main energy source in the Philippines is coal and natural gas (with coal having the largest share).

      Just because a country has deposits of such resources doesn’t mean it’s in a position to use them. Don’t you think there might be a reason electricity is expensive in the Philippines (aside from incompetence?). The reason is as I stated: the population is too sparse and the infrastructure too poor to make grid-based power generation economically efficient.

      I design and install PV solar systems. I know what they cost. They’re not right for all situations – you wouldn’t want to run an aluminum smelter from solar – but for 70% of the rural population, they would work extremely well. Cost per kWh for a small village installation – say 100KW panel capacity with 200kWh of storage – would be 10-20% less than the P10-11 that the power companies presently charge, and would be more reliable, not less.

      But the reality is that we have more than light bulbs to power up.

      No, we don’t. The Philippines has very little industry worth mentioning, and what there is only exists because it’s not exposed to international competition. The country is good at almost nothing. It needs to start by supporting rural districts, instead of pretending Manila is the only thing that matters.

      A little reliable energy in the provinces could support not just lighting, but also pumps and irrigation, electric fences, powered processing equipment, and other things that would make a huge difference to rural income. The government will never provide that energy because it can’t. It is technically, economically, and geographically impossible. Let the people provide for themselves, and watch the economy grow.

      Are you an atheist?

      No, I’m a Christian, and on that note: my observation is that people who recognize and nurture the gifts that God has given us will prosper. Those who spit on them and destroy them will be poor. This is not God’s punishment as such: it’s physics.

      1. Hector: Jerry Lynch gives a very comprehensive answer to most of your points, but I will add:

        Yes, I just posted my response. That was a long discussion! But it was fun. 🙂

        Certainly. Scientists can be horribly wrong, and they can back themselves into a political corner from which there is no face-saving escape. But just because something is accepted by a majority doesn’t automatically mean there’s some sort of conspiracy going on. They could, you know, actually be right.

        Well, I don’t recall suggesting there was a conspiracy going on. But you did hit the point I was trying to make. That people (not just scientists) can back themselves into a political corner. Of course they can always do the right thing by retracting or at the very least assessing the other evidence or argument. Not to do so would be, the way I see it, intellectual dishonesty.

        The proof is in the pudding: does the theory predict or agree with the data; and is there a competing theory that fits the data better? The answer in the first case is a very confident ‘yes’, and the answer in the second case, to date, is ‘no’. As scientists, we therefore accept that anthropogenic disruption of the climate is the most likely explanation for, um, the well-documented disruption of the climate.

        You see this is where we don’t meet. I do not believe that the theory agrees with ALL available data. There are some data that has been shown not to agree with the prediction. A competing theory that fits the data better? Well, I would say partly. The reason why I say this is because there is a theory that global warming is part of a natural phenomenon (cycle) on Earth. Studies showing various ice age cycles seem to agree with this. Now with regards to CO2, there are also studies suggesting that the levels of CO2 millions and even hundreds of million years ago were even higher than that of our current levels (way before human activity has wreaked havoc on the planet). I am not saying that man-made CO2 contribution does not play a role in Global Warming. But I am inclined to suspend my belief that it is the primary or major cause of Global Warming. I do not believe we have the specificity data to show that man-made CO2 is causing it or is the major cause.

        As I said to “Tom”, this is only true if you close your eyes and avoid looking at the evidence. There are all kinds of real-world phenomena happening exactly as they were predicted 10 years ago– or in some cases ahead of schedule. It was reported just recently that we’ve effectively lost the entire Great Barrier Reef, as scientists repeatedly warned was imminent.

        I disagree. I consider evidence on both sides. Just because I am not fully sold on the Global Warming narrative does not mean I am closing my eyes and avoiding looking at the evidence. With regards to the predictions, well… don’t you think that is a hit and miss? I mean as I shared with Chino, there have been a few duds as well.

        Even if you don’t care about loss of marine ecosystems, such “irrelevant” phenomena have real-world impacts: witness the recent protests by farmers.

        It’s not that I do not care about “irrelevant” phenomena especially its effects. But I don’t necessarily buy into correlation is causation. The drought that hit Kidapawan, was that caused by Global Warming caused by human activity? We can assume or suggest that to be the case. But I don’t believe we have (enough) empirical data for that.

        Can you provide proof or evidence that the world’s worst-affected by HIV were the ones who invented pseudoscience?

        I didn’t say that. I was referring to AIDS denialism in (for example) South Africa, where millions of people were denied treatment and instead prescribed quack ‘cures’ because the government “didn’t believe in” HIV.

        You know I could have sworn you said that. I even remember quoting you. You said: “And just as the world’s worst-affected by HIV were the ones who invented pseudoscience that caused massive harm,” (emphasis mine)

        Yes, I believe you said that. But no worries… that’s okay. You probably meant it differently. 🙂

        Anyway, I don’t think their government didn’t believe in HIV. I think it was more like their government didn’t want to spend for their treatment. AIDS/HIV is easier to establish (when you’re talking lifesciences like pharma and medical device, that is my forte 🙂 ), I believe, than climate change. Validation in biological and chemical sciences is pretty clear cut. We have ICH guidelines that we follow along with other well established analytical methods. (I used to do analytical development, method validation, and transfer when I was still working in the lab.)

        With regard to the “Global Warming is all a hoax nonsense” is subscribed to by the poor and uneducated claim of yours, I trust that you have data to support that, right?

