The Upside of Climate Change

Is the climate changing?  Of course the climate is changing.  It has been changing for the last six billion years.

Is it getting warmer?  The temperature trend seems to be in that direction, so there is no reason to doubt that it is also getting warmer.

The problem is that all the news reports seem to stress that a changing climate is a bad thing, that warmer is a bad thing, and that it’s entirely our fault.  Humans had the nerve to act in a way that’s destroying the earth and should feel guilty about it.  We are destroying the planet for our children and grandchildren.  Every additional temperature reading becomes breaking news.  And the President not signing a piece of paper in Paris somehow has an immediate negative effect. 

The argument continues that the changed climate will result in extremes – more cold days, more hot days, more storms and bigger storms.  Unfortunately, the data do not bear this out.   A graph in Wikipedia of the number of hurricanes affecting the US by decade clearly shows variability, not an upward trend.  Annual reported tornadoes compiled by NOAA from 1954 to 2014 shows the same.

Yet every time part of the US, especially the East Coast, experiences some weather extreme, an analyst, reporter or expert is sure to cite climate change.  This is a lazy argument.  Too hot weather proves climate change; too cold weather proves climate change; too windy weather shows the same, all the time implying that it’s a terrible thing, not just for those who built houses too close to the beach, but for everyone.  Critical thinkers should demand better evidence.

We are led to the conclusion that the climate we have is the best of all possible climates and that it’s down hill from here no matter what.  Isn’t there anything positive to be said about climate change?  As it turns out, there are at least a couple of potential benefits.

“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.” (Source:  Lancet)

 Chris D. Thomas is a professor of conservation at University of York and “one of the world’s most influential ecologists” according to the biography at the end of his book Inheritors of the Earth.  On page 6 of that book he says, “More species like it hot than cold, and so the overall consequence of a warmer climate is to raise biological diversity in many parts of the world.”

So the possibility of fewer people dying because of the weather is a good thing.  Biological diversity is also considered a good thing.  Maybe the experts and the media should take some time out from their constant catastrophizing and handwringing to take a look at the bright side.  The climate has been changing for millions of years; humans have been adapting for tens of thousands of years.   Maybe it's not going to be as bad as the purveyors of doom-and-gloom predict.

Climate Change and Real Science

I’ve written recently how promoters of the man-made climate change concern tend to dismiss those who want to continue the debate as being unscientific and deniers. But some of the real impediments to dealing with greenhouse gases don’t come from a lack of science. The solutions are based in science but find stumbling blocks in popular trends and fear mongering.

Two or three current articles lead to this conclusion. 

The latest idea to come out of the UN to reduce our carbon footprint is to eat less meat. If everyone adopted a vegan lifestyle, putting all the cows, pigs, chickens and sheep out of work, they claim we could effect a significant change. But this Reason Magazine article crunches the numbers and the results are disappointing. “In their 2017 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, agronomists Robin White and Mary Beth Hall reached a similar conclusion [to several others], calculating that the total elimination of animal husbandry would reduce U.S. emissions by 2.6 percent.” 

In other words, nagging the public to reduce or even completely stop eating meat pursues a negligible effect on climate change. Of course, the facts should not stand in the way of the popular feel-good trend, where the burger giants are playing to the crowd by offering Impossible Whoppers and McVegans. A big pain yields little gain.

On another front, strong arguments in favor of nuclear power as a means of producing electricity without releasing carbon dioxide into the air fall on deaf ears. Increasing the number of nuclear reactors would be the ideal solution to climate change. In addition to the lack of pollution, they have a much smaller physical footprint than other sources such as wind and solar. 

But say the word nuclear and people panic. They start talking about Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island as if they were typical rather than extreme outliers. “These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 17,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries.” The World Nuclear Association summarizes the safety by saying, “The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.”

To counter these facts the uniformed cite the problem of nuclear waste. The truth is that “all the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards.” That’s one single football field for the entire world. Furthermore, much of it can be processed for reuse as they do in France and “after 7,000 shipments total of used fuel by the worldwide nuclear industry since 1970, there have been no leaks of radioactive material or personal injuries.”

