Tuesday, 28 February 2012

The Left, Gleick & CAGW...

Outside of an attempt to evaluate the actual scientific evidence itself (see here for a critique of Richard Lindzen's point about uncertainty regarding climate sensitivity), there are two general claims used against the skeptics and in favour of CAGW urgency. The first of these is that there exists a disciplined formation of scientific consensus in favour of AGW. Yet this "consensus" only exists by excluding all other scientists from outside the narrow and self-selecting field of climate science or by denying that other, dissenting scientists, are in fact scientists at all - which leads directly to the second claim that skeptics are not just simply wrong, but are motivated by mere financial greed and/or ideology. Here for example, is what Michael Turton recently said to me in an email exchange:
"...the "scientists" who attack the science are paid hacks and whores.."
What he is saying there is that any scientist who doesn't quite agree with the fit of the phalanx is a whore, i.e. someone who does what they do only for money. Yet as has been pointed out repeatedly, the budget for Heartland is tiny: surely a "whore" would instead go where the real money is, which is in the promotion of CAGW - yes?

Alternatively, so the Left's "interpretation" goes, if scientists skeptical of CAGW are not cynical whores driven purely by financial greed, then they are motivated by ideology. Here is the "No Logo" patron of plain clothes propaganda Naomi Klein in an interview with Andrew Revkin of the New York Times:
"If you really do believe that freedom means governments getting out of the way of corporations (3) and that any regulation leads us down Hayek’s road to serfdom, then climate science is going to be kryptonite to you*. After all, the reality that humans are causing the climate to warm, with potentially catastrophic results (2), really does demand radical government intervention in the market, as well as collective action on an unprecedented scale (1)."
Alright, three points...

(1) Freedom will be the foremost requirement for adapting to, overcoming and alleviating the negative impacts of climate change whether anthropogenic or not. But of course, that is not the situation Klein is envisaging: she - and others like her - are talking about halting climate change. They are not interested in things like clean coal, efficiency gains or driving hybrid cars; no, that sort of thing cannot possibly go anywhere near far enough in reducing greenhouse gases. Klein's people are interested in - in her own words - "collective action on an unprecedented scale". Bear in mind that she is not talking about voluntary collective action, but State directed and enforced collective action. Bear in mind also, that preposterous in proportion though they may have been, previous such attempts at State directed and enforced collective action were very real and were devised (at least initially) with good intentions; the scale of what Klein is talking about is such that the comparison ought not to be dismissed as though it were a cartoon.

(2) There is a basic "lie of omission" to the claim of "potentially catastrophic results" which is that, assuming the predictions of 1 to 3 degrees warming over the next century are correct, then stupendous areas of presently frozen land will become habitable. Assuming this land can eventually be cultivated, then this would be a far-reaching benefit. Does it not rouse suspicion that the Left, typically so fond of arguing for violating people's rights in favour of the "common good", in this instance do not even bother attempting an aggregate cost-benefit calculation? Is there not a parallel between their singular, adamantine insistence upon "catastrophe" and their single-minded persistence in shouting down doubters and critics?

(3) Third point (though it is of the foremost importance): freedom cannot be defined merely by reference to the negative externalities that commercial entities sometimes impose on other people; freedom is not the absence of institutional restraints, it is the essential condition from which they must arise. Law is held in public contempt precisely to the degree that it is imposed in direct violation of the natural rights of the individual.

Where are the people on the Left who even understand this?

***

Reflecting on the whole Peter Gleick episode and the apparent insanity of what he did, I find it disturbing - but not in the obvious sense of a scientist who committed a crime. I find it disturbing that he would apparently believe (a) that the tiny Heartland Institute was largely responsible for public skepticisim of CAGW rather than the monstrous "over-sell" presentation of the science along with its overt politicization by the Left, and (b) that skeptics were really just shills in the pay of Big Oil and that, by stealing documents, he could heroically expose them. The fact that he couldn't - that the truth was that Heartland's funding was pitiful and variously sourced - must have come as a shock, something he was psychologically unprepared for. Hence the forged document. At some point soon after he must have looked up out of the hole he'd dug himself - and decided to stop digging. I could almost have pitied him if only he'd dropped his shovel in silence rather than petulant protest.

What happened to Gleick? Did someone, ahem, "pay" him to stop digging? Did someone "suggest" the sting operation to him in the first place? Whatever... the twisted tapeworm of bias and denial projected by the Left - people like Naomi Klein and Michael Turton - ate this man from the inside out. He's done.

***

*I find it vaguely amusing that Klein would invoke the metapor of "kryptonite"; is this a semi-Freudian slip? Does she imagine herself a Dominatrix with global ambitions, leashing Skepticman to her four-inch heel, in some cheap Channel N remake?