        Well, your article, I’m afraid. 90% of denialist echo-chamber material is written by unqualified individuals, ie., people who get their opinions from right-wing blogs and don’t have the scientific training to assess the data.

        I suppose I should be insulted by that but to truth is, I’m not. Part of the game, I suppose. I’ve been in this blogging racket and have debated in different forums that I must have developed quite a thick skin already. 🙂 Anyway, again where in my article does it show that the “Global Warming is all a hoax nonsense” is subscribed to by poor and uneducated folks? I suppose you have documented proof of assets and liabilities as well as information on the educational credentials of each of the people I quoted and/or referenced? Do you have my financial information and education? If you were referring to me as one of those poor and uneducated, then modesty aside, I can confidently tell you that you are flat wrong. 🙂

        But let’s grant (without accepting) that this idea that Global Warming is a hoax is embraced by the poor and uneducated, is there anything inherently wrong with that?

        Of course there’s something wrong with it. When city folks like yourselves tell poor farmers that climate change isn’t happening, and that their crop failures are due to .. what, lack of nuclear power stations? – what are they supposed to think? The evidence is in front of their eyes. Planting and harvesting seasons are changing. Rainfall patterns are changing. “Educated” people are telling them not to believe what they can see for themselves, and then deny them the means (and the psychological will) to change their circumstances. Do I really have to explain to you that this is Bad Thing?

        If I tell the poor farmers anything about Climate Change (whether it is happening or not), do you really expect them to dwell on the science behind it and absorb all the climate data from NOAA and other agencies? Good luck with that! If they are going to change their circumstances, it will not be because whether someone has convinced them of Global Warming or that the polar ice caps are melting. They will change their circumstances in order to have food on the table for themselves and their family! Whether I tell them or not about Global Warming is irrelevant to giving them access to means (and psychological will) to change their circumstances. That is an individual choice! It is not my responsibility to provide them the means and the will to change. It is not anyone else’s or the government’s responsibility to make me change my circumstance. It would be my individual choice.

        even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.

        That they might. But we don’t want the dull and ignorant setting national policy. You only have to look at the current crop of idiots in government to see the truth of that.

        We (meaning you and I) may not want to, but we cannot speak for others. Legally speaking they only need to know how to read and write and be at a certain age to qualify to run for a position setting national policy. (Scary, I know.) That is currently the law. If we want to change the law there are legal means to do so.

        Just because a country has deposits of such resources doesn’t mean it’s in a position to use them. Don’t you think there might be a reason electricity is expensive in the Philippines (aside from incompetence?). The reason is as I stated: the population is too sparse and the infrastructure too poor to make grid-based power generation economically efficient.

        I believe the majority of coal supply in the country is imported. With regards to why electricity is expensive in the Philippines that article I shared with you previously from The Guardian offers a good simple explanation. Wooton’s piece (the one I shared with Jerry) also is informative.

        I design and install PV solar systems. I know what they cost. They’re not right for all situations – you wouldn’t want to run an aluminum smelter from solar – but for 70% of the rural population, they would work extremely well. Cost per kWh for a small village installation – say 100KW panel capacity with 200kWh of storage – would be 10-20% less than the P10-11 that the power companies presently charge, and would be more reliable, not less.

        Yes, for small village installation this would work. But I don’t believe having solar power in a household means that one can get off the grid. So there will still be bills to pay to the local utility company.

        But the reality is that we have more than light bulbs to power up.

        No, we don’t. The Philippines has very little industry worth mentioning, and what there is only exists because it’s not exposed to international competition. The country is good at almost nothing. It needs to start by supporting rural districts, instead of pretending Manila is the only thing that matters.

        Well, the information I have seems to indicate that the country’s power demand is increasing and will outpace supply in a few years. (http://www.philstar.com/business/2015/05/22/1457277/power-demand-outpace-supply-5-years-eiu ) With regards to things we need to power up, Wooton mentions that the average household needs power for things like a refrigerator, some light bulbs, a TV and a few electric fans. A little thin, I think. Most of my friends and relatives in the Philippines certainly have more than those to power up.

        A little reliable energy in the provinces could support not just lighting, but also pumps and irrigation, electric fences, powered processing equipment, and other things that would make a huge difference to rural income. The government will never provide that energy because it can’t. It is technically, economically, and geographically impossible. Let the people provide for themselves, and watch the economy grow.

        Well yes… let the people provide for themselves. I am not really a big fan of nanny states and dole-outs.

        1. The drought that hit Kidapawan, was that caused by Global Warming caused by human activity? We can assume or suggest that to be the case. But I don’t believe we have (enough) empirical data for that.

          Actually I agree – it probably doesn’t have much to do with climate change. It probably wasn’t even a drought, as such. But who cares? This is why I suggested people should simply stop talking about Climate Change. It’s not a helpful discussion. If we focused on solutions to specific problems, we’d end up generating solutions to climate change almost by accident. This “drought” situation is a prime example.

          Many places in the Philippines have a standard wet-dry climate with a prolonged dry season. Sometimes the rains come sooner, sometimes later. The rains are becoming more and more unpredictable. You can argue about the cause if you wish; the fact that it’s happening is undeniable. So the question is: what do we do about it?

          The answer, I suggest, would be to get farmers using better methods.

          -They need to start reforesting their land. Trees are the go-to solution for water conservation and nutrient recycling. They also generate crops or animal forage, if chosen properly.

