My Grandma can Win a Republican Primary

After three republican primaries there is only one thing certain about the republican nominee, it can be anybody. Iowa went to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Wyoming, to Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and recently New Hampshire to Arizona Senator John McCain. With the quote "Big" primaries completed, there is no front runner or even two candidates emerging from the pack of hopefuls. Unlike the Dems that have Obama and Hilary making each state a two horse race, the Republicans have four or more nominees that are still alive in the early going. Of course, just like Huckabee's dramatic and quick rise to popularity, so to can a candidate make enormous strides and become the frontrunner. One question arises from these results of these primaries is whether or not this is going to hurt the Republican party come November. While many people are becoming familiar with either Obama and Clinton, there are so many presidential hopefuls in the Republican party that it may become hard to unite after the end of the convention. Only time will tell whether or not the campaigning will help or hurt the Republicans

Some Views on Assited Reproductive Technology

The Catholic Church is one of the few religious organizations that have a judgment on ART. The Catholic Church does not fully condemn the practice of ART but rather certain procedures. Church officials feel that fertility drugs and diet and lifestyle changes are not violating any religious doctrines because they are simply improving a woman’s health in order to conceive. The use of fertility drugs in this case, according to the church, is the equivalent of taking medication for diseases similarly to hormonal use of insulin with diabetes and thyroid replacement therapy with a medication called Synthroid. The Pope categorizes other forms of ART into two types; one is referred to as Homologous and the other is Heterologous. Homologous ensures that the process will use the sperm and egg of the husband and wife. Heterologous uses a third party for either egg or sperm donation. Both of these categories apply to IVF. The Catholic Church condones the use of IVF because the procedure removes the intimacy and unity that a married couple shares with intercourse. The Church does not support a Homologous procedure and finds objectionable cause with the Heterologous method. Strikingly however, the child that results from an IVF procedure still has the privileges and dignity as a member of the Catholic Church. The Church believes that life begins at the moment of conception.

While the concept of Assisted Reproductive Technology, helping couples in order to get pregnant, seems to be the quote “right thing to do,” there have been many ethical dilemmas that have been brought up by this subject. One ethical issue is whether or not it is man’s duty to create life. There are many philosophical systems that can address such questions regarding ART. The two main philosophical categories are Consequentialist and Non Consequentialist.

Two Consequentialist viewpoints are utilitarian and egoist. The utilitarian philosophy means “the greatest good to the greatest number.” If looking at ART through a utilitarian lens, one could support the science of reproductive health considering it is helping many couples conceive which can be considered “good.” A utilitarian could disagree just as easily by saying that there is overpopulation in the world and creating more life would not be “good.” An egoist, unlike a utilitarian, reflects on his own self interests to react to a problem. The egoist would scrutinize the issues of ART and decide whether or not those actions are going to affect what he is going to do. An egoist would not have a problem with ART because infertile egoists would be able to pursue such technologies by their choice. It would not interfere with a healthy egoist’s lifestyle.

Respect for persons and natural law are two sub categories of the non consequentialist philosophy. The respect for persons doctrine is reminiscent of the “golden rule” which is do onto others as you would want them to do onto you. Apply the respect for person ethic system to ART, one would find that it would be morally permissible. If the person who is healthy considers him or herself to be infertile he should have the opportunities to pursue what he needs. The natural law theory states that there are certain laws that have been created by nature. A person who believes in natural law may not think that ART such as IVF is permissible considering it is not natural form of pregnancy.

ART has become an integral part of modern society and will continue to grow. Many infertile couples are turning to ART as a means to have a child. As the technology advances, ART procedures will also become less expensive and open to more people. Parents will also be able to choose what type of child they want with the advances in ART. With such advances like choosing what kind of child a parent wants, will cause additional ethical issues for the public to debate. One issue that has become prevalent since the completion of the Genome project is the types of testing that can be done on embryos. While many genetic diseases can be investigated from such testing, is it the right for parent to know what their child has? Another question that is raised is it ethical to destroy that embryo if it has a certain genetic defect. As ART progresses, many other questions are going to be addressed. One problem is that as ART progresses, many features can be chosen for your child such as hair, gender, height and more. Where can people draw the line between developing a healthy baby in contrast to developing a perfect child?

Global Warming or Hot Air?