The biggest truth is that people refuse to consider it as an alternative due to unfounded fear. In Germany the anti-nuclear movement kicked into high gear with mass protests after Fukushima promoting a phase out of nuclear energy by 2022 while still moving off fossil fuel-based energy generation. Should America follow this wanting-my-cake-and-eating-it too philosophy?

The final piece came from an interview published at foreignpolicy.com featuring research to growing better vegetation. 

Plants naturally draw CO₂ from the atmosphere. “Every year, humanity emits 37 gigatons of carbon dioxide; photosynthetic life can process and capture nearly half of that amount.” The theory is that plants can be made a little more productive. Since the amount of carbon dioxide released naturally is so much greater, plants operating at only a 2% or 3% increase in efficiency could pick up the other half of human emissions.

One problem is that the effort to “come up with a cost-effective and efficient way of actually pulling carbon dioxide down from the atmosphere and sequestering it down into the soil—where it should be” requires genetic engineering to create this “Ideal Plant.” If breeding could do it, it would take much longer. Many people and governments would have to overcome their irrational fear of GMOs, but that should be much easier than the alternative, the standard of living hardships that would result from severe reductions in energy availability.

The answers to fighting climate change likely come from real science, not a pick and choose kind of science that follows the fear mongering and fashions of the day.

Essential Oils and Climate Change

To try to win an informal debate, I remember hearing a woman once say, “I don’t care what the scientists say; I just feel better when I eat gluten free.” I also happened to know that this same person took the opposite view on climate change. She was convinced that climate change was a real, impending disaster based on information that the vast majority of climate scientists agreed on the premise.

Furthermore anyone who held a different view on climate change would be condemned, labeled a “denier,” someone whose opinion on that or any other subject should be disregarded because they were stupid. But it was not enough to ignore them. Anyone who disagrees in the least must be branded, cast out, unfriended or otherwise ostracized for the good of the world.

Using the opposite arguments in defense of two strongly held points of view did not faze her or the people she associated with at all. On one hand, science was good; on the other, science was too skeptical of the ancient wisdom or the latest fad.

Speaking of the latest fad, one that has been going strong for the last few years is a belief in the power of essential oils.

Although the name might imply it, there is nothing particularly essential about an essential oil, in the sense of it being necessary for life. The name comes from the fact that the oils extracted, usually by fermentation, contain the essence of a plant’s fragrance.

As this article written by a scientist, professor at McGill University with a PhD in Chemistry, explains, most of the claims about the powers of essential oils are unproven, untrue, misrepresented or exaggerated. For example, promoters claim that “either sniffing the right essential oil or rubbing it on the skin can support the immune system, enhance mood, promote sleep, cleanse the body’s organs, boost the libido, ease breathing, foster alertness, treat kidney stones, oxygenate the blood, relieve pain, reduce anger, prevent constipation and, of course, eliminate toxins, … readjust chakras, harmonize bio-electrical frequencies, cleanse negative energies, drive out evil spirits and promote sexual stimulation.”

He explains that a few of these are backed by evidence, such as using lavender aroma as a sleep aid. Many of the other claims have resulted in warnings to companies by the FDA, but that can’t control all the outrageous claims. “Sales of essential oils are dominated by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies,” who sell to independent distributors relying on commissions. No one can monitor what every one of these sellers promises in private conversations. 

Once again it is so easy to ignore the science, or simply not ask what studies have confirmed the seemingly magical powers. Take it on faith.

Interesting how, in one particular realm, scientific consensus is considered a strong argument in favor, with any minor expression of doubt leading to the accusation of being a denier. Meanwhile, in so many others areas, from psychic powers to performance bracelets to the healing power of magnets to detox cleanses to super foods to essential oils, taking the opposite stance is the favored response. No deniers there! No critical thinking either.

Robots and Climate Change

There is something about adapting to a bad situation that makes a lot of sense.