          – They need to get power installed, and the government needs to stop blocking access to solar systems. PV panels should be allowed into the country tax-free, without interference from the BOC. Farmers need to get electric fences on their land (as was successfully done in Brazil) so that feral goats and carabao don’t destroy their work.

          – They need to stop growing water-hungry crops in locations where there is clearly not enough water supply. However, with solar installed, they can easily run cheap electric pumps for drip irrigation and suchlike in times of (transient) water scarcity. These things are not expensive – about 20,000 pesos for a basic system.

          – Illegal biomass burning (eg., for charcoal) should be punished, and punished hard. At the same time, farmers could be trained to plant trees and generate charcoal as a sustainable business (yes, it is possible). If illegal burners were prosecuted, the legal ones could make a fine profit.

          Schemes like this would result in more trees and less fossil fuel waste, and reduce dependence on centralized power generation. That’s exactly what we want to mitigate climate change. However, the problem we were actually addressing here was rural poverty. We’ve got two benefits for the price of one.

          This is why I have no time for people who say that we need to keep burning fossil fuels to promote development. If we do the right thing, environmentally speaking, then development will follow. If we decide that development involves beating nature into submission – with power stations, water diversion, and the like – nature will punish us for our arrogance.

          Incidentally, the solar systems I refer to are not household systems. Those are inefficient and expensive. I was talking about co-operative sized ones, feeding 10-100 houses or farms. Of course there will be bills – why on earth do economists think solar power should be free and unlimited? – but those bills will be smaller than “official” power.

  2. I suppose the manmade climate change perspective was a way to motivate people and societies to do something about pollution and environmental damage. To make the reason a bit more dramatic, there is the painting with a broad brush, that it will affect the world on a greater scale, so there comes an urgency to do something about it.

    I believe though it can already be justified by localized pollution and environmental damage observations. The studies that are more believable (at least for me) include those that say smoke from cars and factories are helping increase respiratory disease and other conditions. So that’s one reason to cut down smoke. Also, we have smoking, both first and second-hand smoke are confirmed to have harmful effects (unless one believes the propaganda of cigarette companies), so there is justification for smoking bans in certain places. And there are records of floods having increased in areas that were heavily deforested, which would mean more justification for logging regulation and chasing after illegal logging.

    Whether all of these are going to affect the climate on a wider scale in the long run might still be under observation. But the localized pollution examples might be enough for more specific, focused and cost-effective action.

    1. I suppose the manmade climate change perspective was a way to motivate people and societies to do something about pollution and environmental damage. To make the reason a bit more dramatic, there is the painting with a broad brush, that it will affect the world on a greater scale, so there comes an urgency to do something about it.

      Hi Chino! Yes, that is possible. There is certainly good reasons to curb pollution and environmental damage. The classic song “Masdan mo ng Kapaligiran” by Asin is very inspirational, especially with regards to the degradation of the quality of rivers and the deforestation that we see. But the narrative that states that human activity is the chief cause of Global Warming because of the increasing carbon footprint produced, to me, is still inconclusive. I also am skeptical about some of the imminent cataclysmic predictions on it. For instance, back in 2000 there was a prediction by Global Warming alarmists that the global ice would all have melted by now (http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/05/those-stubborn-facts-global-sea-ice-not-melting-2000-another-inconvenient-climate-change-pause.html ). Obviously that’s not the case. Here are other things that the predictions of alarmists have not come true (http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html ). I am not saying that the Global Warming narrative is totally wrong or a sham. But evidence of prediction misses have given me enough reason to pause and think if Global Warming and CO2 increase are as major as its adherents would like the public to believe. Afterall, there are indications that CO2 levels have been a lot much higher hundreds of millions of years ago way before man-made damage was around. This makes me question whether human activity produced CO2 levels really contribute the majority of the Global Warming phenomenon or if the natural warming and cooling cycle of Earth has more to do with it.

      I believe though it can already be justified by localized pollution and environmental damage observations. The studies that are more believable (at least for me) include those that say smoke from cars and factories are helping increase respiratory disease and other conditions. So that’s one reason to cut down smoke. Also, we have smoking, both first and second-hand smoke are confirmed to have harmful effects (unless one believes the propaganda of cigarette companies), so there is justification for smoking bans in certain places. And there are records of floods having increased in areas that were heavily deforested, which would mean more justification for logging regulation and chasing after illegal logging.

      Yes, I have no problems with those either. The health effects of smoking, for instance, has been clearly established. I actually work in a pre-clinical facility (I’m presently a GLP compliance auditor and I used to be a study personnel as well when I was still actively working in the lab).

      Whether all of these are going to affect the climate on a wider scale in the long run might still be under observation.

      And that was my point. I don’t think the issue is as conclusive as Global Warming proponents suggest. I don’t see why the debate or discussions need to cease in favor of the popular narrative just because the narrative is popular. (Kinda like the consensus of the scientists before 1974 with regards to homosexuality being considered a mental illness. Just because there was a consensus does not mean it is necessarily true or that it has been conclusively proven.)

      But the localized pollution examples might be enough for more specific, focused and cost-effective action.

      I agree.

      Thanks for reading!

  3. I probably fit your description of the “uber liberal” but there are many fallacies in this recent article about science vs. “something else.” When you talk about the change in attitude in America concerning homosexuals and the reasons for and science behind it either being “part of normal mammalian life” or a mental illness you quote Freud who, while often quoted, has been widely discredited as being largely incorrect in his interpretations of his findings. “Prior to 1974, homosexuality was a mental illness. Dr. Sigmund Freud even believed that paranoia are motivated by unconscious homosexual impulses.”

