Global Warming

The House of Representatives just barely passed a new energy bill, 219-212, that will set mandates for the amount of pollution the US can emit. For the bill to become law, it still needs the Senate to pass a bill, then they need to work out the differences between the two bills so that the language is identical, and then President Obama can sign it into law. The odds of this happening--anytime soon at least--are still somewhat long, but the passage of the bill in one house, and the resulting discussion has pushed global warming to the center of the political discussion. The opponents of the bill--especially the Republicans (none voted for it)--are claiming that the bill will hurt the economy. Not only that, but it will hurt the economy during a depression, all for nothing. According to Republican Representatives, global warming is a hoax; Paul Broun, a Rep from Georgia, claimed that global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by the science community. Really? Really!!!? Massive groups of scientists are secretly plotting to trick the world because they don't like pollution, or even better, they don't like the US and they want to see our economy fail.

They (scientists) are a group of borderline stupid people anyway, considering that all of the benefits and marvels of the modern world surrounding us are here because of science, and they aren't perfect. These scientists try and trick us in various ways, with other crazy ideas like evolution, flu vaccines, AIDS prevention, birth control, and more. We all know that when we use modern medicine, it probably won't work because it's creators are merely guessing at what they think it will do. We drive our cars and fly in airplanes because we think there might be a chance that they won't malfunction (we know that claims made by scientists in these fields are ultimately full of it, hoaxing their way to big money). We've seen the scientific community try and convince us of major hoaxes before. For a decent part of the 20th century, up to the present day, we've battled them as they try and keep intelligent design out of science class. Instead, they want evolution to be the only thing taught, as though there is any truth to this. Well, we're not going to let them do that to us with global warming; they won't dictate our way of life with crazy theories. We didn't evolve, and we sure as hell aren't damaging our planet.

Maybe that caricature is a bit of hyperbole, but in a lot of ways its not. They don't state their defenses like that, but that is what people are really saying when they claim global warming is a hoax. From a common sense standpoint, it seems obvious that pumping toxic chemicals into the air and water is going to do bad things. I don't see how that type of thinking is so outrageous, and when it is backed up by massive amounts of research, it seems like it should be treated the same way we treat scientific theories about human disease. I'm not a scientist, a climatologist, an astronomer, or any other form of expert when it comes to "knowing" anything about global warming. What I am, is someone that believes in the law of probability, someone who puts stock into science, and when large portions of the scientific community say that global warming is irrefutably taking place, I believe them. I know they could be wrong, but the odds of them being right greatly outweigh the odds of their being wrong when I factor in the evidence they sight and their track record, especially their modern track record. People like to point out really old scientific theories and show how wrong they were; that's great, because science continues to add to its database of knowledge and when they are wrong now, its a much smaller degree of wrong that it was 100 years ago.

Passing legislation to start curbing how we destroy our planet seems like a necessary and urgent thing. The Republicans repeatedly talked about the future when President Obama was passing spending legislation; they said it was immoral and unfair to saddle our future generation with the problems this debt will cause (if its debt for crazy military programs that won't ever protect our troops or be used in battle, its okay to spend trillions). We're not talking about a subjective thing when we talk about the future effects of global warming; objectively, the future generation(s) will face enormous difficulties, if not impossibilities, from the problems global warming is and will continue to cause. The problems it is causing our compounding too, getting more and more severe, and even if we stopped polluting in every way today, the effects of our pollution wouldn't stop for years to come.

For those that don't have a specific, or any, religious belief, the idea of Christ coming to save the earth offers no comfort--and this is a perfectly legitimate concern. On the other hand, religious people that are certain Christ is coming to save the earth still have a vague timeline to depend on. Religions of all persuasions have seen their time lines for the 2nd coming come and go, and I'm sure we'll see a lot more of that. Not only can we not rely on Christ coming to save us in time, but we shouldn't rely on that. With a belief that Christ created this earth for us, we should strive more than ever to take care of it while we wait for his return. If our bodies are temples to the point of limiting the number and location of piercings, and tattoos of any kind, then what is the earth? Isn't it worthy of good caretaking? No matter how you look at this scenario, there is no moral or rational argument for continuing to destroy the planet. Worrying about short-term business costs is terribly superficial. For the doubters, wake up. We are destroying our planet, and the only arguments against it our made by those that our being irrational, either because they don't trust science, or because they want to protect business as usual and avoid any short-term profit loss. Those are bad, evil, reasons to continue our destructive behavior. Instead of relying on vague, 2nd hand stories of dissenting opinion in the science community about global warming, learn 1st hand that the worlds leading scientists are in complete consensus about global warming.

