Well, I do have some posts with pictures prepared about my skiing trip, but I'm going to post about something else today since it's a little more timely: today is Election Day in Australia. It's a federal election, but a lot of local members of Parliament are up as well.
Of course, to an outsider, the political system in Australia is a little confusing, so if I make any mistakes, I apologize (I almost typed apologise! I'm not Australian yet, I swear!). Here's what I understand: there is a head person (governor or something) who is a figure head and basically does nothing. The Prime Minister is the head of the leading party in Parliament. When you vote, you vote for the party you want to lead parliament, not for a particular candidate. Recently, this made big news when the Prime Minister stepped down (or was removed from office) and was replaced by his second in command. Some people were happy, but others complained because they didn't vote for Julia Gillard. I also heard the following quote from others "People are unhappy, because they think our political system is like the U.S. But it's not." What they meant by this was that in general, we vote for a candidate, whereas the party makes all the choices in Australia.
Parliament is like Congress, with the Upper House and Lower House corresponding to our Senate and House of Representatives (I forget which is which). So the Prime Minister is kind of like the Leader of the House, I think, except that obviously the PM has a lot more power.
The two main parties in Australia are the Labor Party (like our Democrats) and the Liberal Party (like our Republicans). I have to be careful when I refer to being liberal here because being Liberal and being politically liberal are not the same thing! Here is an excerpt from an e-mail I got the other day:
“We have two major parties, Labor and Liberal. The Labor Party grew out of the Union movement around 1890 and is the left leaning party. The Liberal Party is our major conservative party (don't try to think about that too much). In its current form, it came about in the late 1940's early 50's.
The three other parties of note are, The Nationals, The Greens and Family First. The Nationals have a formal alliance with the Liberal Party, together they are referred to as The Coalition. The Nationals only run in rural locations, a vote for the nationals equaling a vote for the Liberal Party to win government.
The Greens are a progressive left party who currently have five senators, it is likely after this election they will be the deciding vote in the senate if the major parties disagree on an issue.
Family First have one senator, who was elected in 2004, partly through the strange way our senate voting system can work. They are a conservative party. It is unlikely that they will win that senate seat back again.”
I have been invited to an election party tonight, which I am super-excited about, mostly because Yay! I’ve been invited to a PARTY! Where there are PEOPLE and I can make FRIENDS!!! It will be interested to see how everything pans out and what people think about it. I find Sydney to be fairly liberal (as in left-leaning) vs. Anchorage. I don’t know if that’s a Sydney vs. Anchorage thing, or an Australia vs. America thing overall.
One other note about the Australian political system: voting is compulsory! You get fined if you don’t vote. I know it’s probably because it’s not what I’m used to, but I don’t like that. Good for you America, for allowing me to NOT exercise my rights. It’s not like forcing someone to vote makes them any less ignorant about politics, anyway.
I’ll let you know how it turns out, or you can ask Professor Google. And I promise, pictures (with action!) soon.
Update: As it turned out, neither party had a clear win, so they are still recounting votes (sound like any American elections you may recall?). They have two weeks to count all the postal votes, so it may be a while before we know who the next PM will be.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, August 20, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Australian Healthcare System, As I Figure It
Puppie left a comment asking about health insurance in Oz, and I thought that it deserved its own post, since a lot of people have asked me how it works. Disclaimer: this is how I've figured out that it works so far. I could get to Oz and find out I've been mistaken, or that it does not exactly "work" like that, so I will continue to update.
Nationalized healthcare in Australia (called Medicare) is available to all citizens and permanent residents. About 1.5% of your income taxes go towards Medicare (we will have to pay Australian income taxes, btw). If you have access to Medicare, you also have the option to choose supplemental private health insurance, which pays for more stuff and takes some of the burden from Medicare. The Australian government encourages people with high incomes to share the burden by charging a tax if you make over a certain amount of money and do not choose to take out private health insurance. The Medicare Levy Surcharge is approximately another 1% of your taxable income.
Now temporary residents, like us, may or may not have access to Medicare. If your country has a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement with Australia, you have access to Medicare. This mainly includes other nations with nationalized health care, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, among others. Unfortunately, the U.S. does not fall under that category, and as a condition for the visa, we are required to take out private health insurance. The health insurance companies provide different Overseas Visitor Plans to meet different needs -- whether you are there on a 3 month working holiday, or on a 4 year Temporary Longstay Visa (ours). The main thing is that we make sure we get the right coverage.