    The fact that it (appears) that the science changed when gays after 1970 became a political force has been misinterpreted as some kind of way of saying the science was wrong all along. The real facts of the matter are that in recent years the notion that anything not normal or conventional is an illness has been refuted and the DEFINITIONS changed, not the science. The same thing has happened with the description of “Global Warming” becoming “Climate Change,” not because of any kind of change in the science. The description of “Global Warming” was created by the media and countermands what scientists have claimed for over 40 years and that is that climate change (regardless of moniker) will likely cause an ice age in northern Europe when the Gulf Stream either shuts off or alters course.

    Scientists became “enlightened” to a sea change in attitude towards homosexuality when the aforementioned political power was manifested AND when further research by biologists researching other mammals learned that homosexual activity was common in about 10% of most other mammalian populations. Another example of evolving science is this. More than 60 years ago when I developed an interest in dinosaurs I learned as “fact” that dinosaurs such as the brontosaurus had to live only in swamps because their skeleton could not possibly support their body on dry land. Scientists disproved that decades ago when they discovered footprints of those animals that could only have been made on solid ground, but also when they were able to scan the skeletons and learn that structurally they were light but strong and able to carry much more weight than had previously been thought.

    I will virtually dismiss out-of-hand the assertion that “The love of theory is the root of all evil” because that statement was supported not by scientific theory, but by an example of warfare in which the result was not because of a theory gone wrong, but because of faulty war intelligence that did not take into account that the planners on the other side were also intelligent human beings.

    “The New York Times featured an article that explains why it is more costly to opt for alternative and renewable energy in times of recession.” This is not an article about science or climate change, but rather it is an article about economics and is itself flawed. Not only is the author not really qualified to write even about economics as an authority, but he is woefully undereducated to be even trying to pass himself off an authority on much of anything. “He holds a B.A. in urban studies from Brown University, and a certificate in auto mechanics from Providence Vocational Technical Facility.” WOW double WOW!!!

    Economists who say it is too expensive to explore alternative or renewable energy sources usually overlook the obvious. They say “shutting down coal mines and oil exploration and refineries will lead to massive unemployment etc.” My assertion is that there is no reason why those guys can’t be shifted into the new industries with little or no disruption. The vast majority of oil, gas and coal exploration workers are nothing but construction workers with some specialized skills(I worked in those fields for 30 years so I know of what I speak). Why can’t they be put to work building the factories that manufacture the new technology such as solar devices and wind mills along with tidal generators? Then they can be put to work installing those devices and building the new infrastructure required. Even the coal and oil industries really do not need to lose money if they simply change the product they sell. What does it matter to a farmer if he makes X amount of money selling bananas or the same amount of money selling coconuts is a good analogy?

    It used to be custom in America to throw rice at the bride and groom after the wedding ceremony until it was found that small birds cannot digest raw white rice so now Americans throw commercially prepared bird seed. The effect is the same for the couple, but is a windfall for the birds and not a hazard.
    Right now it appears to me that the writer is attempting to paint “liberals” with an altogether too broad of a brush. “suggesting that guests donate money or specified items to a charity instead. Here is an example of (probably liberal) parents putting their own ideals before what their kids want. Granting that this fad aims to teach philanthropy and altruism – this really is just a means for (liberal) parents to pat themselves on the back.”

    I also would suggest that guests do that in lieu of gifts for my child because I can do well enough by my children myself and after about the age of 8 or so they will know the gifts they already have in comparison to the less fortunate. It simply OFFENDS ME when you try to put a label on MY actions when you have not walked in my shoes. In my childhood more than 60 years ago I attended birthday parties for children who had far more money than I did and looking back I know their parents would now be at least right wing, but probably not extremely so and invitations were often accompanied by the message, “please contribute a can of food to the food pantry rather than sending a gift” or some similar request for a charitable donation.

    On to the “Climate Change” stuff. Note I do not call it a debate.

    Oh my, talk about “cherry picking data!” The first person you reference RE: Climate Change is not real or caused by man is a noted right wing climate change denier who himself has an agenda and who is a notorious “cherry picker” of data. He scours all the data sources and finds 1 tiny anomaly somewhere and attaches to it like a leech in the jungle. That person is Anthony Watts and even one of HIS sources is Christopher Monckton, also a noted science denier with little credibility in his own right. He was an adviser to the Margaret Thatcher regime in Britain but that regime also was notable for its resistance to the science of reality.

    Another source for this “information” also is suspect for his ability to be an authority on climate change. He is Dr. James Lovelock MD and is mostly known for his work inventing machines to detect chemicals in the human body and in the air and water. The fact that a guy can use physics to design a machine is not really transferrable to an evaluation of climatology. Now while I will not dispute that the man is undoubtedly intelligent and well educated, he is by no means an authority on climate change.

    One final thought Mr. Gamboa. While I have read many, if not all of your recent posts in Get Real Philippines, I somehow get the impression you spend more time following American politics and trends than you do those of The Philippines. One thing that supports what I had suspected for some time is your final thought in this post. “…I’m sure, will be the perfect time for me to start discussing another anti-liberal topic such as gun rights and the second amendment.” That is an American issue of no relevance whatsoever to Pinoys unless they happen to be in America, where they CAN own a gun of a legal visitor or immigrant. They also can OWN as much land as they have money to pay for, unlike the draconian laws enacted on a Friday night over several cases of Tandhuay when that bunch of nimrods wrote your amateurish at best Constitution all the while forgetting to make any implementing provisions to ensure that the Constitution is actually followed.