This occurred to me when I ran across this article about robots coming to steal everyone’s job. It tells how a couple of economists are worried about the ability to adapt to the relentless march of automation. Their point is: “Too much time discussing whether robots can take your job; not enough time discussing what happens next.

A popular solution has been to “try to stall or reverse the trend of automation,” a kind of resistance movement to make it more difficult. Such measures include extra taxes on robot-produced goods or taxes on the robots themselves, which I wrote about in March of last year. Some propose new government regulations to make automation more difficult. The economists expect this approach to fail because consumers will naturally gravitate toward “cheaper goods or services” made possible by automation. (You don’t see anyone wanting to pay more for phone service to allow telephone operators to keep their jobs.)

Another proposed strategy is to “reduce the cost of human labor, by driving down wages or cutting benefits” making hiring workers preferable to buying robots. No one could seriously endorse this.

The other class of solutions they call “coping strategies.” These include teaching workers whose jobs are threatened new skills, skills less likely to be taken away by automation. Or the government could provide a guarantee to displaced workers, like a universal basic income (UBI). Both are iffy for various reasons: what skills fall into that category, how trainable are workers in mid-career, and how can any country, especially a poor one, support a UBI plan?

There is a need for more creativity around coping strategies, but at this point most of the energy goes toward ways to slow progress, a futile strategy when automation looks inevitable.

Is there a parallel here with climate change? At present all the efforts seem to be directed toward convincing everyone that climate change is real, inevitable and driven largely by human activity. There are a lot of good arguments to back this up. The intention is to promote individual and governmental action to reduce the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – a stalling, not a coping, strategy.

People put their hopes on things like the Paris Agreement to make this happen and many despair at the thought of America bowing out. But how familiar are most Americans with the agreement? It is voluntary. Each country gets to pick its own goals known as its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

China, for example, commits “To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early.” Peaking in 2030 means continuing to increase between now and then. India is no better: “India’s INDC do not bind it to any sector specific mitigation obligation or action.” They commit to decrease “emissions intensity” by 33% to 35% in an  economy where the demand for electricity expected to increase by more than 3 times – in other words, they plan meet much more energy need slightly more efficiently. In another instance, Norway commits to “a target of an at least 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.” They get to pick the target and the comparison and when serious development will start, but there is no penalty for missing. (See all countries here.)

Many NDC commitments, when read in detail seem timid at best. Paris doesn’t look like the real solution, just a strategy to postpone the inevitable.

Where are the people talking about dikes and levees around the major coastal cities or better drainage systems for Houston? Why is the government still subsidizing flood insurance for new construction too close to oceans, rivers and streams? So many creative possibilities, adjustments and adaptations for coping are being ignored or overlooked.

In both cases, it makes sense to think critically about how to allocate our resources, putting up roadblocks or planning ahead.

Climate Change

In case you haven’t been paying attention, climate change is the current name for global warming.  I think it’s a good idea to remind people about the fact that the climate is changing.  The climate is always changing.  As the Buddha reminds us:  Everything changes, nothing remains without change.  Now here is an article about an admitted global warming alarmist changing his mind about the urgency of the problem.  He says that his predictions were too extreme, but the last sentence of the article is very instructive where he says:  If he had rightly been more cautious, it would have spoiled his book.

There are a few things to learn here.  People in all walks of life are often motivated financially by such things as book sales and the need for funding of their research.  This causes them to express their opinions more forcefully.  Among other places, it is particularly evident in attention-getting news headlines.  In the face of these pronouncements we must keep a cool head.  Strong behavior in the area of perspective is characterized by moderation.

What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer that people, especially NASA – think funding -- were so worried about twenty or so years ago?  When we stopped spraying the wrong chemicals into the air, it started to close up.  Now some scientists are worried that this may add to global warming!

How do they explain that some of the glaciers in Asian mountains are getting thicker?  Well, they don’t.  In that case they admit that they don’t really understand the situation well enough.  They are just guessing.