Fed Express

I'm not attempting to brag in this blog...okay, I am. While most of the sports world was jumping off the Federer bandwagon like it was on fire, I stayed calm. Granted, most of the sports analysts that were ripping Fed know as much about tennis as I do calculus, but they are the analysts that people see--primarily ESPN. First Take, Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, Mike & Mike in the Morning, and many of the radio shows produced by ESPN; these are the sources of information for most average tennis fans. Listening to this cohort led many to believe that Fed was done--he would never get 14 majors, he wouldn't win the French, he was overrated, etc, etc, etc. Yeah, most of these "experts" had a quick fact sheet in front of them and with a difficulty understanding basic tennis stats, came to crazy conclusions.

What? Wait, I'm confused? Did Federer win his 14th at the French? This caused about half of the "experts" to jump back on the bandwagon, with a few holdouts claiming that the win at the French is tainted because it wasn't against Nadal. What? Nadal lost in the 4th round to the guy Fed beat in straight sets in the Final (he also just beat Soderling in straight sets--ironically, in the 4th round--at Wimbledon). Roger is one win away from his 21st, TWENTY FIRST!!!!!!!, straight semi-final in a major. The old record was 10 by Ivan Lendl; that means that for over 5 years, for every major, Roger has gotten no worse than the Final Four. Out of those 21 semi's, he's got 13 championships, 19 Finals, and the chance to make that 14 wins in 20 tries if things go as planned over the next few days. That is the single greatest streak in all of sports, better than Dimaggio's 56, Ripkens 2000+, or any other streak that is hallowed. Making 20 straight semi's and counting is the greatest record and most impressive aspect of Federer's career; it's the stat that when factored in with everything else makes him the GOAT, hands down. With lots of sports streaks, if a player misses a game or an event, that isn't counted against the player. Roger made one of those semi's (and one of his few losses before a final) while he had Mono. That is absolutely nuts; I've had Mono, and when I did I could hardly make it up the stairs. I'm the biggest Jordan fan on the planet, but this puts the "flu game" to shame, and at least equals Tiger's US Open win on 1 leg. No excuses, no pull outs, no injuries, no ducking, Fed has played every major for over 5 years and won over half of them, made the final in most, and never missed a semi. INSANE.

During the Federer Era, Roger had a 3 year stretch where he went 317-24 and made every major final, winning 9 of 12. That stretch alone would put him in the in the discussion for GOAT. The longest streak of consecutive finals in Tennis history used to be 4; Roger made 12 in a row, lost in a semi with the help of Mono, and now he's made 5 in a row and counting. Not a bad slump--2 majors, the second longest Finals streak in history, with 2 of the 3 finals losses coming in 5 setters to Nadal. That is why I never jumped off the bandwagon. I realized that Fed was simply coming down slightly from his non-human status. He made winning majors and for that matter, every match he played, seem easy and guaranteed. He had a stretch that warped our perceptions of tennis and that warped perception affected a lot of people. When Federer started winning a the rate of say, Pete Sampras, he was considered washed up by the "experts". Nice work ESPN, with your top notch analysts crying wolf, you managed to convince a lot of people that Roger was done. Your crazy, stupid analysis should prevent you from broadcasting the major tournaments, that should go to the tennis channel. Whether Federer wins or loses this Wimbledon doesn't matter. He's still performing at a higher level than everyone else in Tennis, and he's still playing at a higher, more consistent level than anyone has in the history of the game. Wake up and realize that he will get 15 majors--FOR SURE--whether it comes Sunday or not. He's too good and too consistent to not get a couple more majors, at least. He'll probably win 3-5 more in my--and Pete Sampras'--estimation. Anyway, for those of you who don't know much about tennis, take my word for it, Roger Federer has had the most impressive career in Tennis history. That's as far as labels can really go when we're comparing generations, but with that in mind, the greatest career garners the greatest player label--even if that part of it is subjective.