The Bradley Effect

Ever hear of it?

When a white and a non-white candidate are running for office, many people will tell pollsters that they are voting for the non-white candidate so they sound less racist or something.  Read about it here.

I have hears statistics that the Bradley Effect has been as much as 6 points so far this campaign.  Meaning Obama’s poll numbers are 6 points higher than they should be, mostly in states with very few blacks (read the article for the explanation to that one).

As you know by now, I am a nerd.  Ergo, I have taken Yahoo’s Political Dashboard and calculated the following:

As it stands now, assuming the Bradley Effect to be zero, we have the following map:

(Bradley Effect at 0)

There are several states which the polls indicate are closer than 6 points.  I will slowly increase the Bradley Effect until we reach 6 points.

(Bradley at 1%)

With a 1% Bradley Effect, North Carolina changes hands (actually, at 0.3%).

No change at 2% or 3%.

(Bradley at 4%)

Virginia changes at 3.8%.

(Bradley at 5%)

Now this is the stuff Political Science dreams are made of!  At 4.2%, Ohio and Florida go McCain.  At 4.5%, Colorado does.  At that point, there is an electoral tie!  Both candidates have 269 electoral votes, and they need 270 to win.  At that point, the House of Representatives gets to vote on the new President.  The last time that happened was 1825, when they chose J. Q. Adams.

Who would win this vote?  Good question.  Each state would vote as a bloc, and each state would have one vote.  I presume this means that the (for example) Florida delegation would meet, vote on who they want, and whoever got the most out of the Florida delegation would get Florida’s one vote.

According to this:

Democrats control 26 delegations

Republicans 21

And 3 are split evenly.

Theoretically that means Obama would win that scenario.

(Bradley at 6)

At 6 points, Nevada goes red and the election goes to McCain.

With such limited data sets, it is impossible to predict the extent of the Bradley Effect, if any.  The point is, this election will probably not be a landslide for anyone.

A Political Quiz, Plus Results

Apologies if this is becoming a political blog, but that is what is going on right now in the USA.

I found an interesting political quiz today…

1)  Which Political Party has a majority in the US House of Representatives?

2)  Who is the Secretary of State?

3)  Who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain?

Well?  How many did you get right?  [See bottom of post for answers]  And if you did not get them all, don’t worry, only 18% of Americans did.

Now, the interesting part of this survey was that the pollsters asked the respondents what news magazines they read or what TV news programs they watched, then correlated the results together.  Unfortunately, the article did not have a complete set of results, probably because it was digested by a reporter before being posted on the internet.  I swear, that’s the job of a journalist these days: to reduce the amount of information available, not increase it!

• The New Yorker/Atlantic: 71 percent (correctly identified Democrats as the majority in the House), 71 percent (correctly identified Condeleeza Rice), 59 percent (correctly identified Gordon Brown)
• NPR: 73 percent, 72 percent, 57percent
• Hannity & Colmes: 84 percent, 73 percent, 49 percent
• Rush Limbaugh: 83 percent, 71 percent, 41 percent
• Colbert Report: 73 percent, 65 percent, 49 percent
• Daily Show: 65 percent, 48 percent, 36 percent
• NewsHour: 66 percent, 52 percent, 47 percent
• O’Reilly Factor: 70 percent, 60 percent, 41 percent
• C-SPAN: 63 percent, 59 percent, 35 percent
• Letterman/Leno: 51 percent, 42 percent, 31 percent
• CNN: 59 percent, 48 percent, 29 percent
• National Enquirer: 44 percent, 32 percent, 22 percent

[Taken from LiveScience]

Hmmm…  The New Yorker has an intelligent readership.  Who knew?  NPR is right behind them (in fact, ahead of them on the first two questions), again, no surprise there.  But wait, Hannity and Colmes is third?!?!  Well, those people obviously did not learn any of that information from H&C, since they are not in the business of conveying information, only screaming senseless diatribes at one another.

Now look at Rush Limbaugh’s percentages.  He is right behind H&C (and close to NPR and the New Yorker) on the first two questions (on Domestic politics) but lacking on the third question (international, i.e. British, politics)  Continuing down the list we find the Colbert Report and the Daily Show at unusually prestigious places on the list.  According to the reporter, this is because of the high number of college students among their viewers.  Interesting.  I would like to see the raw data so I could weight the data to show what the results would have been if each show had the exact same demographics.  But I am a scientist, what do I know?

