The Freezing Thaw

No one really knows if the debate on "Global Warming" will ever cease. My guess is that it won't as climate change is a constant ongoing process, not some odd phenomenon that began back in the 1970's. There are many problems with the various debate within "Global Warming" but I'll just stick to a few.

The first is that it should not be called "Global Warming." While the planet is increasing in temperature in general, there are many flukes that occur with the climate. Some areas are getting more rain than usual, some are getting significantly less. Some areas have a later snowfall than usual, while others receive an inexplicable amount. (Take for example the snowfall on the Northeastern part of the U.S. for about a week in February.) The title of "Global Warming" does nothing more than confuse old people and Republicans.

The second is that Humans have this unrelenting urge to classify everything into sections, chapters, classes, sects, etc. Most people are debating whether climate change is a man made disaster, or a natural process of the earth. I say it's both. As I stated earlier, the Earth's climate constantly changes and the trend does seem to be going to a warmer temperature. Taking that into account and looking at the history of the Earth's temperature for the past few millennia, the Earth is still at a fairly cool phase. In fact, depending on how far you want to stretch those sections we like to divide everything into, we are still in an ice age. Sounds absurd, I know, but right now the Earth has two polar ice caps and that is a rare moment in the last 4.5 billion years of Earth's history. Keeping all of this in mind, (while sounding like I don't believe in climate change) I certainly don't think the millions of pounds of Carbon Dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is exactly a great idea. Let alone the cutting down of trees or the spoilage of our water systems.

But let's also keep in mind there is a lot about this planet that we don't know. When the Earth is mostly covered in ice, a lot of the sunlight is reflected back off the planet and is fairly useless in helping to warm the Earth. If this is the case, and most of the Earth is covered in ice, how does the planet warm back up to the state we are at now?

In addition, when the planet is at a state like it is now, and has been before, the oceans absorb the suns rays, thereby warming the ocean and melting the ice. If there have been points when no ice caps covered the poles and mostly water covering the planet, then how does the planet cool back down to an ice age like the last one we had (and still are in now) 10,000 years ago?

Regardless of the fact that the climate is changing or why, the real issue is what do we do when it comes to a point of displacing people? The Himalayan glaciers are retreating. Those glaciers are the source points for the Indus, Yangtze, Yellow and other major rivers. These rivers support half of the world's population. If those rivers run dry, do we cram 3 billion people into other parts of the world, or do they die? Perhaps those are the questions we should be asking.

An Enigmatic Existence

Thank you to those of you who added comments to my previous post. I enjoy a good dialogue and they've even made me change my mind a time or two.

I was pondering the other day about holding the position of an anesthesiologist and what exactly that entails. Not exactly what one does, but more what it's like and I wonder if it's a do nothing job mostly. Sure you have to knock people out before surgery and know how much to give them, but besides that is there anything else? Does an anesthesiologist ever get angry at a doctor because the patient woke up in mid surgery because the doctor got some specifications wrong, or worse, didn't get them to the anesthesiologist in time? Does a surgeon ever get angry at an anesthesiologist because his patient woke up? And is there any room for upward movement from that position? Does anyone ever look at an anesthesiologist and say "That guy sure knows how to gas people! One day he'll be chief of surgery!"

These are the ramblings that occupy my brain.

I have to say a few things about "Avatar" before the Academy Awards, and I may be the first to say such things. All things considered, I give "Avatar" a B-. I have to say I was expecting more. If you've read my previous posts, you'll see I practically loved all of Cameron's movies before "Avatar." But for me, "Avatar" is missing something, and I call that character development. This is one of three elements to me that makes a good story, the other two being story line and dialogue. Of Cameron's previous films I enjoy, those films have at least two of the three, if not all three. This movie barely focused on any one of those three elements. The story was basic. Save the trees? Seriously? We've all seen this before and personally I'm beginning to get tired of it. Dialogue was standard, nothing phenomenal, which that alone is not why I was disappointed in "Avatar." Character Development: NONE. You had two sides, save the trees, and kill everything. That was it. Sigourney Weaver's character barely had a hint of development. Perhaps there was more to her character, but if there was any, it blended into the whole save the trees plot.

Was the movie visually spectacular? Absolutely, yes it was. But I don't care about effects. All Cameron did was make an average film look really cool. It's like putting marshmallows on crummy hot chocolate, but somehow a four year old kid will find it delicious.

I've heard the new "Star Trek" movie had a basic plot. I agree, it did. However each of the characters in that film were so well played and developed, that the story was supporting the characters in this case, as opposed to the other way around. In addition, most of us have seen what happens when a Star Trek plot gets too complicated; we get lost and the film gets bad reviews. For kicking off an old franchise to a new audience, I agree with the simplicity method.

Hang in there, you've only got the rest of your life left.