I need things in graph form to understand them

Where are all the good graphs like XKCD's for climate change? I'm tired of long lists of facts about reducing emissions that are mixed units, fractions, percentages, fractions of one type of emission, and on and on. I can't compare them and see what is best to do!

Not that I dislike the long lists of facts themselves. Perhaps I need to see what I can do about converting them to a decipherable, understandable, and memorable format.

URGENT MEMO

Michael Phelps!!!!!!!


Handlebar Mustache = NO






In other news, I'm just a tad bit excited about the Olympics. I'll be rocking the 2 am viewings over in this corner of the world.

Awk

This week is apparently "foot in mouth" week for me. Witness:

The confusion of "Palestine" with "Pakistan" - how did this happen???? I must have been drunk.

Telling the boyfriend that he and Sean were now somehow "even" - did this objectify women? I didn't even think about it. That was awkward.

Not being able to physically tell Lucinda about my Halloween party preparations - am I just unbelievably lame? Maybe I didn't want her to think that, but it turned out that way anyway.

Walking in on the roommate and her boyfriend well, not doing anything really awkward, but slightly awkward nonetheless. Argh whyyy.

My Biochem paper being labeled as "Redundant." Well, you know what else is Redundant????? Your face! God already gave you one ass!

Err... fleeing the Halloween party. At least twice. A solicitous Jamelle thereafter asking whether the Jeffsoc crowd was too big. Nice, but I'd rather handle my own awkwardness lest it become even more embarrassing/intolerable.

Rata is rather neurotic.

Global Warming Pt 1

The Disgruntled Chemist, on talking about Global Warming, makes an excellent point here:

"One more thing: perhaps there are some of you sitting there now saying "this guy's an alarmist! No way will it be this bad". Well, maybe you're right. But think about this: on almost every issue, the scientific community has one outlook and the general public has another. On almost every issue (GM crops and microwave ovens come to mind), the scientists are less alarmed about potential problems than are the public. In the case of global warming, the people who most closely study the situation are the most alarmed, and the public is telling them not to worry. Why is that? It's because the government tells us not to worry about it, without giving one shred of scientific evidence to back themselves up. Well, I'll go with the evidence, and with the scientific community. If that makes me sound alarmist to you, then maybe I am. And maybe you should be alarmed too."

I may have said this before, but this is a freaking excellent point. On all of these other issues, the scientists aren't alarmed. We don't cry wolf. The public may be alarmed, but scientists are still looking at the evidence.

But for Global Warming, scientists are very alarmed. Shouldn't this signify something to you?? Let's make a diagram:

Scientists think something will have mostly positive consequences (i.e. microwave ovens) -----> Public doesn't care.

Scientists think something new won't have positive or negative consequences (will just be a new tool, such as perhaps GMOs) -----> Public freaks out and decides all consequences will be bad.

Scientists think something will have potentially devastating consequences -----> Shouldn't the public be running for the hills?

Or is there no correlation here?

Proving Smart People Wrong

There's nothing I like more than proving someone very intelligent to be wrong, at least in my own estimation of what is "right" and "wrong". Which is pure opinion, of course.

So: Someone said "Biology is based on Chemistry. Chemistry is based on Physics. Physics is based on Math. So everything can be explained in terms of math - so math is the most interesting thing."

Any guesses who might have said that? :-P

Rebuttal: Saying that Biology, that life, all comes down to Chemistry is true but boring, equivalent to saying that all soccer is physics. True, life is and Biology concerns itself with what boils down to the chemistry between carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms (98% of the atoms in people). However, it is the emergent properties of these atoms, such as DNA, AIDS, and terriers, which are interesting, not the constituent parts. Once you can use physics to describe amino acids and chemistry to describe the human brain and 'free will', well, then I still won't concede that physics is better; rather, that will be the day which all the many and varied scientific disciplines will be one and the same. Until then, Bio will still be the most fascinating.


Whew, that only took... what, three years? See what an amazing fiend I am at debate?