Just as we should expect more from advertisers, politicians and the news media, all of whom have a stake in our believing what they say, we must hold our scientists more accountable to fully justify their claims and be willing to debate those with a contrary point of view.  Whenever you hear any of these people stooping to name-calling, you know it's time to be skeptical of their claims and moderate in your reactions.

Easy Resolutions

It’s the end of another year; time to consider a few resolutions.  The trouble with resolutions is they take will power.  The dimension of discipline comes into play.  Why can’t there be some easy resolutions that are more about not doing something than about working hard.  That should make things considerably easier, and more rewarding in terms of that feeling of success.

A Christmas visitor directed me to this website.  The title of the article is “7 bad science and health ideas that should die with 2016.”  The authors write about how some wrong ideas just seem to stick around.  Friends tell friends.  Ideas become ingrained, and despite all the good science to the contrary, they just won’t go away.  According to the article, this particularly applies to seven myths “that were decisively debunked this year” or possibly debunked again in one more attempt to make them go away. 

This is one of my personal favorite subjects; the things people continue to believe and refuse to change their opinion despite overwhelming contrary evidence.  Instead they look to social media friends or their favorite echo-chamber news source for reassurance.  Throughout the last five and a half years I have brought up many of these subjects.  (For a few of my examples, just look to the history over the last six months where the title begins, “One More Time.”)

In this case though, since these are bad ideas, shown to be decisively incorrect, a good and easy New Year’s resolution would be simply to stop believing them.

The first myth – Exercise will help you lose weight.  Many studies show that “the extra calories you burn only account for a small part of your total energy expenditure, and that cutting your food intake is a much more efficient way to lose weight.”  

The actual myth should read "increasing exercise alone would lead to significant and lasting weight loss."  Exercise is really good.  It gets the blood pumping, which is good for the heart, and good for the bones and good for the brain.  It even helps reduce the chance of getting certain diseases.  But no one can increase exercise while maintaining the same diet and lose much weight.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.  Programs led by the NFL and the First Lady are not going to impact the childhood obesity epidemic unless diets change also.  We could all start running marathons and it wouldn’t help.

The second myth – There’s been no global warming since 1998.  They present several charts and graphs to point out that the temperature has increased over that period.  There have been ups and downs – not unusual for a small data set, in this case less than 20 annual observations.  These ups and downs have led some to doubt whether the warming has persisted.  But the temperature has been increasing for the last 400 years, so the fact that we have not had a dramatic flattening or change of direction should surprise no one.

This myth misses the key questions about climate change.  Warming is not the issue.  The major questions are: first, whether actions prescribed will have any measurable effect on the warming, and second, whether the change in climate will be catastrophic.  The assumed answer to both these questions is yes.  But the large consensus about warming does not extend to these assumptions.  The danger is that if the answer to either is no, we have wasted a lot of resources, resources that will be needed to adapt to a catastrophic change if it comes or resources that will be completely wasted.  In the latter case we will have sacrificed some our standard of living and deprived third-world countries of the ability to improve theirs significantly for nothing.  Of course none of that matters because debate is closed.

The third myth - Antibiotics cure colds.  This is simple.  Antibiotics kill bacteria.  Viruses cause colds.  Bacteria and viruses are not the same.  But people take antibiotics and the cold goes away.  People also take vitamin C, Echinacea, zinc and other products and the cold goes away.  Then they all swear by the effectiveness of whatever they tried.  Of course, some people take nothing and the cold goes away.

The particular danger with antibiotics is that “the more we take antibiotics – particularly when they're not necessary – the more we increase the chances of helping develop antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”  A second concern is that they can wipe out good bacteria in our guts.  A third problem is that it’s a waste of money.

Some good, easy resolutions would be to drop the idea that exercise alone will be an effective weight loss program, to admit the earth is warming but not to panic over every dismal prediction, knowing that dismal predictions drive so much funding, and to lay off the antibiotics unless prescribed for a bacterial infection.

Come back Monday for a few more easy resolutions.