We then see the unusual triumvirate of O’Reilly, C-SPAN, and Jay Leno AHEAD of CNN!  HA!  They may be “The Most Trusted Name in News,” but they haven’t aired a single FACT since 1996!  FOX News’ shows are all above CNN on this poll, providing further humor.

Well, CNN wasn’t last, I’ll give that to ‘em.  So who did they beat?  The National Enquirer!  Wow, CNN, you should be really proud about this one.  New tag line:  “The Second-Least Informative Name in News.”

The really interesting part of this whole article is not to be found in the numbers (heresy for a physicist), but the assumptions.  The journalist who wrote this article automatically assumes we, the people,  receive our information from the journalists working for these sources.  S/he imagines that journalists are the giver of knowledge, etc.  But they at no time had blogs or AP or Reuters or any sort of web-based source of information listed in the survey.  That is where I get my information, where I can cut through the partisanship and bias (which is still ever-present, of course) to find a glimmer of truth and understanding.  Or try.

“Understanding is a three edged sword:  Your side, their side, and the truth.”

~Kosh Nanarek

Answers:  1)  Democrats, 2)  Condoleeza Rice, 3)  Gordon Brown

The Ninth Commandment is Dead

You heard me.

Evidence:  Last night’s debate.

Is it just me, or are these lies becoming increasingly egregious?  I could not watch more than a few seconds of the debate (more on that later) before vomiting up bile.  Neither candidate could lead a box of donuts into a fat man’s mouth.  Why should either of them be entrusted with the Presidency?

I did tune in for a vile few seconds of the debate, as I said.  McCain was touting his Pay-For-Deadbeats-Mortgages Plan.  If a person bought a house that is too big for them, the federal government will actually pay some of that mortgage!  Quick, everybody, buy a mansion you can’t afford (with today’s housing prices, it might be quite large, actually) and then ask for mortgage assistance!  Duh!

Yes, Obama also favors this plan, but the only way I think I ever could have stomached voting McCain was because I thought he was against paying people’s mortgages.  Nope!  Listen, behavior that is rewarded is repeated.  When we pay idiots mortgages, we encourage idiots to buy huge houses.  When we pay to rebuild cities built below sea level, we encourage people to live in those dangerous areas.

And this is different (though only slightly) from the $700B bailout.  In the bailout, the government actually bought (will buy) assets from banks and lenders.  They buy these mortgages and then can sell them later.  In fact, right now those mortgages are probably undervalued because there are no buyers, so the government can probably wait five years and sell them for more than they were worth!  If not, the government will collect the mortgage payments from people whose mortgages were bought.  Yes, that $700B bailout was probably a bad idea, but all the alternatives were probably worse.

And now, an announcement:  Soon, I will be making my official endorsement for the President of the United States.  Yay.

Note: Obama is not the Messiah

I bring you another quote, this time from this site:

Obama is my homeboy. And I’m not saying that because he’s black – I’m saying that in reference to those Urban Outfitters t-shirts from a couple years ago that said, “Jesus is my homeboy.” Yes, I just said it. Obama is my Jesus.

[...]

Then I began to realize I wasn’t the only one trying to buy a WWOD bracelet and spending my weekends scouring CNN.com. The rock star-type love for Obama wasn’t just because he was pretty and in the media. Others too, had seen him as a shining light, heard that mythical voice boom out over the mountaintops; people were wearing the t-shirt because they would rather wear something representing a politician than a pop star. People everywhere, young and old, were caring again. So what’s the problem here?

I’ve officially been saved, and soon, whether they like it or not, the rest of the country will be too. I will follow him, all the way to the White House, and I’ll be standing there in our nation’s capital in January 2009, when Barack Obama is inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States of America. In the name of Obama, Amen.

~Maggie Mertens,

Idiot of the highest order,

Grand Master of the Hebetudinous,

Reverend of the Church of Barack Obama of Fatuous College Students,

Queen Regent of the Kingdom of All Morons, Dolts, and “Special Children”

I would recommend reading the whole article, but I did, and my IQ iz nowe signicicantliy reeduced.

Quoth the Internet

Collected from Quotations Page:

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.

