Happy New Year, America. And all you other countries, too. This posting introduces a new format for this column; please do excuse the length and plow on though to the end.
Firstly, my apologies. That greeting was quite rude to all you other countries (even the phrasing, “all you other countries” is pejorative and grates my sense of decorum and honor). But, in my defense, I respect the Office of the President of the United States and so conform my international relations with its policies.
Allow me to explain. The sitting President won his terms in the Oval Office by promising to end the imperial aggression of the Bush Dynasty (you are aware Jeb is all but running for 2016?) in Iraq and Afghanistan, specifically, but also the rest of the world generally. The President’s rhetoric in his speeches has the character of ending the neoconservative’s brand of American Exceptionalism, that is, implied superiority, and becoming a more deferential superpower, that is, one that works more in equal partnership with other nation.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, to the dismay of Mr. O’Reilly, and it is the opinion of this column that it is well advised. During Mr. Obama’s term, science has resolutely marched forward in it’s understanding of the natural world.
A small frolic to discuss that science. We are rapidly approaching the inflection point of transforming our atmosphere from one that generally supports the current ratios of pole and glacial ice to one that doesn’t. Europe’s electron smasher, after the Congress ended our bigger, better Texas-based electron smasher in the 90’s, has confirmed that physicist’s Standard Model is indeed the proper theory for sub-atomic laws. These two findings aren’t connected to Mr. O’Reilly, but that is because he views scientific pursuit as literally millions of isolated findings. Hogwash. Science is a cruel tyrant who cares only for experimental proof of mathematically valid theory – internal inconsistencies aren’t possible. Right? Well, not according to Mr. O’Reilly. What’s the dealio? Well, there is a little known study (that I didn’t bookmark and now cannot refind, but please take my word as a gentlemen that is exists and is as I describe it) which elevates cognitive dissonance to the level of national policies. Let’s boogie.
How many people are debating the findings and ramifications of the Higgs Boson? I’m a nerd, to the point of watching the first powering up of CERN’s electron smasher; the answer is nobody. Nobody is debating that the vacuum of space isn’t anymore – there is a field, the Higgs Field, that has a non-zero value in all of the universe. Now, this non-zero value is, to humans, infinitesimally small and can reasonably be zero, so we still perceive space as an empty vacuum. Granted, only nerds care about this, much less wish to explore the meaning of this fundamental change of our conception of reality. And, if we adapt our conception of reality to this or not, it doesn’t much matter for our lives. But, what about the other fundamental change to our conception of reality – global warming?
Mr. O’Reilly wishes to focus on the dissenters to global warming and extrapolate their dissent into a blocking of the majority. Except it’s not really dissenters and majority; it’s science and those who don’t accept science. Sounds mean and judgey, but remember science is a cruel tyrant bent on mathematical description of the natural world (the title of Sir Issac Newton’s treatise is Mathematical Philosophy of the Natural World). Now, here’s the cognitive dissonance: by refusing to accept global warming, in order to stand true to his principles, Mr. O’Reilly would have to reject everything which makes his syndicated talk show on FOX physically possible. Which I find absolutely delectable, given how Mr. O’Reilly claims to be a man of principles. But I digress. Global warming is as much reality as anything else propagated by science inquiry, and our frolic to address cognitive dissonance in science has ended in that there isn’t.
Returning to the Office of the President, I wish to thank him for his fealty to science, and transforming that fealty into 4% GDP growth. My last posting posited that oil was crashed by Mssr Obama and Abdullah to punish Mr. Putin for his thwarting of international law and good order. Recently, Mr. Putin begged Mr. Obama to be his partner, a neat little change of tact which reflects the absolute destruction of the rouble and an ensuring semi-run on Russian banks. So, the Russian bear is being sent into hibernation. Simultaneously, the US is growing at a rate not seen in more than a decade. The domestic news isn’t all good, however. Fracking was leveraged upon expensive oil, and, now that oil isn’t so manically expensive, fracking is getting throttled, hard.
How do these events show Mr. Obama’s fealty to science? Peak oil is to be answered by non-conventional means: Through analysis thereto. TL;DR. There is no long-term viable answer to the accelerating decline of the petroleum. The short-term answer was fracking, which Mssr Obama and Abdullah are signalling the coming demise. This is where Mr. Obama’s fealty to science, as a positive to our lives, enters.
We’ve known since the 70s that serving our energy needs through burning hydrocarbons (coal, petroleum distillate, natural gas) is not viable in even the medium term. Fracking is the major non-conventional solution to the decline of conventional oil, but fracking is less-than-safe (2010 article, 17 Dec 2014 article).
We need a new energy. We need a way to power our modern world without destroying it’s stability. Technology is moving that direction, and it is a good move for the people of this planet, regardless of who runs the greatest country on earth (or one of 207 countries on earth, however you look at it).
Follow Knolan at @LawOfDucats and listen to his full report on this week’s David Dorer Show