Facemasks and Climate Change

According to many, facemasks have become political. There is a little indication that the difference of opinion between wearing and not wearing a face covering divides along party lines, but the real similarity to politics is that most people have made up their minds and will try to badger the other side into compliance. Some suggest a federal mandate.

Today doctors state that wearing a facemask is the right thing to do, but going back only a few months expert opinion was the opposite.

Here is an explanation I read last week on the fivethirtyeight site. “The data that existed on mask effectiveness largely dealt with medical respirators and surgical masks. It wasn’t clear how protective a cloth mask would be.” 

Initially the experts thought “wearing masks might lead people to feel more safe than they actually were – and make choices that increased their risk of contracting or transmitting COVID-19.” The change in stance came “not because the evidence has significantly improved,” but because a sentiment spread that to wear one expressed caring about other people. The switch on mask wearing was based not on science but on a shift of the assumption about the perceived psychological effect – overconfidence vs. awareness. “Behavioral norms also matter, regardless of how much evidence backs them up.”

But once the behavioral norms machine starts moving, everything else including common courtesy and tolerance toward differing opinions go by the way side.” Most service workers where I shop wear a mask. Some don’t, but they practice social distancing; in my state/county it’s still a personal choice. A niece working in retail reports that wearing her mask all day at work gets extremely uncomfortable, but if she takes it off, customers will pull down their own masks to yell in her face how inconsiderate she is.

From the above article: “a public health and disease expert who is worried that mask effectiveness is being over-hyped, has also found himself threatened and harassed” by email and on social media for merely expressing doubt about “how effective DIY cloth masks are.” 

This passionate and aggressive defense of opinion and unwillingness to consider alternative ideas came to mind as I read the next article in Wired.

A potential solution to slowing and possibly solving climate change could be on the horizon. A couple of companies are teaming with the Department of Energy to develop an idea that has been around for a while, but was formerly too cost prohibitive, tristructural isotropic (Triso) fuel. It is made by sealing small particles of a mixture of low enriched uranium and oxygen inside a protective shell. The fuel can be used to power small nuclear reactors. “Not only will these reactors be smaller and more efficient than current nuclear power plants, but their designers claim they’ll be virtually meltdown-proof,” as the particle can withstand temperatures far above the limit beyond which the reactor will automatically shut down.

Nuclear is by far the best solution to carbon-free power generation. It is more efficient and has a much smaller ecological footprint than wind and solar. And, Forbes reminds us, “Study after study in top scientific journals find that nuclear power plants are far and away the safest way to make reliable electricity.” And with the danger of meltdown eliminated, “rather than needing to have miles of open space around a reactor, future plants running on triso fuel could be situated close to their users.” NASA is considering it for nuclear powered spacecraft. 

This could be a dream come true with houses, factories and refueling stations for electric cars powered by meltdown-proof, non-polluting reactors. But in the blink of an eye, opponents will dub it the nightmare of the future with dire warnings of radiation poisoning and other terrifying predictions, accusing proponents of putting profit above caring for others. Can we count on the American public to consider the science before flying into a panic?

Will “behavior norms” quickly develop and, like the Germans who thought it was smart to phase out their nuclear power program in favor of dependency on coal and Russian oil and gas, will Americans likely reject it, harassing defenders and voting out politicians. Based on other behavioral evidence, that’s my fear. 

Flashback - A Real Climate Solution

[In November 2013 I posted this calm look at how nuclear power could be the key to reducing carbon emissions. Last month the powers-that-be met in Madrid to agonize over climate change and again nuclear didn't make the agenda. In fact some countries are cutting back on their nuclear programs to satisfy ill-informed public opinion. I was optimistic 6 years ago, but am less so today.]

The very idea of nuclear power gives people chills of terror. For many the words nuclear and radiation elicit an automatic reaction of panic, but be aware that it’s a feeling they may have to get over very soon.