My company does not pay for any healthcare benefits, which I gather is typical, since everyone pays into the national plan. Since we don't have access to Medicare, I think at tax time, we are supposed to get back our 1.5% we have paid into it. We will see how that works. Even so, I think we will be able to get healthcare coverage for $300 a month for the both of us -- which is more expensive than my government plan in the U.S., but competitive with Ethan's healthcare plan.
I do not fully understand how the actual healthcare process works. When I go to the doctor, how much will I pay? What is covered? My new healthcare plan tells me some of that, but just like American health care, it's pretty confusing. So I guess I will have to see how things go when we get there.
Nationalized healthcare in Australia (called Medicare) is available to all citizens and permanent residents. About 1.5% of your income taxes go towards Medicare (we will have to pay Australian income taxes, btw). If you have access to Medicare, you also have the option to choose supplemental private health insurance, which pays for more stuff and takes some of the burden from Medicare. The Australian government encourages people with high incomes to share the burden by charging a tax if you make over a certain amount of money and do not choose to take out private health insurance. The Medicare Levy Surcharge is approximately another 1% of your taxable income.
Now temporary residents, like us, may or may not have access to Medicare. If your country has a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement with Australia, you have access to Medicare. This mainly includes other nations with nationalized health care, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, among others. Unfortunately, the U.S. does not fall under that category, and as a condition for the visa, we are required to take out private health insurance. The health insurance companies provide different Overseas Visitor Plans to meet different needs -- whether you are there on a 3 month working holiday, or on a 4 year Temporary Longstay Visa (ours). The main thing is that we make sure we get the right coverage.
My company does not pay for any healthcare benefits, which I gather is typical, since everyone pays into the national plan. Since we don't have access to Medicare, I think at tax time, we are supposed to get back our 1.5% we have paid into it. We will see how that works. Even so, I think we will be able to get healthcare coverage for $300 a month for the both of us -- which is more expensive than my government plan in the U.S., but competitive with Ethan's healthcare plan.
I do not fully understand how the actual healthcare process works. When I go to the doctor, how much will I pay? What is covered? My new healthcare plan tells me some of that, but just like American health care, it's pretty confusing. So I guess I will have to see how things go when we get there.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
New President! Everybody Wins!
Well, the person I voted for won! I'm very happy and excited. But also, nervous. Obama has a lot of room for failure. I'm worried that people are all caught up in the glamor and are expecting him to come in and fix everything. And he won't because 1) he can't, 2) there is a system of checks and balances to prevent him from making drastic changes that only agree with one sector of the population and 3) the Democrats don't get it right all the time either. Overall though, I feel like he represents the values I'd like to see our country moving toward: better environmental/energy policies, lessening the gap between the rich and the poor, protecting our human rights, not starting wars for the sake of starting wars, etc.
That being said, I do feel sorry for McCain, because I always feel sorry for the person who's not elected. I guess it's empathy -- if I were running for President and I didn't get elected, I would totally cry. I mean, these guys are watching their dream slip away. But that's not a reason to vote for anyone. And now McCain gets to go sip margaritas on his front porch while Obama is stuck running our messed up country. So maybe McCain is the real winner after all.
Anyway, yay Obama! We voted for you; now don't screw this up.
That being said, I do feel sorry for McCain, because I always feel sorry for the person who's not elected. I guess it's empathy -- if I were running for President and I didn't get elected, I would totally cry. I mean, these guys are watching their dream slip away. But that's not a reason to vote for anyone. And now McCain gets to go sip margaritas on his front porch while Obama is stuck running our messed up country. So maybe McCain is the real winner after all.
Anyway, yay Obama! We voted for you; now don't screw this up.
I Voted!
Nothing makes me feel more proud to be an American than casting a vote on election day. The lady handed me a sticker, and I thought about how most people actually wear the sticker, when normally stickers are something most adults aren't that interested in. But the "I Voted" sticker, well, people wear that like a badge of honor. It says "I care about the way our government is run. I care that I have a voice, and I'm going to use it. I have this right, and I'm going to take advantage of it."
Go U.S.!