Turton Trifocal

"Skepticism is methodology-driven. If you're not on the side with reliable scientific methodologies, your position is not supported by valid methodology. It can thus only be ideologically driven. As yours is."
Michael Turton to me, by email yesterday.

For now I'll just make three pertinent points, to relieve me of my exasperation before I hit the sack:

1) Those "reliable methodologies" have led climate scientists to make predictions concerning future temperature trends that have turned out to be wrong. Repeatedly wrong.

2) I don't have a "position"; I have an attitude and that is skepticism; I take "positions" on questions of value, not questions of fact. The difference is categorical.

3) The charge of ideological motivation is deeply hypocritical: the Left have long pushed claims of CAGW way beyond the limits which the evidence would warrant precisely because it serves their ideological ends of expanding State power and contracting the freedom of the market.

And this: unlike him, I don't ban people so as to avoid having to debate the merits of the factual basis for CAGW claims (and then lie about it afterwards). He should take note of how John Callender is conducting himself in response to the Gleick story.

***

Additional points:

The Heartland Institute is tiny: its' total funding last year (not just for research on climate science) was less than U.S.$5 million. For comparison, the environmental groups on the "other side" as it were, the Sierra Club, the NRDC and the WWF are funded to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

The Heartland Institute is largely ignored by the mainstream media: although they sent out invitations, they struggled to attract their opponents (apparently including Gleick himself) to attend debates and other events and to get their conferences mentioned in the mainstream press. I myself hadn't heard of them prior to the Peter Gleick scandal.

The Institute's donors do include some fossil fuel companies and the Charles G. Koch foundation, but the funds donated were on the order of a few tens of thousands of dollars (and the Koch donation wasn't even for the work on climate science, it was for their work on healthcare).

Question: how many of the paymasters behind environmental groups and CAGW activists are themselves invested in, or in some other way on the take from, "Big Oil" companies like Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell? My bet would be: all of them.

Steven Hayward at The Weekly Standard:
"Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism."
And down in Australia, Jo Nova reacts to the "ethics debate" Gleick's actions have apparently provoked among climate scientists:
"In this upside down world, Heartland are the ones trying to start a science debate on a shoestring budget, while the establishment scientists, with 10,000 times the funding, debate whether they should steal things instead."

Monday, 27 February 2012

Letter On Peter Gleick Story

Sirs

In the wake of the initial climategate scandal back in 2009, I wrote to the Taipei Times several times to urge you to run at least some coverage of the breaking story. As I recall, you eventually did - but a month late, and pushed to the back of the features section.

Last week, a similar scandal has emerged in which a leading U.S. climate scientist has admitted to committing identity fraud in order to acquire documents from the Heartland Institute. Although those documents revealed personal information about the Institute's donors, they did not cast the Institute in the cartoon image of "Big-Oil-funded right-wing propagandists" so typical of how rank, CAGW activists apparently imagine skeptics to be. Moreover, there is ample reason to believe that one of these documents, the so-called "2012 Climate Strategy" memo, was a forgery; it included the claim that the controversial nature of climate science was a key point in "dissuading teachers from teaching science". Although "anti-science" may be a popular defamatory cartoon with which rank CAGW activists like to portray skeptics, it merely reflects their own discomfort with debate.

To date, the Taipei Times has run only one piece on this story - and that was an AFP piece in which the perpetration of identity fraud was referred to in inverted commas as a "crime". When will the editors of the Taipei Times distance themselves from the hubris of the international Left and realize that people skeptical of the claims of climate scientists are not the "crazy", "anti-science", "lying", "denialists" that rank CAGW activists imagine us to be?

The longer you continue to entertain such febrile and uncritical views in your pages, the greater disservice you give to journalistic virtues.

Cover the story and its' implications for the credibility of climate science.

Yours freely,
Michael Fagan.

(Sent: Monday February 27th 2012).

Sunday, 26 February 2012

"They Are Not Interested In Debate, They Are Interested In Shutting Down Debate..."



I recall, when the first Climategate story broke, my letters to the Taipei Times calling for them to report on the subject... went unpublished.

"Fakegate"

"People with sound science on their side do not need to forge documents to validate their arguments or make the other side look bad."
James Taylor, contributing journo at Forbes. Not only did Gleick commit identity fraud, but somebody (either Gleick himself or someone else) apparently forged documents to try to make the Left's cartoon picture ("Big Oil funded right-wing think tanks") fit the face of the Heartland Institute.

When AGW activists try to claim an equivalence between this case and the "hacking" of emails and data from the University of East Anglia's CRU, they can be knocked back on two points:

First, the "Fakegate" affair is so named because a certain document alleged to have come from Heartland was actually a forgery. In the case of the two Climategate releases, the emails and data were genuine.