Reasons behind the fear are many and varied. This NY Times article explains how a problem as far away as Japan can seem scarier to Americans than much less remote and more dangerous threats like smoking, radon, auto accidents or natural disasters. Radiation is difficult to understand, complex and potentially deadly. It’s not only associated with bombs and war but it’s also invisible – so you can’t see it coming. Radiation is uncontrollable – how do you turn it off? – and unfamiliar, unlike burning wood or coal or turning a generator with wind or water. Finally, nuclear energy and radiation have had terrible PR. People are influenced by movies and science fiction stories to the point that in a recent survey on perceived risks for 30 activities and technologies, “students and women's group rated nuclear power No. 1. The experts ranked it No. 20.”

Since the UN came out just days ago with a report that the atmospheric CO₂ level has reached a record, even higher than expected, this automatic negative reaction will soon meet head on with a great deal of pro-nuclear effort as they look for alternatives to coal generation of electricity.

Popular alternatives, wind and solar, have serious drawbacks. They have a large geographic footprint, an ecological concern, while people who generally favor the idea, oppose it being set up next door. Renewable sources vary, only available when there is sunlight or sufficient wind. Variability creates more problems than normally expected. Not only do they require another reliable source to fill the gaps, but that source must also be very flexible. This Economist article tells how the wholesale price of electricity in Germany actually went negative one bright and windy day in June, because of the unusually high supply, which also threatened to overload the grid due to the inability to quickly and efficiently flex their coal, gas and nuclear plants. In places where utilities are required to buy the solar- and wind-generated electricity first, the variability is built into the system, utilities are losing value and profits, so the money for future investments in the delivery systems, the wires to your house, is drying up.

Given those circumstances and despite real drawbacks, like cost, spent fuel disposal and one recent atypical disaster, nuclear is beginning to look more and more attractive as a non-polluting alternative. James Hansen, a former NASA official, and one of the early voices warning of climate change, has recently endorsed it and asked key environmentalists to use their influence in favor of more nuclear plants. Others argue that, despite scary news reports, nuclear power has a very good safety record and has caused less than a dozen deaths from radiation over its entire history. They estimate that 1.8 million pollution-related deaths have been prevented by the current use of nuclear power. They minimize the threat of terrorism and argue that 21^st century technology is far superior to that used in any operating plant in the US. (Many of the latest navy ships are nuclear powered.)

Any decisions like this will have a political component. The push in favor is building, but advocates with the opposite agenda will be working hard to influence public opinion. Times like this call for strong critical thinking. Oppose nuclear power, if you are so inclined, based on facts from reliable sources and not on emotion, gut reaction or pseudo-scientific warnings. It’s critical that we get it right.

Food Labeling

It’s interesting how many food items are being relabeled to take advantage of all the misinformation in the news and on social media. They label food as containing no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). That simply means it contains sugar instead.  One is no better or worse for you than the other. If something is labeled as containing no sugar, it’s likely to contain an artificial sweetener. There are all kinds of rumors about how dangerous artificial sweeteners are. Some are labeled as no sugar added, but may have more natural sugar than a comparable product without the label. Everyone should easily be able to figure out that these special labels make little difference to the actual wholesomeness of the food. So why do the food companies make such an effort?

Apparently, it’s because most people don’t go to the trouble to figure this out.  The labels are shortcuts allowing them to follow their superstition of choice – yes, superstition. They are no different than the Salem Witch Trials except no one is killed, but they use the same tactics of mass hysteria.  Someone or some group pick up the chant of avoiding sugar or HFCS or artificial anything or GMOs or gluten (for most healthy people) and people choose to ignore evidence and climb on board the Superstition Express. 

One of the worst cases is the anti-GMO movement. The unreasonable opposition to GMOs starves people and adds to climate change. The promise of increased yields from smaller fields along with reduced reliance on pesticides and fertilizers supports the effort to reduce greenhouse gases and should be embraced by anyone concerned about climate change, but they pick and choose their cause. Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University, calls the stance against GMOs both anti-science and immoral emphasizing the absence of evidence that these products have hurt anyone or have been a detriment to the environment –“no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.” It’s a distraction and political football that keeps good food from hungry people in less-developed countries.