Go U.S.!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Alaskan Issues, From My Soapbox (long)
From a friend:
What do Alaskans really think of Sarah Palin, aerial wolf hunting, and oil drilling? I have a feeling that Alaska has a culture that we New Yorkers don't really understand.
-A
A,
Maybe you shouldn't be asking me. My opinions seem to be very different than a lot of Alaskans!
Sarah Palin -- hard to say. She was everybody's darling when she was elected 2 (3?) years ago, but she has lost some favor since then. I know a lot of people in the oil industry don't care for her because they feel she mishandled the gas pipeline and because she raised taxes on the oil companies. Most people who don't work for the oil industry want to stick it to them, however, so they were in favor of that (never mind that the oil industry pretty much single handedly funds everything in this stupid state. Whatever happened to not biting the hand that feeds you?) Honestly, she hasn't done much else, except support a bill to prevent same-sex partner benefits if you work for the state government and get involved in Troopergate.
I think she is losing popularity up here because she is involved in Troopergate and people are pretty fed up with corrupt politicians. Also, it makes her look like a liar, since she's all "I helped get rid of corruption in the government!" Her inexperience makes her look like a country bumpkin and I think people in the state will really begin to resent that. But again, it's hard to say.
Personally, I think she's an inexperienced, ultra-conservative dingbat who got elected because she was pretty. Also, she's a lying liar who lies, in my opinion.
Aerial wolf hunting -- this is a measure put into place for predator control. If you talk to people who live out in the bush (the remote areas of Alaska) they are pretty much in support of it because they rely on caribou/moose herds for subsistence. I guess it's only for Fish and Wildlife personnel (in other words, Joe Hunter can't just go out and shoot wolves from his plane).
However, I am not a fan. There is a lot of hunting abuse/game mismanagement that goes on in the villages and I do not think that aerial hunting is justified. If people are truly relying on this for subsistence, then they will learn to manage the herds. Predators get out of control because natural conditions allow it. Aerial hunting is just a way to mess with natural processes. There was a case recently where some people from a village went out and slaughtered a bunch of caribou, leaving the carcasses to rot on the tundra. That kind of disrespect for the natural environment indicates to me that people don't really know how to manage their subsistence living, and aren't being encouraged to learn it by their villages. Aerial hunting is just a way to make life easier for them, not true game management.
Oil drilling -- most Alaskans are in favor of this. Like I mentioned above, the oil/gas industry is pretty much the only thing we've got going for us besides tourism. Alaskans (and I can pretty much say this across the board) resent Outsiders coming up and getting involved in something they know nothing about because of some t.v. commercial or whatever. ANWR was a big freaking deal in the Lower 48, but not as much up here. The environmental footprints of the oil platforms are surprisingly small. I visited Prudhoe Bay, and while there is a lot of industry up there, there are also a lot of environmental regulations and the wildlife seems unaffected for the most part. Also, the area that ANWR covers is a natural wilderness, but no one ever goes there. It's not like Yellowstone -- it's remote and very unfriendly. Plus, a lot of it is boggy and unpleasant. There is some hiking/hunting/rafting, but the cost to get there is prohibitive and the remote location makes it kind of dangerous. So the whole idea of drilling in ANWR ruining this beautiful pristine wilderness is blown a little out of proportion.
The other side of this is that I don't know if it's worth the cost. There is no indication of how much oil is down there. People in favor of drilling say there's a lot but the truth is, they really don't know. I think the most telling indication that it's an uncertain resource is that the oil companies aren't pushing it more. Trust me, if there was really a giant lake of oil down there, we would already be drilling. The oil companies have a lot of dough to spend on lobbies in Washington and if they wanted something done, it would get done.
I would not say that Alaska has a culture that New Yorkers don't understand -- I would say that Alaska has a culture that anyone from the Lower 48 doesn't understand. As a state, we are pretty marginalized up here. There are plenty of people who don't even know Alaska is a state! We get a lot of crap about Alaska being a big pork state, and yet most of our oil and fish goes to the Lower 48. Cost of living is fairly high, especially in the bush communities, because we have to ship a lot of things in. A lot of places won't even ship to Alaska! At the same time, the fact that we're different is something most people celebrate. Over the past few years we've started to get more Starbucks and Chili's, and that's kind of a bummer, IMO.