Picture this if you will: An expedition in the arctic almost turns deadly when a large chunk of ice collapses and at the same time in a different part of the world, a large wall of water descends submerging New York City. A group survives the tsunami like wave and finds refuge in a public library. The temperature begins to drop drastically and the survivors must burn books in order to stay warm. Around the world, huge hurricane-like snow storms ravage the earth with huge gusts of wind and an instantly freezing eye of the storm. While many people may think I am talking about the future of global warming, I am in fact talking about the Hollywood Movie, “The Day After Tomorrow.” Movies like this one are trying to frighten the American public into thinking that this could actually happen. Although there has been a rise in the temperature of the earth, it is not caused by humans. Many people who do not know much about the earth’s climate trust climatologists to correctly predict future weather patterns. The problem with this philosophy is that there are many occasions where these meteorologist and climatologists give artificial predictions. Taking a look back into history and one will find evidence to support the claim that the earth has gone through several temperature overtime. The extent to which humans can alter the climate is another problem with the global warming theory. Animals and humans alike have inhabited the earth for millions of years and dispersing carbon dioxide with respiration without problem so why is carbon dioxide therefore considered pollution?

While there are many climatologically experts saying that man is the cause of the rise in temperature, there are just as many scientists that are saying it is not true. The top expert of climate at NASA, who is strong supporter of global warming, believed in “global cooling” 30 years ago and thought man was heading into another ice age.[1] Some of the most respected men in the field of science such as Cesare Emiliani, who is considered to be one of the best geologists of the twentieth century, stated that, "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps."[2] A council of glacial-epoch experts also stated in 1972 that, “"the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near."[3] Climatologists and weatherman both try to predict future weather patterns, but are they always correct? How many times have people prepared for the snowstorm of the century to only find out the next morning only few inches on the ground? Man can’t always accurately predict day to day weather, why should we accept long range models? Another problem with computer models is that they don’t necessarily give real world scenarios. There are other studies in the field of global warming and some of the results do not support a rise in global temperatures. Recently, US satellite figures have shown that the temperature has been falling since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level. [4] Roger Pielke, a veteran climate meteorologist, suggested that some changes in temperature are regional. Using the Arctic Sea ice as an example, Pielke states that, “the global average anomaly is +0.22C after being as high recently as +.51C in January. Thus, it is regional warming, not ‘global warming’ that appears to be the reason for this melting. Indeed, if it were global warming, we should see a similar reduction in Antarctic sea ice coverage, which, however, is not occurring. A recent study by Peter Doran, Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, suggests that though Arctic sea ice has been melting, the Antarctic temperatures have decreased over a 14 year period by .7C.[5] This finding also demonstrates that even though ice is melting on one pole, the other is gaining it. The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has also expressed doubts about human induced global warming, calling the theory, “"the greatest scam in history."[6] Another argument that is utilized by global warming enthusiasts is the increased intensity of weather throughout the last couple of years. This argument was especially prevalent when hurricane Katrina inflicted so much damage in New Orleans. Scientists figured that global warming was one of the reasons behind such a large natural disaster (though much of the human suffering could have been avoided but that is another topic for debate) and therefore, meteorologists and climatologist have predicted stronger and stronger hurricanes since 2005. Instead of larger and more destructive hurricanes over the last two years, the number of severe hurricanes has dropped, proving the predictions inaccurate. Max Mayfield, former director of the National Hurricane Center, discusses the inaccurate predictions saying, “The last couple of years have humbled the seasonal hurricane forecasters and pointed out that we have a lot more to learn before we can do accurate seasonal forecasts.”[7] Hurricane forecasters had the chance to correct their predictions mid season this year and even with another opportunity to correct their calculations were proven wrong. This example proves two points about global warming: If experts can’t predict day to day, month to month or season to season, why should we accept long range models? Should we trust computer models whose predictions have never been verified with real world results?