    An apology is in order because my last statement brought me to another point about the lack of implementing laws. For instance there is a provision that says all children MUST attend mandatory (redundant statement I know) school, yet my guess is that at least 30% of the population never attends even a single day of school. There are no provisions to ensure parents send their children to school and apparently there are no provisions for actually building and staffing said MANDATORY schools. Another provision with no implementing language is the one that prohibits family political dynasties. If the result wasn’t so funny it would be a joke. I wonder how Mork would report that to Orson?

    Then you have a Senate “system” that is so fundamentally flawed as to be almost criminal. While highly unlikely, under the current system where senators are elected by playing jingles and having actual song and dance routines rather than political platforms, it is POSSIBLY for all 24 senators to be members of the same Manila family and all living in the same household. All they have to do is become name recognizable enough, plant enough signs around and out blast the music from all other opponents and only Manila is represented in the Senate. DUHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. They also can OWN as much land as they have money to pay for, unlike the draconian laws enacted on a Friday night over several cases of Tandhuay when that bunch of nimrods wrote your amateurish at best Constitution all the while forgetting to make any implementing provisions to ensure that the Constitution is actually followed.

      Jerry, that actually made me LOL.

      Compared to the American constitution, which was clearly written by intelligent people, the RP one is hopeless.

      Apart from the fact that it isn’t even a Constitution (which should be a set of directives or guiding principles for the construction of national law, not a Law in and of itself), it seems to be deliberately designed to promote poverty, isolationism, and government corruption. That, coupled with the tendency of Philippine institutions to just make up laws as they go along, with no regard for the law of the land or even any apparent allegiance to their country, has completely predictable consequences. Unless this gets fixed, the country will wallow in failure forever.

    2. I probably fit your description of the “uber liberal” but there are many fallacies in this recent article about science vs. “something else.”

      Hi Jerry, thanks for reading. Okay let us discuss what you think are fallacies.

      When you talk about the change in attitude in America concerning homosexuals and the reasons for and science behind it either being “part of normal mammalian life” or a mental illness you quote Freud who, while often quoted, has been widely discredited as being largely incorrect in his interpretations of his findings. “Prior to 1974, homosexuality was a mental illness. Dr. Sigmund Freud even believed that paranoia are motivated by unconscious homosexual impulses.”

      Yes but as you may have noticed, the point of my contention was not based on Freud’s interpretation. I merely mentioned Freud because for a time he was a respected scientist and is known by a lot of people. (I was trying to maximize the attention of the audience.) Please focus on Hickey’s article instead.

      The fact that it (appears) that the science changed when gays after 1970 became a political force has been misinterpreted as some kind of way of saying the science was wrong all along.

      I’m sorry I think you may have mistaken what I was trying to say. The quote illustrates the point that a widely held belief by the scientists at that time was changed, not because of scientific scrutiny but by popular pressure and consensus. If you click on the link where I referenced that quote you will see the whole article and it describes that the designation for homosexuality as a mental illness was shaky in the first place. Hickey stated: “The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?”

      The real facts of the matter are that in recent years the notion that anything not normal or conventional is an illness has been refuted and the DEFINITIONS changed, not the science.

      With regards to homosexuality, I am suggesting that the science behind it, in the first place, is flimsy. As I suggested in my Duterte Derangement Syndrome article, the science defining mental disorders or illnesses is so prone to a reductionist mentality. Even the terminology of ‘mental illness’ has evolved into ‘mental disorder’. Why? Because psychiatrists could get into a quagmire if they get asked to identify the pathogen for their “illness” diagnosis. So they came up with “disorder” instead, which was really a rhetorical device, to weasel their way out of real scientific scrutiny. There are no blood tests or genetic tests or other analytical tests to support the validity (i.e. Specificity, Linearity, Accuracy, and Precision) of their diagnoses.

      The same thing has happened with the description of “Global Warming” becoming “Climate Change,” not because of any kind of change in the science. The description of “Global Warming” was created by the media and countermands what scientists have claimed for over 40 years and that is that climate change (regardless of moniker) will likely cause an ice age in northern Europe when the Gulf Stream either shuts off or alters course.

      Yes, the science of climatology has not changed – merely the terminology of the issue in contention so there is no dispute there. My point is that what these scientists claim – that an ice age will occur because of climate change (from human activity) is merely primarily based on computer models and that it is not yet conclusive. Another question is whether the CO2 that human activity produces would really cause a cataclysmic climate change or if such change would be caused by the natural ice age cycle of the Earth. From my previous article, I shared a study by the Global Carbon Project which shows that millions (even hundreds of millions ) of years ago, the Earth had much higher CO2 levels than our present levels. That was way before human activity. So there is reason to believe that the Global Warming (or Climate Change) phenomenon is a natural phenomenon. Besides, there have been studies that show that anthropogenic CO2 contributes minimally (if water vapor is factored in) to greenhouse effect. (Please see http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html )

      Scientists became “enlightened” to a sea change in attitude towards homosexuality when the aforementioned political power was manifested AND when further research by biologists researching other mammals learned that homosexual activity was common in about 10% of most other mammalian populations.