So, you probably got way more of an answer than you wanted. I'll be interested to see what happens after the election. Having Sarah Palin chosen as a VP candidate has put Alaska on the national radar. If McCain is not elected, will we drop back off? Or will things have changed forever? Hard to say.
Let me know if you have any more questions. :)
--L
The opinions in this blog are endorsed by the writer. If you don't like the opinions, don't read the blog.
What do Alaskans really think of Sarah Palin, aerial wolf hunting, and oil drilling? I have a feeling that Alaska has a culture that we New Yorkers don't really understand.
-A
A,
Maybe you shouldn't be asking me. My opinions seem to be very different than a lot of Alaskans!
Sarah Palin -- hard to say. She was everybody's darling when she was elected 2 (3?) years ago, but she has lost some favor since then. I know a lot of people in the oil industry don't care for her because they feel she mishandled the gas pipeline and because she raised taxes on the oil companies. Most people who don't work for the oil industry want to stick it to them, however, so they were in favor of that (never mind that the oil industry pretty much single handedly funds everything in this stupid state. Whatever happened to not biting the hand that feeds you?) Honestly, she hasn't done much else, except support a bill to prevent same-sex partner benefits if you work for the state government and get involved in Troopergate.
I think she is losing popularity up here because she is involved in Troopergate and people are pretty fed up with corrupt politicians. Also, it makes her look like a liar, since she's all "I helped get rid of corruption in the government!" Her inexperience makes her look like a country bumpkin and I think people in the state will really begin to resent that. But again, it's hard to say.
Personally, I think she's an inexperienced, ultra-conservative dingbat who got elected because she was pretty. Also, she's a lying liar who lies, in my opinion.
Aerial wolf hunting -- this is a measure put into place for predator control. If you talk to people who live out in the bush (the remote areas of Alaska) they are pretty much in support of it because they rely on caribou/moose herds for subsistence. I guess it's only for Fish and Wildlife personnel (in other words, Joe Hunter can't just go out and shoot wolves from his plane).
However, I am not a fan. There is a lot of hunting abuse/game mismanagement that goes on in the villages and I do not think that aerial hunting is justified. If people are truly relying on this for subsistence, then they will learn to manage the herds. Predators get out of control because natural conditions allow it. Aerial hunting is just a way to mess with natural processes. There was a case recently where some people from a village went out and slaughtered a bunch of caribou, leaving the carcasses to rot on the tundra. That kind of disrespect for the natural environment indicates to me that people don't really know how to manage their subsistence living, and aren't being encouraged to learn it by their villages. Aerial hunting is just a way to make life easier for them, not true game management.
Oil drilling -- most Alaskans are in favor of this. Like I mentioned above, the oil/gas industry is pretty much the only thing we've got going for us besides tourism. Alaskans (and I can pretty much say this across the board) resent Outsiders coming up and getting involved in something they know nothing about because of some t.v. commercial or whatever. ANWR was a big freaking deal in the Lower 48, but not as much up here. The environmental footprints of the oil platforms are surprisingly small. I visited Prudhoe Bay, and while there is a lot of industry up there, there are also a lot of environmental regulations and the wildlife seems unaffected for the most part. Also, the area that ANWR covers is a natural wilderness, but no one ever goes there. It's not like Yellowstone -- it's remote and very unfriendly. Plus, a lot of it is boggy and unpleasant. There is some hiking/hunting/rafting, but the cost to get there is prohibitive and the remote location makes it kind of dangerous. So the whole idea of drilling in ANWR ruining this beautiful pristine wilderness is blown a little out of proportion.
The other side of this is that I don't know if it's worth the cost. There is no indication of how much oil is down there. People in favor of drilling say there's a lot but the truth is, they really don't know. I think the most telling indication that it's an uncertain resource is that the oil companies aren't pushing it more. Trust me, if there was really a giant lake of oil down there, we would already be drilling. The oil companies have a lot of dough to spend on lobbies in Washington and if they wanted something done, it would get done.
I would not say that Alaska has a culture that New Yorkers don't understand -- I would say that Alaska has a culture that anyone from the Lower 48 doesn't understand. As a state, we are pretty marginalized up here. There are plenty of people who don't even know Alaska is a state! We get a lot of crap about Alaska being a big pork state, and yet most of our oil and fish goes to the Lower 48. Cost of living is fairly high, especially in the bush communities, because we have to ship a lot of things in. A lot of places won't even ship to Alaska! At the same time, the fact that we're different is something most people celebrate. Over the past few years we've started to get more Starbucks and Chili's, and that's kind of a bummer, IMO.