The typical reaction is referred to in this article as the “healthy halo.” Food companies have found that certain labels elicit a positive response, regardless of logic, making consumers more likely to buy and more likely to pay more. To test this, researchers from Cornell University asked 115 shoppers to give their opinions of the value of snack foods based only on their labels. “People thought foods labeled ‘organic’ were more nutritious, lower in fat, and higher in fiber than the ‘regular’ foods, and were willing to pay up to 23.4 percent more for the food labeled as organic.” The difference was in the labels only: all the study participants were eating the same foods. The ink is cheap and the ability to increase the price by over 20 percent merely by adding one word to the label would be a marketing homerun for any company! And millions of superstitious Americans let them get away with it.

The manufacturers don’t care. And if it gives them an advantage in the market, they will even endorse any error or misconception their customers may have. It’s really sad.

Flashback - Unbelievable Numbers?

[Almost a year ago I wrote about the statistics that politicians, pundits and experts spread without any support. They are repeated to the point where everyone accepts them as gospel, and no one bothers to check. It happens often. These are just a few that I highlighted at the time.]

Politicians and other entities trying to raise awareness to one or another kind of problem or injustice love to toss out surprising numbers to gain support for their cause. In many cases these are not real numbers. They could be based on data collected by the program itself with no effort to be unbiased, in fact, the more shocking the better. They may have been based on a single survey that made no effort to confirm results, and may directly conflict with the results of similar surveys. Like the unverified number of discarded plastic straws that was really based on a small survey for a grade-school project that led to such an uproar, the numbers are often repeated so many times by so many people that everyone assumes they are correct. 

With so many examples, how can we tell what to believe?

Everyone knows that ten thousand steps per day is the recommended amount to stay healthy and to boost longevity – or do they? This NPR piece tells us “the idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day for health goes back decades to a marketing campaign launched in Japan to promote a pedometer” and is not some kind of magic number. In a recent study published in JAMA, older women who averaged 4,400 steps per day were better off than those taking only 2,700, with little or no benefit over about 7,500 steps. This finding was confirmed elsewhere.

The myth of 10,000 daily steps is akin to 8 glasses of water daily. There is no basis. Someone made it up. The best advice, to drink when you are thirsty, continues to be drowned out by the “hydration parrots” who swear by 64 ounces.

Other examples include the unacceptably high number of school shootings. The Campus Safety Magazine puts the number for 2018 at 82, “the highest there have ever been since 1970.” They mention that the second highest was 59 in 2006, so it can hardly be called a trend, perhaps more of a blip. They then state that the majority didn’t happen on school property – indicating a rather loose definition of school shooting. Compare that to the Wikipedia list of each occurrence by location with a total of only 36 for the same year.

A Time article calls into question the widely circulated number of one in five women in the US having been raped. They call that number misleading noting “the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police).” This article provides much detail and there is room for doubt (as I pointed out earlier), yet we continue to hear the same number.

Of course everyone also knows that crime and teen pregnancy are worse than ever – not so fast! “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.” Here is a link to that Pew survey from earlier this year showing several graphs on violent and property crimes all heading in the right direction, although you’d never know it from the news coverage. That explains why the public perception is the opposite. Likewise a site called the Seeker reports, “the fact is that teen pregnancy is low and has been dropping.”

Can the recent increase in tornados be attributed to Climate Change? This article from a Carbon Brief posting calls it highly uncertain – with references to the data. “What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades,” adding: “Any role for climate change in affecting the conditions for tornado formation is still very much an open question and the subject of ongoing research by the scientific community.”

Finally, are there more black men in prison in the US than in colleges and universities? It’s a handy throwaway line for a speech emphasizing victimhood, but I picked that one apart very nicely about 5 years ago.

We can’t rely on the orators, advocates, media and advertisers to get it right. Use critical thinking. Question everything.