      Ah, I am not entirely sold on that. First of all I don’t believe that we can necessarily conclude that the nature of human beings is the same as the nature of other species. Next, I am skeptical about associating observed behavior with what is “normal”. I mean we can also observe some animals eat their young. I don’t suppose that makes cannibalism or infanticide right or “normal” for humans as well.
      =======================

      Another example of evolving science is this. More than 60 years ago when I developed an interest in dinosaurs I learned as “fact” that dinosaurs such as the brontosaurus had to live only in swamps because their skeleton could not possibly support their body on dry land. Scientists disproved that decades ago when they discovered footprints of those animals that could only have been made on solid ground, but also when they were able to scan the skeletons and learn that structurally they were light but strong and able to carry much more weight than had previously been thought.

      That is the beauty of science. It is open to changes with available new evidence. No argument there and I don’t believe I suggested otherwise.

      I will virtually dismiss out-of-hand the assertion that “The love of theory is the root of all evil” because that statement was supported not by scientific theory, but by an example of warfare in which the result was not because of a theory gone wrong, but because of faulty war intelligence that did not take into account that the planners on the other side were also intelligent human beings.

      Well, I don’t wish to change your mind in dismissing that. You are free to do what you want to do. However, please note that the quoted statement was not a scientific statement or point. It simply implies the folly of the overfixation on a strongly held belief which people can be prone to. Some people call it cognitive dissonance. Anyway, the message basically suggests that when and if a theory describes reality without error it is no longer a theory but truth. If a theory does not describe reality perfectly, then it is not true. To love a theory over truth is the mark of madness. What I was trying to suggest is that there are Global Warming proponents who automatically dismiss evidence that do not go well with their theories because these evidence do not support the narrative they hold to be true. To me that is intellectual dishonesty. I am not dismissing the evidence being presented by Global Warming proponents, but I also consider the evidence and arguments from the other side. To me, there is as much reason to suspend my belief in the Global Warming narrative as it is to embrace it fully. So call me a Global Warming agnostic, if you will.

      “The New York Times featured an article that explains why it is more costly to opt for alternative and renewable energy in times of recession.” This is not an article about science or climate change, but rather it is an article about economics and is itself flawed. Not only is the author not really qualified to write even about economics as an authority, but he is woefully undereducated to be even trying to pass himself off an authority on much of anything. “He holds a B.A. in urban studies from Brown University, and a certificate in auto mechanics from Providence Vocational Technical Facility.” WOW double WOW!!!

      I don’t suppose you subscribe to argumentum ad verecundiam, right? Anyway, I think you are over-emphasizing his educational background to discredit his piece. While it is true that an appropriate credential can certainly bolster one’s authority or credibility in discussing a subject, I think you conveniently omitted his experience of 30 years in being assigned to and writing about the subject (environment and energy). Plus, it is not as if the things he wrote in his article where off the cuff remarks. These were based on statements by people and institutions (who are subject authorities). So I do not agree with your dismissal of his article, just because he doesn’t have the appropriate educational background. I have a Molecular Biology and Biotechnology degree as well as an Environmental Engineering degree. But my job for more than 10 years now is in Regulatory Compliance (I don’t have a Regulatory Compliance or even a Quality Assurance degree). I am a Subject Matter Expert for GLP compliance at the company where I work, I’ve been a consultant in the past, and I am also currently the President of the Pacific Regional Chapter of the Society of Quality Assurance. I guess it probably has something to do with the accumulated knowledge from my work experience.

      Anyway, with regards to green energy economics in the Philippine setting, you may find Mike Wootton’s piece illuminating. He tells that renewable energy, at present, is very expensive in the Philippines and that coal is the best answer for its big power needs (http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/06/renewable-energy-philippines ). By the way, I’m not sure if you are familiar with Mike Wootton but he writes for the Manila Times publication and he does have the background and expertise to discuss energy and energy economics (http://www.energybiz.com/author/mike-wootton ).

      Economists who say it is too expensive to explore alternative or renewable energy sources usually overlook the obvious. They say “shutting down coal mines and oil exploration and refineries will lead to massive unemployment etc.”

      Well in the Philippine case, the problem is the cost of putting up plants for renewable energy is very high to the point that power consumers could pay double the monthly rate they are paying now, as Wooton’s article mentions. I think what you said applies more to America, than in the Philippines. Although I think down the line capping coal (as GPL has vowed to do), in conjunction with the high cost of putting up plants for renewable energy, could further increase the electricity bills of Filipino citizens and businesses. In that event, it will not be too farfetched to have crippling effects on the economy as well as employment.

      My assertion is that there is no reason why those guys can’t be shifted into the new industries with little or no disruption. The vast majority of oil, gas and coal exploration workers are nothing but construction workers with some specialized skills(I worked in those fields for 30 years so I know of what I speak). Why can’t they be put to work building the factories that manufacture the new technology such as solar devices and wind mills along with tidal generators? Then they can be put to work installing those devices and building the new infrastructure required.

      Are you talking about the American setting or the Philippine setting? As you may know, the manufacturing industry in the Philippines is pretty pathetic compared to the US. So guys working in coal mines in the Philippines (I don’t believe there are too many as we primarily import coal) may have a difficult time shifting to other industries. Gainful employment is kind of tough in the Philippines as you may be aware of (that is why a lot of Filipinos go overseas for greener pastures). Unfortunately, solar panel manufacturers or wind turbine manufacturers are not in great abundance in the Philippines either. I think the Philippine employment case is a little more delicate than you imagined.