So, you probably got way more of an answer than you wanted. I'll be interested to see what happens after the election. Having Sarah Palin chosen as a VP candidate has put Alaska on the national radar. If McCain is not elected, will we drop back off? Or will things have changed forever? Hard to say.
Let me know if you have any more questions. :)
--L
The opinions in this blog are endorsed by the writer. If you don't like the opinions, don't read the blog.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Well, now I know who to vote for
So just in case you were considering voting for McCain, here's why you shouldn't:
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/509746.html (He picked our governor for his running mate, if you didn't know).
Sarah Palin is a pretty face from a redneck town with little experience. She had absolutely no state experience before she was elected governor. She's now had < 3 years experience running a state with a small constituent base. She believes in "fixing" the fuel crisis by handing out more cash. I also haven't been super happy with the way she's handling the gas pipeline, but you can ask Ethan about that.
Furthermore, she's abused her power by trying to fire one of our state troopers, who happens to be her sister's ex-husband. When the head of the state troopers wouldn't fire him (because he hadn't committed any fireable offenses), she fired him.
Does this sound like someone who would make a good vice president of the nation? Unless of course, John McCain simply wants a figurehead -- a woman who will bring in the female voters who are sitting on the fence after Hillary fell out, but someone he doesn't have to actually listen to because she has no real experience.
Bad, bad choice, McCain. Very bad.
http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/509746.html (He picked our governor for his running mate, if you didn't know).
Sarah Palin is a pretty face from a redneck town with little experience. She had absolutely no state experience before she was elected governor. She's now had < 3 years experience running a state with a small constituent base. She believes in "fixing" the fuel crisis by handing out more cash. I also haven't been super happy with the way she's handling the gas pipeline, but you can ask Ethan about that.
Furthermore, she's abused her power by trying to fire one of our state troopers, who happens to be her sister's ex-husband. When the head of the state troopers wouldn't fire him (because he hadn't committed any fireable offenses), she fired him.
Does this sound like someone who would make a good vice president of the nation? Unless of course, John McCain simply wants a figurehead -- a woman who will bring in the female voters who are sitting on the fence after Hillary fell out, but someone he doesn't have to actually listen to because she has no real experience.
Bad, bad choice, McCain. Very bad.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
PFD from the soapbox
This week was PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend) week. For those of you who are unaware, many years ago the state invested the profits from the taxes the oil companies are required to pay. Now, each permanent resident of the state is considered an investor of sorts, and every year we get paid a dividend. The amount varies depending on how the market did that year. This year it was $1654, one of the highest PFDs ever.
Every year around this time, all the retailers hop on the band wagon. Buy now! Use your PFD TODAY! And many, many Alaskans run out and spend their PFDs on new trucks, snowmachines, 4-wheelers, and whatever other redneck accessories they don't have or need to upgrade. This year, I personally spent our PFDs on new camera equipment. (Somewhere in Kuwait, Ethan is clutching his chest as he falls to the ground.) Just kidding! It's in the bank, honey, waiting for you to invest!
Anyway, there was an interesting discussion about the PFD on Up in Alaska. (I read that blog a lot, can you tell?) That girl and her boyfriend in particular, think that the PFD is a socially and economically irresponsible state policy. The boyfriend really thinks the state should invest the money in government programs, so that we could solve social problems, have the best schools in the country, etc. Which is interesting. I never thought of it that way. However, I think he's fooling himself if he think Alaska is run like any other state -- and what I mean by that is that we have a completely different set of challenges with the bush community. 95% of the state is inaccessible by road, including Juneau, our state capitol. And furthermore, most of the communities outside of the population centers really don't have the means to survive in a capitalist economy. Now that we are in the 21st century, a lot of these communities are struggling to pay for the necessities like electricity, food from Outside, etc because they don't have any industry. Remember, until not too long ago, these were subsistence communities, so they didn't have to worry about getting oil for their heaters or canned food shipped in. Now they have to pay an arm and a leg for this stuff, but jobs (in particular well-paying jobs) are scant. Most young adults have two choices: leave and go to a population center, or stay and struggle to pay for their lifestyles. As a result, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates are very high.