While the future isn’t always clear, history is. Taking a look back into time, we see that the earth has gone through drastic changes. During the “Age of the Dinosaurs”, the earth’s tropical seas temperature rose 6 degrees, which also meant that the land temperature increased even more. Progress forward in time and we see that the earth has also been colder, going through 3 or more ice ages. In fact, one ice age that occurred 850 to 630 million years ago and caused a “Snowball Earth.”[8] This ice age was so severe that the entire earth was covered in permanent ice. The point I am trying to make is that right now the climate may be getting warmer but in the future the opposite affect may be occurring. During the middle ages another ice age occurred, called “The Little Ice Age,” where the earth’s temperature dropped 3-8 degrees C.[9] This slight drop in temperature caused famine, drought, bitterly cold winters and shorter summers. The growing season was shortened and many crops began to fail as a result of this weather. Though this affected the lives of many people throughout the world, the temperatures returned to a more normal range and a population boom occurred. Other theories that rival man made global warming are backed with historical evidence and not computer generated models of the future. Several theories suggest that a rise in temperature may be natural. Some natural causes of global warming include ocean currents, solar activity and cosmic rays. Solar activity has been the most recognized theory of those three and utilizes the concept that solar activity such as solar flares and solar output have increased over the last 60 to 70 years. This increase of activity may be the highest it has been for approximately 8,000 years. This discovery not only gives another feasible explanation to the rise in the earth’s temperature but also suggests that this is not the first time that the earth was this warm. Other studies also suggest that the warming and cooling of the earth is a cyclical event, happening every 1500 years or so. Dennis Avery and Fred Singer, two climate physicist, have published a book chronicling a natural, cyclical change in the earth’s climate. The book entitled, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years, states that it has “compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds and humans have quietly adapted.”[10] Instead of relying on computer models like many global warming experts, Singer relies on evidenced obtained from the earth itself including tree ring data, sea levels, pollen, plankton and astrophysics. Though man global warming experts state that there data on global warming proves that man is the cause in a rise in temperature, there are have been many causes of faulty collection and secrecy. While other scientists have their work published and data available for criticism, climate scientists have not abided by these standards and refuse to provide any data. The Hadley Center at University of East Anglia, who keeps the majority of surface temperature records, repudiated any scientists who wanted to use their data. Additional problems also come from the data collection themselves. A recent survey conducted by Anthony Watts on the quality levels of sitting weathers station in the United States revealed that half did not function properly. Using this data of functioning weather stations from Watts, Stephen McIntyre completed a reconstruction of earth’s temperature history which revealed that the warmest years were 1934 and 1921.[11] Urban heat islands could have also skewed the data, causing incorrect temperature readings. The phenomenon of an “Urban Heat Island” occurs because of the increased heat generated by cities do to many factors including higher population and energy consumption.[12] This factor could have lead to false data to climatologists suggesting that the world was warming.

While many people not of the scientific community believe the “United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” (UNIPCC) there have been other studies published that refute some of their claims as well. One of the reasons why this report issued by the United Nations gained a lot of acceptance is due to the fact that the media portrays the information as being accepted by the whole scientific community. With article headings like IPCC issues stark warning to governments, people who don’t know that much about the earth and climate will tend to believe that humans made global warming. Many scientists have also found flaws with the UN’s IPCC and have published reports refuting their evidence. There have been more than 500 published reports by scientists in total with that number expected to rise.[13] These reports have been published in highly respected journals that include Science and Nature, two of the most respected journals in the world. The Kyoto Accord, a UN sanctioned agreement, is another document that outlines a plan to reduce greenhouse gases. This plan has drawn criticism from many scientists and economists. 15,000 scientists signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol with 2/3 of those scientists having advanced scientific degrees. To put this number into perspective, less than 2000 scientists are members of the UN, which means that 7 times the amount of people on the IPCC signed this petition. Scientists aren’t the only organization of people to protest this agreement. Many of the world’s leading economists have also voiced concerns about the economic impact of the Kyoto Accord, saying that this pact will weaken the economies of the United States and other superpowers. Economists feel that this accord was enacted in order to give developing countries a chance to catch up to such countries like the United States. Plans such as reducing carbon emissions and the Kyoto protocol are not solutions to this problem since developing countries are still allowed to disperse C02 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Agreements like these are not solutions to the problem in rising earth temperatures and in fact, not permanent solution to global warming has been addressed. There are also other flaws in the Kyoto protocol including no solution to other sources of greenhouse emissions such as livestock. Recent studies have found that animals and livestock produce more greenhouse emissions than all of automobiles in the world, which demonstrates that automobiles were never the main cause of a rise in temperatures. Farming and domestication has been prevalent for thousands of years and the earth has been through cooler cycles during that time as well. The other point that I would like to address regards carbon footprint. The American public has been told to reduce their carbon footprint but carbon dioxide emissions are not a big factor in controlling the environment. The atmosphere contains only .03% Carbon Dioxide, 99.97% is made up of other things such as oxygen, nitrogen ect. The earth has always had carbon dioxide in fact, when the earth was formed after the “Big Bang”; the entire atmosphere was carbon dioxide.