      Even the coal and oil industries really do not need to lose money if they simply change the product they sell. What does it matter to a farmer if he makes X amount of money selling bananas or the same amount of money selling coconuts is a good analogy?

      Well, I think one of the challenge lies in the demand on the product shifted to. I don’t think you can simply assume the X amount of money as a constant. The X amount of money earned would be dependent on the supply and demand on the product. So using your fruit analogy, you would not necessarily make the same amount of money selling bananas as selling coconuts. By the way, my family owns a coconut and pineapple plantation in Bicol and believe me, it is tough to make a decent profit on those crops.

      It used to be custom in America to throw rice at the bride and groom after the wedding ceremony until it was found that small birds cannot digest raw white rice so now Americans throw commercially prepared bird seed. The effect is the same for the couple, but is a windfall for the birds and not a hazard.

      Again, the analogy may not be applicable depending on the supply and demand for the product being shifted to. Let me use the fruit analogy again. If you switch from, say, Lanzones to Coconuts – coconuts trees take about 15 years to reach peak production. (So worst case scenario is when you have to start from scratch and plant the coconut trees.) But let us say you start off with a land that has mature coconut trees already, it takes around 4 months to harvest the coconuts. Sounds great, right? So you are looking at 3 harvests in a year. But wait, you have to remember that the Philippines gets hit by typhoons every year. Taking that into account, you have to anticipate delays and months of no harvest. No supply of coconuts = no harvest = no income. Let’s say you switch from coconut to Lanzones. Lanzones can only be harvested once a year. So as you can see, it is a little more complicated when you factor in the harvest cycle for different fruits as well as seasonal issues like typhoons. Let’s go to the case for people. Say, a coal miner (again, not a lot in the Philippines), suffers from an employment lay off. So he decides to work at a different industry, say, solar panel manufacturing. First, he may not have the right skills for that so he needs to get some training first (i.e. no pay). He gets the certificate then tries to apply for a job at a solar panel manufacturing plant. Given that solar manufacturing plants are not exactly in abundance in the Philippines, what are the chances of him getting a job in one? Factor in the fact that he would have to compete with a lot of applicants who probably have better manufacturing work experience than him. So you see? It may not be as simple as you may think it is.

    3. Right now it appears to me that the writer is attempting to paint “liberals” with an altogether too broad of a brush. “suggesting that guests donate money or specified items to a charity instead. Here is an example of (probably liberal) parents putting their own ideals before what their kids want. Granting that this fad aims to teach philanthropy and altruism – this really is just a means for (liberal) parents to pat themselves on the back.”

      The writer, you mean me, right? You can address me directly.

      Jerry, I think you are putting too much into this. You said that you have read a lot of my articles in the past, right? I would imagine that by now you would be familiar with my jab at liberals who see me as the resident right wing zealot here at GRP! 😀 lol Anyway, the purpose of that NY Times example is to illustrate my objection to being forced to accept a belief, an ideal or ideology just because it is popular or considered altruistic or socially responsible. The liberal jab is merely a cute banter – very much like when I get jabbed with being a right wing nut. It is all in good fun. 🙂

      I also would suggest that guests do that in lieu of gifts for my child because I can do well enough by my children myself and after about the age of 8 or so they will know the gifts they already have in comparison to the less fortunate.

      Well, if that is your preference then do as you please. Even if I can also buy my kids cool stuff I still would like my kids to experience the joy of receiving gifts from guests. I loved that feeling when I was a kid and we weren’t exactly poor then. I can do my part in voluntarily helping the less fortunate but I prefer this to be separate from the experience my kids would get during their birthdays. So I suppose we just have different preference.
      =====================

      It simply OFFENDS ME when you try to put a label on MY actions when you have not walked in my shoes. In my childhood more than 60 years ago I attended birthday parties for children who had far more money than I did and looking back I know their parents would now be at least right wing, but probably not extremely so and invitations were often accompanied by the message, “please contribute a can of food to the food pantry rather than sending a gift” or some similar request for a charitable donation.

      Jerry, why are you taking this so personally? I do not know YOU and I did not have YOU in mind when I wrote the snide remark against liberals. You think I get offended when I am labeled as a “science denier”, a “moron”, or any other nasty names for the conservative beliefs that I hold? No! This is a normal part of being a writer here at GRP (and I suppose in other fora as well). We expect to get hit but there is nothing that precludes us from being cute in return. I suggest for you not to take things personally here and do take thinks that you read that are contrary to your beliefs and values in stride.

      On to the “Climate Change” stuff. Note I do not call it a debate.

      Okay, then don’t call it a debate.

      Oh my, talk about “cherry picking data!” The first person you reference RE: Climate Change is not real or caused by man is a noted right wing climate change denier who himself has an agenda and who is a notorious “cherry picker” of data.

      Jerry, I reviewed my article and I don’t see anywhere in there where I wrote that climate change is not real or caused by man. The folks I quoted offered evidence contrary to the Global Warming narrative and their points are to bring about a discussion or a debate on the issue based on contradicting evidence. Besides, the data being used are also from the very same data used by proponents of Global Warming (e.g. NOAA). So what cherry picking are you talking about? Did I miss anything? Can you clarify who this cherry picker is that you are referring to?

      He scours all the data sources and finds 1 tiny anomaly somewhere and attaches to it like a leech in the jungle. That person is Anthony Watts and even one of HIS sources is Christopher Monckton, also a noted science denier with little credibility in his own right. He was an adviser to the Margaret Thatcher regime in Britain but that regime also was notable for its resistance to the science of reality.