Ethanol Does Pollute

I recently attended a lecture by a college professor about the dangers of climate change.  During the presentation he praised the mechanic of the university airplane for converting it to use ethanol-based fuel.  (He uses this airplane to fly to Alaska and back for his research.)  Since the thrust of his presentation was reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, it seemed strange that he should commend a switch to ethanol which is a hydrocarbon and also emits CO2 when burned.  Using ethanol is about reducing dependence on foreign oil, not reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

This may come as a surprise to some, but in this black-and-white world of environmental slogans many are led to believe that ethanol = good and gasoline = bad, as this presenter implied.  After reviewing a number of sources, I found the below table on CO2 emissions and the energy per gallon for various substances.  There is a more detailed explanation on the source website.  The conclusion is that ethanol emits less CO2 per gallon, but also produces less energy per gallon.  When you go through the calculations, it comes out that it emits at least 95% of CO2 as gasoline for an equivalent amount of energy to power your car or this airplane.  Ethanol is not really a “cleaner” fuel in terms of CO2 for climate change modeling.

Now consider how much land area an oil well takes up compared to a cornfield and that use of gasoline does not affect the food supply.  Is this another instance where we have not applied sufficient critical thinking before promoting a politically correct solution?

How Can You Believe Those Numbers?

Politicians and other entities trying to raise awareness to one or another kind of problem or injustice love to toss out surprising numbers to gain support for their cause. In many cases these are not real numbers. They could be based on data collected by the program itself with no effort to be unbiased, in fact, the more shocking the better. They may have been based on a single survey that made no effort to confirm results, or they may be in conflict with the results of similar surveys. Like the unverified number of discarded plastic straws based on a small survey for a grade-school project that led to such an uproar, the numbers are often repeated so many times by so many people that everyone assumes they are correct. 

With so many examples, how can we tell what to believe?

Everyone knows that ten thousand steps per day is the recommended amount to stay healthy and to boost longevity – or do they? This NPR piece tells us “the idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day for health goes back decades to a marketing campaign launched in Japan to promote a pedometer” and is not some kind of magic number. In a recent study published in JAMA, older women who averaged 4,400 steps per day were better off than those taking only 2,700, with little or no benefit over about 7,500 steps. This finding was confirmed elsewhere.

The myth of 10,000 daily steps is akin to the 8 glasses of water daily. There is no basis. Someone made it up. The best advice, to drink when you are thirsty, continues to be drowned out by the “hydration parrots.”

Other examples include the unacceptably high number of school shootings. The Campus Safety Magazine puts the number for 2018 at 82, “the highest there have ever been since 1970.” They mention that the second highest was 59 in 2006, so it can hardly be called a trend, perhaps more of a blip. They then state that the majority didn’t happen on school property – indicating a rather loose definition of school shooting. Compare that to the Wikipedia list of each occurrence by location with a total of only 36 for the entire year.

A Time article calls into question the widely circulated number of one in five women in the US having been raped. They call that number misleading noting “the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police).” This article provides much detail and there is room for doubt (as I pointed out earlier), yet we continue to hear the same number.

Of course everyone also knows that crime and teen pregnancy are worse than ever – not so fast! “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.” Here is a link to that Pew survey from earlier this year showing several graphs on violent and property crimes all heading in the right direction, although you’d never know it from the news coverage. That explains why the public perception is the opposite. Likewise a site called the Seeker reports  “the fact is that teen pregnancy is low and has been dropping.”

Can the recent increase in tornados be attributed to Climate Change? This article from a Carbon Brief posting calls it highly uncertain – with references to the data. “What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades,” adding: “Any role for climate change in affecting the conditions for tornado formation is still very much an open question and the subject of ongoing research by the scientific community.”

Finally, are there more black men in prison in the US than in colleges and universities? It’s a handy throwaway line for a speech emphasizing victimhood, but I picked that one apart very nicely about 5 years ago.

We can’t rely on the orators, advocates, media and advertisers to get it right. Use critical thinking. Question everything.