I'm not saying that people living in the bush should have to go back to the days of honey buckets and no electricity. And there are already lots of state programs to help bush communities, although they are not as well funded nor as publicized as they should be. There are also some race issues, which I'm going to ignore for now.
Point is, I don't think that investing the PFD in state programs is going to fix the state and make it a #1 location to live. Plus, the lawmakers kind of have their hands tied at this point, because if they took away the PFD, there would be a freaking riot. Ironically, taking away the PFD would be especially unpopular in the bush, which is where these social programs would do the most good.
And now I'm going to get a little snarky here: if it really bothers these guys that the state hands out cash every year, they don't have to take it. You have to apply for the PFD after all. Or they could take the money and donate it to charitable causes instead of spending it on bikes and jackets. It's kind of hypocritical to claim the state is economically irresponsible when they aren't investing the money themselves.
I will ask people to refrain from making comments on the Up in Alaska blog. There's already a bunch more of interesting comments that you can read, but it's not really a political blog and I don't want to commandeer it. Also, I want to continue to read that blog and I haven't been very encouraged that they are open to discussion. But if you want to comment here, even if you want to tell me I'm full of shit, feel free!
Every year around this time, all the retailers hop on the band wagon. Buy now! Use your PFD TODAY! And many, many Alaskans run out and spend their PFDs on new trucks, snowmachines, 4-wheelers, and whatever other redneck accessories they don't have or need to upgrade. This year, I personally spent our PFDs on new camera equipment. (Somewhere in Kuwait, Ethan is clutching his chest as he falls to the ground.) Just kidding! It's in the bank, honey, waiting for you to invest!
Anyway, there was an interesting discussion about the PFD on Up in Alaska. (I read that blog a lot, can you tell?) That girl and her boyfriend in particular, think that the PFD is a socially and economically irresponsible state policy. The boyfriend really thinks the state should invest the money in government programs, so that we could solve social problems, have the best schools in the country, etc. Which is interesting. I never thought of it that way. However, I think he's fooling himself if he think Alaska is run like any other state -- and what I mean by that is that we have a completely different set of challenges with the bush community. 95% of the state is inaccessible by road, including Juneau, our state capitol. And furthermore, most of the communities outside of the population centers really don't have the means to survive in a capitalist economy. Now that we are in the 21st century, a lot of these communities are struggling to pay for the necessities like electricity, food from Outside, etc because they don't have any industry. Remember, until not too long ago, these were subsistence communities, so they didn't have to worry about getting oil for their heaters or canned food shipped in. Now they have to pay an arm and a leg for this stuff, but jobs (in particular well-paying jobs) are scant. Most young adults have two choices: leave and go to a population center, or stay and struggle to pay for their lifestyles. As a result, depression, drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates are very high.
I'm not saying that people living in the bush should have to go back to the days of honey buckets and no electricity. And there are already lots of state programs to help bush communities, although they are not as well funded nor as publicized as they should be. There are also some race issues, which I'm going to ignore for now.
Point is, I don't think that investing the PFD in state programs is going to fix the state and make it a #1 location to live. Plus, the lawmakers kind of have their hands tied at this point, because if they took away the PFD, there would be a freaking riot. Ironically, taking away the PFD would be especially unpopular in the bush, which is where these social programs would do the most good.
And now I'm going to get a little snarky here: if it really bothers these guys that the state hands out cash every year, they don't have to take it. You have to apply for the PFD after all. Or they could take the money and donate it to charitable causes instead of spending it on bikes and jackets. It's kind of hypocritical to claim the state is economically irresponsible when they aren't investing the money themselves.
I will ask people to refrain from making comments on the Up in Alaska blog. There's already a bunch more of interesting comments that you can read, but it's not really a political blog and I don't want to commandeer it. Also, I want to continue to read that blog and I haven't been very encouraged that they are open to discussion. But if you want to comment here, even if you want to tell me I'm full of shit, feel free!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Stepping up on the Soapbox (long!)