In Conclusion, I just wanted to reaffirm my position that right now we don’t know that much about the climate and we should not make a decision regarding regulating global warming. There is just not enough conclusive evidence to support the claim that humans are causing the planet’s warming. There have been numerous examples of scientists accepting theories in modern times that ended up ultimately being untrue. One example would be that many scientists believed that the arctic air mass was the cleanest in the world. There were no arguments about the validity of this theory and many of the computer models had this fact incorporated into their databases. This theory was proven wrong and the opposite was actually true, meaning that arctic air mass was the world’s most contaminated environment. This example here demonstrates that even in modern times with all of the advances in technology, there are still many ways that scientists can have inaccurate hypothesis. An old Chinese proverb states that, “Gold cannot be pure, and people cannot be perfect.” As long as humans make predictions, theories and calculations there will be times where there is error. A slight miscalculation of data could be dangerous to the conclusions of the scientist. The fear with global warming could be grossly miscalculated if climatologists of such organizations such as the IPCC relied on erroneous data. Another fear that has been expressed not by scientists but by economists is about the United States economy. The economy, much like the ecosystem of the earth, is a fragile environment and slight fluctuations can be devastating. Such regulations on industry could weaken the economy, causing a recession. In such a globalized economy, this recession could affect many countries around the world. American businesses could fail and the United States may lose its superpower status. In a time where the dollar is weakening and the housing boom of the late 90s is over, should the government put restrictions that would hurt the economy? In the end, the American public only cares about one type of green, which is money. Right or wrong, if politicians want to remain in their respective offices, causing a recession is a not an effective strategy for securing votes for an upcoming election.

Bibliography

Booker, C. (2007, 11 29). Planet-saving madness. Retrieved 11 29, 2007, from London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

Doran, P. (2005, July 25). Antarctic Cooling? . Retrieved 10 21, 2007, from The University of Illinois at Chicago: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/antarctic_cooling.html

Emiliani, C. (1972). Quaternay Hypsithermals. Retrieved 11 23, 2007, from "The end of the present interglacial": http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/quat_res_1972.html#emiliani

Houts, D. (1998, may 12). More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth. Retrieved november 22, 2007, from Capitalist Magazine: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=50

Hudson Institute. (2007, 09 12). Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis finds hundreds of Scientists Have Publishe Evidence Countering Man Made Global Warming. Retrieved 09 12, 2007, from Earthtimes.org: http://earthtimes.org/articles/printpresstory.php?news=176495

Learning About Heat Islands. (2000, April 27). Retrieved 10 23, 2007, from Heat Island Group: http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/LEARN/

Mandia, S. A. (n.d.). The Little Ice Age in Europe. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

MERZER, M. (2007, November 26). Hurricane predictions miss the mark. Retrieved November 26, 2007, from Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/320606.html

Nikkhah, M. L. (2004, 7 17). The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame. Retrieved 10 10, 2007, from London Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

Pielke, R. (2006, August 21). Can Multi-decadal Temperature Trends from Poorly Sited Locations Be Corrected? Retrieved 10 24, 07, from Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/08/21/can-mulit-decadal-temperature-trends-from-poorly-sited-locations-be-corrected/

Schrag, P. F. (1999, August 8). The Snowball Earth. Retrieved 10 24, 2007, from Harvard : http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html

Shaw, G. (2007, September 9). Impact of Global Warming looms on the Horizon. Retrieved september 9, 2007, from Fairbanks Daily News Miner: http://newsminer.com/wp-content/themes/fdnm/single-print.php?pos

Sheppard, N. (2007, November 7). Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from Newsbusters: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history

Wart, S. (2007, October). Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from The Discovery of Global Warming: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm#N_29_

william. (2005, January 14). The global cooling myth. Retrieved 11 5, 2007, from Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

---

[1] (william, 2005)

[2] (Emiliani, 1972)

[3] (Wart, 2007)

[4] (Booker, 2007)

[5] (Doran, 2005)

[6] (Sheppard, 2007)

[7] (MERZER, 2007)

[8] (Schrag, 1999)

[9] (Mandia)

[10] (Hudson Institute, 2007)

[11] (Pielke, 2006)

[12] (Learning About Heat Islands, 2000)

[13] (Houts, 1998)