Hippocrates, Law

Greek physician (460 BC – 377 BC)

As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life – so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.

M. Cartmill

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein, “Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium”, 1941

All science is either physics or stamp collecting.

Ernest Rutherford, in J. B. Birks “Rutherford at Manchester” (1962)

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.

Immanuel Kant

German philosopher (1724 – 1804)

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny …’

Isaac Asimov

US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 – 1992)

We must not forget that when radium was discovered no one knew that it would prove useful in hospitals. The work was one of pure science. And this is a proof that scientific work must not be considered from the point of view of the direct usefulness of it. It must be done for itself, for the beauty of science, and then there is always the chance that a scientific discovery may become like the radium a benefit for humanity.

Marie Curie, Lecture at Vassar College, May 14, 1921

French (Polish-born) chemist & physicist (1867 – 1934)

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 – 1968)

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Isaac Newton, From Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855)

English mathematician & physicist (1642 – 1727)

Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.  

Albert Einstein

If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.

Albert Einstein

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.

Albert Einstein

Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.

Albert Einstein

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Albert Einstein

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein

To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself.

Albert Einstein

Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves.

Albert Einstein

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

Albert Einstein

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it’s only a hundred billion. It’s less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.

Richard Feynman

You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird… So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing — that’s what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.

Richard Feynman

Fact Checks and the Banking Crisis

Now for a short update…

The new fact check for yesterday’s debate is up.  <Spoilers>  Everyone lied through their teeth and neither candidate is fit to run the country </Spoilers>

DrBolte, by far the most prolific of all commenters on this blog (1 of 1 comment) has asked for my opinion of the housing/banking crisis.  I believe the following video explains everything.  (Background:  Two warring factions, the Reds and the Blues, have sent their most incompetent troops to one dinky valley in an eternal struggle for supremacy and nonsense)

The Communist News Network

Hey, guess what?  We had another crappy debate between two crappy candidates!

I will forgo the laundry list of complaints.  This time.  Now I think I shall complain against CNN, the Communist News Network.

During the debate, CNN had a focus group of 25 people (should that be in quotes?) with those dumb electronic dials that they turn when they hear something they like, or don’t like, or have to go to the bathroom.  These people were reportedly evenly divided between undecided liberals, undecided conservatives, and undecided independents.  Mistake Number One! 25 divided by 3 equals 8.333…  How does that work?!?  Well, CNN can’t do math, obviously.  So why should we ever listen to them when they talk about the $700B bailout package?  Or the debt?  Or ANYTHING except dogs riding skateboards?

Anyway, after the debate, the News Lady (she deserves no more grandiose title than this) asked the evenly divided undecided voters “Who thinks Obama won/Who thinks McCain won?”  Twelve said Obama, ten McCain, three abstained.  Thus, she immediately declared that Obama won.  Mistake Number Two! If you take one person off the street and ask “Boxers or briefs?” and he says “boxers” and you declare that everyone wears boxers, or boxers are better, or if you declare anything except “This one person prefers boxers,” then you are an idiot of the ultimate degree.  And you probably majored in journalism.  But I repeat myself.

Here is how the News Lady SHOULD have handled that.  First, one must determine the standard deviation.  Since there were 25 samples (25 people), the standard deviation (or “uncertainty”) is sqrt(25) = 5.  It is actually pretty advanced math, but to find the uncertainty (in the purely mathematical sense) of a sample, take the square root of the sample.  So the number of people who thought Obama won was really 12 +/- (plus or minus) 5, and McCain was 10 +/-5.  So if you took another similar group of 25 people (same proportion, whatever that was, of undecided voters), you would have a pretty good chance of finding between 7 and 17 Omaba supporters and between 5 and 15 McCain supporters.  Actually, mathematically speaking, that should happen 68% of the time, but that is some more advanced math.

Really, we do not know who won that debate by just looking at the votes of those 25.  Incidentally, this formula does break down in at least one place.  If 12 were for Obama and 10 for McCain, 3 must have been undecided.  Or should I say 3 +/- 5.  Theoretically, 8 people could have been undecided, or -2 people could have been undecided.

And I proudly declare that I am one of those negative two people!

A Better Debate, Part 3

Again, see 1 and 2.  Also, thank you for bearing with me.  I had a cool job interview that I was preparing for…

11. Does the US have a special role in the world as the guardian of international security and as the indispensable leader of the world community?