Ethan forwarded me an e-mail from his friend about this article: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
It was an article arguing against global warming; it started out as an article saying that the proponents of global warming (scientists/government) were alarmist, but then rapidly moved into full-on "this is why there is no global warming". Here is my response:
Hmmm, interesting article. I am thinking about posting about it on my blog. I think it does a good job of demonstrating how you can manipulate the data to support either side of the argument. However, I wouldn't really advise basing any opinions on this article. For one thing, it's obviously very biased as well. Liberal use of quotations, such as in the phrases "global cooling", "global warming" and "scientists" belie the fact that the author is trying to sway the reader toward the opposite end of the argument. I personally took issue with the use of the phrase "scientists". For the most part, the scientists who are conducting the studies or are on advisory panels are actually scientists, with advanced degrees in climatology, or atmospheric chemistry or related subjects. I found this sentence rather ironic: "Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by 'scientists' who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer modesl to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate." Beside the fact that the author is guilty of some of the very same "improper statistical methods", as far as I can tell, he has absolutely no background in atmospheric sciences, much less an advanced degree. In fact, he seems to have a vested interest in fossil fuels (I have found some uncorraborated statements that he actually works for the WV Office of Miner Safety)!
Now, let me address some of the statistical issues with the article. While plenty of what he has to say is indeed fact (he has not lied outright, as far as I can tell), he does not paint the whole picture. For example, he states that "U.S. Temperatures show no significant warming trend over the past 100 years". This was actually taken from another article/blog to which he does indeed give credit. Both authors neglect to examine the fact that the U.S. has not been reliably cataloguing data for the past 100 years. While there were a few reliable stations 100 years ago, data collecting methods have changed significantly since then, and the observation network has also increased. To use an example that's close to home, most Alaska stations did not report temperature 100 years ago. To compare an observation trend over a period where the number of data points varies so greatly is not a very accurate statistical analysis. He in fact, admits this about 3 sentences later, when he says "...these reports are generally founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading." So in the same paragraph, he has used the data to prove his point (that U.S. temperatures are not rising) and then argued that it's not useable!
I would also argue that due to the fact that the author have an atmospheric background, he is not able to effectively argue his point. He spoke of a study by Dr. Patrick Michaels (an actual climatologist/atmospheric scienctist) that indicates that the increase in temperature at land-based stations is due to to the "urban heat island" effect. While this is a good argument, there is no mention of the possibility that increased urbanization has actually had an effect on the radiation budget. The radiation that is reflected from asphalt and concrete does not simply escape out to space, as implied. Some portion of it is in fact, reabsorbed by the atmosphere. Perhaps this had been addressed by Dr. Michaels, I don't know. However, it doesn't support Mr. Heib's argument (or more probably, he is unaware of the subtleties of microclimate) and so it isn't mentioned.
I could actually tear apart this article paragraph by paragraph, but I won't. What I will say is that he is right on one thing -- the data can be, and often is manipulated to prove a point. The ultimate say on global warming is that we simply do not have enough data to indicate whether our current warming trend is a phenomenon caused or affected by humans. Our presence on earth is a blip on the timeline, and our scientific window is even smaller than that. Regarding Scott's comment that he doesn't "need propaganda from governments supporting a cause via scare tactics", this article does nothing to prove or disprove the use of government scare tactics, and based on the scientific (not factual) inaccuracies, I would not deem this author a reliable source for knowing "the truth about global warming".
As an aside: there are theories that indicate humans have been modifying the climate since they ever set foot on the planet -- in other words, long before the industrial revolution. But again, it has not yet been proved or disproved either way.
I neglected to mention a few other issues I have with the article: 1) most scientists are not necessarily concerned with the rise in temperature, but the rate at which the temperature is rising. The rapid rate increase in global temperatures is not equivalent to anything scientists have been able to find in pre-Industrial revolution history. The article did not mention this at all. 2) The article mentioned two sources of data for indication of a rise in global temperature: surface based obs (which I addressed) and satellite data. Regardless of the fact that I'm not sure he can support his statement about satellite data, he also neglected to mention other indications of rising temperatures: rapid glacial/ice cap melting, northward progression of the boreal forest, decreasing permafrost and changes in the fat stores of certain animal populations, to name a few.
Anyway, if you've stuck with me this long I appreciate it. Suffice to say that I think Mr. Heib's article is a bunch of crap.
See, this why I should so TOTALLY get my Master's in climatology -- I love this stuff!