      Ah… so you are talking about Anthony Watts, the person quoted by the author of the article I referenced (Warren Mass). Jerry, technically speaking it was the article of Warren Mass that I referenced. I didn’t quote Anthony Watts. But okay, let’s say the article I referenced used Anthony Watts in the argument, didn’t you read that he used NOAA’s and USCRN’s own data and statistics and report? He didn’t use Monckton for his data! You know you can say all the character assassination against Watts all you want but I am just interested in the data, report, and arguments presented. Sorry, but I am not a fan of the ‘poisoning the well’ fallacy.

    4. Another source for this “information” also is suspect for his ability to be an authority on climate change. He is Dr. James Lovelock MD and is mostly known for his work inventing machines to detect chemicals in the human body and in the air and water. The fact that a guy can use physics to design a machine is not really transferrable to an evaluation of climatology. Now while I will not dispute that the man is undoubtedly intelligent and well educated, he is by no means an authority on climate change.

      Here, Jerry… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock he sure looks pretty authoritative to me. You seem to have conveniently omitted some details of his career relevant to climate studies. Are you discrediting Lovelock just because he is now an apostate to the extremist fold of the Global Warming proponents? Don’t worry, Jerry… Lovelock is still concerned about Global Warming. He is just not as an alarmist as he used to be.

      One final thought Mr. Gamboa. While I have read many, if not all of your recent posts in Get Real Philippines, I somehow get the impression you spend more time following American politics and trends than you do those of The Philippines. One thing that supports what I had suspected for some time is your final thought in this post. “…I’m sure, will be the perfect time for me to start discussing another anti-liberal topic such as gun rights and the second amendment.” That is an American issue of no relevance whatsoever to Pinoys unless they happen to be in America, where they CAN own a gun of a legal visitor or immigrant. They also can OWN as much land as they have money to pay for, unlike the draconian laws enacted on a Friday night over several cases of Tandhuay when that bunch of nimrods wrote your amateurish at best Constitution all the while forgetting to make any implementing provisions to ensure that the Constitution is actually followed.

      I think you missed some of my earlier articles where I publicly stated that I am a Filipino-Canadian living and working in America for quite some time now. By the way, I know the second amendment does not apply to the Philippines. Again, that was being cute to my critics/haters who paint me as the GRP resident right wing zealot nutjob (the American variety). 🙂

      An apology is in order because my last statement brought me to another point about the lack of implementing laws. For instance there is a provision that says all children MUST attend mandatory (redundant statement I know) school, yet my guess is that at least 30% of the population never attends even a single day of school. There are no provisions to ensure parents send their children to school and apparently there are no provisions for actually building and staffing said MANDATORY schools. Another provision with no implementing language is the one that prohibits family political dynasties. If the result wasn’t so funny it would be a joke. I wonder how Mork would report that to Orson?

      Well, with regards to Filipino and Philippine government dysfunction… you are preaching to the choir here at GRP, my friend. 🙂

      Then you have a Senate “system” that is so fundamentally flawed as to be almost criminal. While highly unlikely, under the current system where senators are elected by playing jingles and having actual song and dance routines rather than political platforms, it is POSSIBLY for all 24 senators to be members of the same Manila family and all living in the same household. All they have to do is become name recognizable enough, plant enough signs around and out blast the music from all other opponents and only Manila is represented in the Senate. DUHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Again, preaching to the choir, my friend! 🙂

      Take care and thanks again for reading (and the exchange).

  4. Homosexuality is not an illness…it is a Quirk of nature. There is homosexuality in animals. In Plants, some female plants, become male plants. We cannot understand , yet, what causes homosexuality.

    Mental Illness is a true illness of the mind/brain. They have researched the functions of the brain, that cause, mental illness. Many factors are involved that causes mental illness.

    In warfare, even the best plan can become useless. We don’t fight war with theories. We fight war to win. The unexpected, always comes out in a warfare.

    Gen. George Patton, one of my favorite U.S. General in World War II. Fight his war, by leading infront of his troop. He told his troops: “Nobody wins a war by dying for his country. He wins it, by making the other son of a bitch die , for his country”. “You lead by pulling your men from the front. Not pushing your men , from behind…” U.S. Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, is also one of my favorite General. U.S. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, is also one of my favorite Generals.

    Global Warming is a Real threat to our Planet Earth. There are many equipment from satellites, that can determine the degradation of the Polar Sun’s Shields. This Global Warming is the cause of this abnormal weather conditions.

    If you are reading Scientific articles; use your common sense. Some of the articles written, are just opinions of Technical people. You can agree and disagree, with them.

    I believe that Science and Technology advance our human civilization. Without it, we would still be burning people, who believes the world is round.

    Kris Aquino, may had STD…however, Kris Aquino and Climate Warming, and Science and Technology do not coincide.

  5. I like this Hector Gamboa. The most rational post I’ve read here in a while.

    Frankly, I wish people would just shut up about climate change entirely. Most of them have no clue what they’re talking about, on either side of the aisle.

    Actually, it is on your side of the climate change debate that are mostly clueless. They just parrot things mentioned by global warming scientists and complete ignore the ones from non-global warming scientists because they are ignorant of the fact that THERE ARE SCIENTISTS who do not agree to anthropogenic global warming(the original name before it became climate change).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.