Duh.  The only reason there is any semblance at all of world peace is the existence of the American Military.  When there are many countries of similar strength, the probability of wars, big and small, is very high.  Think Europe in the first half of the last century.  If there are but two countries and many small ones, the probability of war is also very high, although they often prefer war-by-proxy.  Think USA vs. USSR.  But if there is only one superpower, small wars are common, but never get too bad.  Like now.  We are actually in an unusually peaceful interlude in World History.  I know it doesn’t seem like it, but only very few of us are directly affected by war in any way outside of our pocketbooks.

America MUST continue to be the world’s only Hyperpower.  Whenever any of the situations listed in the previous paragraph switches to another, a devastating war is extraordinarily likely.  We were absurdly, ridiculously, unbelievably lucky that there was no war when the USSR fell.  We may not be that lucky the next time.

12. Both of you support Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, making them allies. Are the American people ready to jeopardize their soldiers in defense of these countries if they are attacked?

For us to stay a Hyperpower, we must hold to our commitments.  If we do not keep our commitments, all of our commitments will be instantly challenged.  It is not easy nor fun being the Hyperpower.  On the contrary, it is a lot of hard work.  We must make these challenges not for ourselves, or the Georgians, but for the sake of the entire human population.  We stand on the knife’s edge, people, we must make those sacrifices.

Hopefully, if we show we are willing to keep commitments, we will not have to defend them anymore.  If we repel a Russian invasion of Georgia, we may save ourselves from having to deflect Taiwan’s impending invasion by China.

13. What steps would you take to open foreign markets now closed to US goods, to allow export of products and services that the US does well?

If their markets are closed to us, ours are closed to them.  Our economy will slow by 0.01%, theirs will collapse.

14. Roughly what proportion of US resources should go toward helping and protecting other nations compared with the resources that are needed to build up America?

This is the only question I thought was not very intelligent.  “US resources” meaning the federal budget, or the total GDP, or what?  And is the government expending the resources to build up America, or are the people and companies?  Does “build up America” include infrastructure?  welfare?  education?  science funding?  abortions on demand?  Specify, people!

15. Twenty years ago, Islamic terrorism was a sleeper issue. Some people warned about it, but few paid much attention to it. Same thing for climate change. In your opinion, what is today’s sleeper issue?

This was by far their most interesting question.  I am in no way prescient, but I will do my best.

First, what will it NOT be?  Well, not climate change.  By the most ridiculous, sky-is-falling doomsayer’s own estimates, in 20 years the atmosphere will have warmed by less than a quarter of a degree F and the seas will have risen by about one inch.  No worries there.

Nor will it be overpopulation, at least in the First World nations.  Much more likely, it would be underpopulation.  Japan is now facing those issues.  But that is a slow, unglamorous problem.  Plus, the media and our culture is always telling us to have less kids anyway, and they will never repeal their commandments, so they will never think it is an issue.

Well, what do I hope that it is not?  I do not want any 20 year sleeper issue to be Alien invasion, or asteroid impact, or massive ecological collapse, or anything that we can’t do a thing about.  And, no, we can’t download a virus into the mothership, send oil miners to split the asteroid into two, or combine our powers to create Captain Planet.  We would be royally screwed.  Unless, of course, we started preparing now, which is highly unlikely.

What might I hope that it is?  I hope that the sleeper issue is a soft technological singularity.  Few people disagree that technology is increasing exponentially.  The theory is that technology is actually increasing asymptotically, meaning that we will actually have an infinite amount of technology after a finite time.  We will invent Artificial Intelligences that will be a thousand times smarter than we are, which will take ten years to invent an AI 1000 times smarter than it was, which in turn will take one year to invent another AI 1000 times more intelligent yet, which will invent another in one month…  Within twelve years, we have infinitely intelligent computers inventing everything we would ever want.  Or killing us or using us as batteries or something.

Well, a soft singularity is not quite so fast.  Instead of infinite AI’s after 20 years, imagine Star Trek tech after 20 years.  That would be cool.

But, I also find that somewhat unlikely.  After much deliberation, I believe an aggressive China will be the next sleeper issue.  And if you have read the last few answers, you will see why.