It was an article arguing against global warming; it started out as an article saying that the proponents of global warming (scientists/government) were alarmist, but then rapidly moved into full-on "this is why there is no global warming". Here is my response:
Hmmm, interesting article. I am thinking about posting about it on my blog. I think it does a good job of demonstrating how you can manipulate the data to support either side of the argument. However, I wouldn't really advise basing any opinions on this article. For one thing, it's obviously very biased as well. Liberal use of quotations, such as in the phrases "global cooling", "global warming" and "scientists" belie the fact that the author is trying to sway the reader toward the opposite end of the argument. I personally took issue with the use of the phrase "scientists". For the most part, the scientists who are conducting the studies or are on advisory panels are actually scientists, with advanced degrees in climatology, or atmospheric chemistry or related subjects. I found this sentence rather ironic: "Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by 'scientists' who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer modesl to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate." Beside the fact that the author is guilty of some of the very same "improper statistical methods", as far as I can tell, he has absolutely no background in atmospheric sciences, much less an advanced degree. In fact, he seems to have a vested interest in fossil fuels (I have found some uncorraborated statements that he actually works for the WV Office of Miner Safety)!
Now, let me address some of the statistical issues with the article. While plenty of what he has to say is indeed fact (he has not lied outright, as far as I can tell), he does not paint the whole picture. For example, he states that "U.S. Temperatures show no significant warming trend over the past 100 years". This was actually taken from another article/blog to which he does indeed give credit. Both authors neglect to examine the fact that the U.S. has not been reliably cataloguing data for the past 100 years. While there were a few reliable stations 100 years ago, data collecting methods have changed significantly since then, and the observation network has also increased. To use an example that's close to home, most Alaska stations did not report temperature 100 years ago. To compare an observation trend over a period where the number of data points varies so greatly is not a very accurate statistical analysis. He in fact, admits this about 3 sentences later, when he says "...these reports are generally founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading." So in the same paragraph, he has used the data to prove his point (that U.S. temperatures are not rising) and then argued that it's not useable!
I would also argue that due to the fact that the author have an atmospheric background, he is not able to effectively argue his point. He spoke of a study by Dr. Patrick Michaels (an actual climatologist/atmospheric scienctist) that indicates that the increase in temperature at land-based stations is due to to the "urban heat island" effect. While this is a good argument, there is no mention of the possibility that increased urbanization has actually had an effect on the radiation budget. The radiation that is reflected from asphalt and concrete does not simply escape out to space, as implied. Some portion of it is in fact, reabsorbed by the atmosphere. Perhaps this had been addressed by Dr. Michaels, I don't know. However, it doesn't support Mr. Heib's argument (or more probably, he is unaware of the subtleties of microclimate) and so it isn't mentioned.
I could actually tear apart this article paragraph by paragraph, but I won't. What I will say is that he is right on one thing -- the data can be, and often is manipulated to prove a point. The ultimate say on global warming is that we simply do not have enough data to indicate whether our current warming trend is a phenomenon caused or affected by humans. Our presence on earth is a blip on the timeline, and our scientific window is even smaller than that. Regarding Scott's comment that he doesn't "need propaganda from governments supporting a cause via scare tactics", this article does nothing to prove or disprove the use of government scare tactics, and based on the scientific (not factual) inaccuracies, I would not deem this author a reliable source for knowing "the truth about global warming".
As an aside: there are theories that indicate humans have been modifying the climate since they ever set foot on the planet -- in other words, long before the industrial revolution. But again, it has not yet been proved or disproved either way.
I neglected to mention a few other issues I have with the article: 1) most scientists are not necessarily concerned with the rise in temperature, but the rate at which the temperature is rising. The rapid rate increase in global temperatures is not equivalent to anything scientists have been able to find in pre-Industrial revolution history. The article did not mention this at all. 2) The article mentioned two sources of data for indication of a rise in global temperature: surface based obs (which I addressed) and satellite data. Regardless of the fact that I'm not sure he can support his statement about satellite data, he also neglected to mention other indications of rising temperatures: rapid glacial/ice cap melting, northward progression of the boreal forest, decreasing permafrost and changes in the fat stores of certain animal populations, to name a few.
Anyway, if you've stuck with me this long I appreciate it. Suffice to say that I think Mr. Heib's article is a bunch of crap.
See, this why I should so TOTALLY get my Master's in climatology -- I love this stuff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)