A Better Debate, Part 2

Continuing from my previous post…

6. If US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan largely ends during your first term, how would you then change the American military based on your reading of its potential roles?

Well, this TED Talk might have a good idea about this problem.

[Aside:  PLEASE go to www.ted.com .  You would be hard pressed to find a larger database of interesting talks anywhere on the web.  Education, Science, Literature, Geopolitics, Economics, Environmentalism, Humor, TV, and infinitely more!]

The main idea is to break the military in two.  Have the Big Stick Military keep upgrading weapons and inventing new and interesting ways to kill people.  This force will be almost exclusively young men, ready to kill every one and every thing in sight.  Next, have a Speak Softly Military which works on reconstruction, nation building, etc., and is more evenly divided between genders and is older and more experienced.

The Big Stick comes in, conquers the country before the next episode of Lost comes on, and leaves.  As it is leaving, the Speak Softly comes in and keeps the country pacified, gives it a functioning democratic government, etc.  By the way, the Marines would NOT be part of the Big Stick.  Instead, they would be part of the Speak Softly.  Reasoning:  If anyone EVER messes with the Speak Softly force, the Marines will be in there within 38 seconds to disembowel and explosively decapitate the offenders.

No, this guy is no peacenik, wanting to turn the military into the largest daisy distribution center in the world.  He means business.  And we should listen.

7. The international community has helped reduce extreme poverty by almost half a billion people since 1990. What would you do to reduce poverty in other countries, especially in Africa, in addition to what President Bush has already done?

See my previous post and read what I say about a League of Free Countries.  If we require genuine economic and political freedom to gain the benefits of entry, leaders of the poorer countries will reform themselves (or a revolution will put in new leaders that will).  WE in the first world countries cannot, by ourselves, bring them into first world status.  THEY also cannot bring themselves there without our assistance.  Right now, almost all foreign aid is still going to enrich the already rich in poor countries.  We must encourage genuine reform and reward it accordingly.

8. Every president who has tried to solve the Palestinian question has failed. How would your approach be different?

Frankly, I do not know.  I am in favor of a 2 State Solution, but I have heard plenty of people on all sides declare that solution to be worse than the problem.  Ardent Pro Israelists say they deserve all that territory.  Ardent Pro Palestinians say they deserve all the territory.  Some moderates say that the Israelies and Palestinians should live together in one state, side by side, in peace.  I wish those moderates could be right, but I am a bit more pessimistic than them.

9. Is it possible to greatly reduce illegal immigration from Mexico by helping improve the quality of life in that country? How would you do that?

Of course!  If they had no economic incentive to move here, they would not.  Many anti-immigration policies use this idea.  They propose making it so hard for illegal immigrants to work here in safety that they will not be able to keep any kind of job.  Once that economic incentive is gone, they will leave.

Well, perhaps a better way would be to help them find good jobs in their own country, instead of gathering them in as a local menial worker caste.  We may be able to do this using the League of Free Countries.  If the League focuses on helping a few countries at a time, we could stop many of these kinds of problems.

10. Name three things the United Nations does well.

Bicker.

Blame Israel.

Spend money.

A Better Debate

Hmmm….  Well that debate just sucked, didn’t it?  Lehrer asked just 4 questions (What do you think about the bailout?  Iraq?  Iran?  Russia?).  None were particularly thought provoking.  Both candidates lied through their teeth.  I will never be able to vote for Obama due to his opposition to NASA and Project Constellation.  The lies McCain spewed forth during the debate was sufficiently offensive that I do not know if I can vote for him, either.

Oh well.  Is anyone surprised?  I do hope people realize that Obama is emphatically NOT change, seeing as that he lies at the same rate as any other politician, and McCain is certainly no longer a Maverick.

In more interesting news, the Christian Science Monitor has written 15 (good) questions that they would have wanted in the debate.  These were very thought provoking, and I would like to give my answers at this time…

1.  When horrific war crimes or a humanitarian crisis occurs in another country, should the United States intervene – even if the United Nations refuses to approve? What would be your threshold for such a crisis to justify US military action?

Only if it helps us in the long run.  Yes, it sounds horrible, but think of it this way.  If we destroy ourselves trying to save another country, who will that help?  We are not omnipotent, and we must keep that in mind as we make these decisions.

On the United Nations:  The UN is a powerless debating club run by dictatorships.  We should not listen to them.  We should also not leave the UN.

What we should do is create a League of Free Countries.  To join such a League, a country should (at a minimum) follow a Bill of Rights approximately equal to the US Bill of Rights.  The League Bill should not try to cover everything, for that would make it very exclusionary.  It should be a bare minimum of the important stuff, like Freedoms of Religion, Speech, Press, etc., the various rights we have around search and seizure, speedy and fair trial, the right to own property, and very few more.  Specifically not included would be the right/non-right to own guns and the acceptance/banning of abortion and gay marriage.  Including these would keep too many countries out, and should be dealt with on a more local level (National/Country or State/Province).  What is included MUST be followed at all times, to be decided by the vote of all countries in the League.

The League of Free Countries would all have free, unfettered trade between members, with few exceptions (National Security issues, food problems, whatnot).  The League would also be a military alliance, an attack on one is an attack on all.

Each country gets a share of the vote proportional to the amount at which they fund the League, giving more power to developed economies.  The reasoning here is that developed economies have enjoyed freedom the longest amount of time.  They have proven themselves in this regard.  Developing countries which now enjoy the freedoms we do are experiencing fast economic growth.  Unfortunately, few developing countries fall into that category.  Perhaps this League will encourage more such freedom in other countries.

Anyway, this League would vote on when to invade another country to stop human rights abuses, etc.

2. Some experts contend that the US should address the security fears of Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China in order to prevent these countries from becoming threats to others. Do you agree with this approach?

Chamberlain tried that with Hitler back in the 30’s.  It didn’t work then, why would it work now?

3. What are the three most important steps to achieve American energy security?

Allow domestic drilling.

Break up the international monopoly called OPEC using whatever force is necessary, commensurate with the goal that we do not hurt the long term health of the US.

Invest a great deal of money in various electricity generation methods, not just ethanol, wind, and solar.

4. Would you compel Americans to adopt standards on carbon emissions even if China and India do not take similar actions?

No.  The net benefit to the world, as well as the US, is negative as long as China and India do not adopt CO2 emissions standards.  [Nerd Note:  Carbon emissions are not a problem.  Carbon Dioxide emissions mat be a problem, but we need more unbiased studies done before we can know for sure]

5. And why do you prefer a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases when that approach has not worked in Europe – whereas a carbon tax in Sweden did help lower greenhouse-gas emissions?

Well, this doesn’t exactly apply to me, so I will answer a related question:  What do you think of Global Warming?

I think Humans are partitially responsible for global warming.  However, astrophysicists know the sun is warming very slightly, and geologists know there are naturally occuring variations in Earth’s temperature unrelated to the sun’s warming.  All three are affecting our climate now.  I assume we are responsible for about one third of the problem.

By far the most expensive way of combating global warming would be to curb what we emit in our industrial processes, farming, transportation, etc.  Even the most optimistic estimates say that GDP will be 1% less than what it would have been without curbing emissions.  Over the next century, that adds up to over $160 trillion (assuming a ~2% GDP growth rate).

My plan is to launch trillions of tiny mirrors into the first Lagrangian point.  This is a very science-fictiony solution to a very science-fictiony problem.  We will probably need to block out about 1% of the sun’s light to stop global warming.  If we can build 100 nanometer mirrors (not too hard) with a density of water (a good assumption), and using the new Ares V rocket (which Obama wants to cancel), we can built this solar shade for between $2-3 Trillion, a savings of about 98.5%.  That assumes we can move 70 tons of mirrors to the Lagrangian point for $1 billion.

The question now becomes, what temperature should we shoot for?  Is the current temperature the perfect temperature?  Is the “preindustrial average” the goal?  Well, seeing as that the world was in a mini-ice age right before the industrial revolution, I would shoot for something other than the preindustrial average.

It is a well established theory that Civilization itself developed during a particularly warm period of recent climactic history.  This appears to be the optimum climate for us humans, so perhaps we should shoot for that.  We would need to allow global warming to continue until we are about 1.6C (2.9F) degrees warmer, or the guesstimated global temperature in 2040-2075 (no one really knows for sure).  In any case, we do not need to worry for another 3 decades.  But we do need to plan.

Well, I think I will post this much now and return later with more.