Second, where Gleick committed identify fraud in order to obtain other documents from Heartland, nobody yet knows how the CRU emails and data were obtained (there are myriad possibilities due to the complicated nature of modern data storage systems).

So... no equivalence. And no mercy, either: you people richly deserve all the discredit you can get. Except for the league of mental short-arses on Twit-er; you lot weren't even capable of drawing the question marks to begin with.

***

For the record: the Tapei Times' only coverage of this story has been an AFP piece in which Gleick's identity fraud is referred to as a "crime" in inverted commas (but of course!), and in which there is no mention either of the details or of the forged nature of the "2012 Climate Strategy" document.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Attrition

"If those climate alarmists who went after me ... had any honor, they would not just apologize, but feel some guilt for being associated with the religion of climate change..."
Ross Kaminsky at the American Spectator reacts to the news that Peter Gleick, well-known scientist and AGW activist, has admitted to committing identity theft in order to steal documents.

Here is my question: to what, if indeed any, principles of ethical proscription do these people submit? To put it another way: if they could get away with it, is there anything these people would not do to their critics?

On Gleick himself... it should be noted that whilst this episode is certainly not a "tragedy" as the New York Times' Andrew Revkin preposterously supposes, it is however, a shame: Gleick rose to prominence within the broader "climate science community" for his research on water and hydrological basins - a consequential subject entirely appropriate to scientific study. Yet his resort to fraud is, in my view, characteristic of many of those people who have been screaming for the still further expansion of government in the perverse name of caution.

To exemplify that last point about character, I remind readers yet again as to why I am banned at Michael Turton's blog and also of the lie he subsequently told as to the reason why he banned me.

Remember, this is who these people are: the Left, as revealed by their own hand.

Monday, 20 February 2012

Gold Is Cheap

A memory of my little solo rafting exploits at the weekend...


The plan is to go back out onto the water one morning when the sun is out strong; by using a raft, I'll be able to take pictures from angles no one else has taken e.g. from the south-east looking north with the sunlight hitting the dam from behind me. The paddling is good exercise for my lower back too, and if I'm lucky I might get some better shots of that Osprey.

Sunday, 19 February 2012

Where & Why I Divaricate With Conservatives

I am working on other things at the moment, but I want to get this out of my system...
"Why is it we can’t put into our bodies whatever we want?

The simple, straightforward answer is that some substances make one a danger to everyone else."
No. The reason you can't put into your body whatever you want is because so-called "conservatives", for all their pious paeans to freedom, dislocate the point at which positive liberty divaricates with negative liberty: that point is the act of transgression itself, not any preceding propensity.

Example: traffic accidents are caused by bad driving, which, irrespective of whatever ancilliary liabilities may apply (e.g. alcohol consumption, fatigue, poor road training etc) necessarily reflects either moral and/or intellectual failure.

Correctly formed, the ethical question is why you can't put into your body whatever you want whenever you want. But there is a powerful auxiliary to this correction: if you cannot prevent some people from violating or endangering the rights of others by rational persuasion, then you cannot prevent them from doing so by threat of legal punishment.

The criminalization of substance-ingestion is therefore unnecessary for those people who can be persuaded to be mindful of the rights of other people, and an ineffective deterrant against those who do not care about the rights of other people.

Here is the way out, if indeed there is a way out at all: the power of law ought to be brought to bear upon actual crimes (that is, actual infringements of negative liberty), but the task of rationally discouraging the preceding propensities is a task for self-governing citizens; it is most emphatically not a task for law itself.
"... we should take Ron Paul and the radical libertarians at their word..."
To take the conservatives at their word, their infernal "War On Drugs" must be conceived with the appropriate imagery; it is an Ephel Dúath of externalities - towering cartels of professional criminals - behind which the quietly determined accretion of power by Leviathan takes on another, all too often unseen aspect.

The conservatives are responsible for this - not the Left - and for that they should be ashamed. The "debate" about drugs ought to be recognized by conservatives for its great moral and strategic importance in the fight against the Left, but look at them in the comments to that Ricochet post: they can barely bring themselves to do little more than crack jokes about libertarians being "potheads".

You stupid fucking idiots.

Saturday, 18 February 2012

"A Pint Of An Osprey In Flight For The Bar..."

This title, which sounds a bit like a Captain Beefheart lyric, was the result of a funny typo in a text message I sent this afternoon. I was on my way back from Wushantou reservoir where I had earlier snapped this image of an Osprey...


Unfortunately, this motion-blurred shot was the best I could manage at the time; whenever the bird came into sight, either I was stuck with the 18mm or the bird was usually to the west of my position in front of the sun. I will get a better opportunity eventually.

I did however, manage to take this shot...


Hell yes: another crested serpent eagle.

Both of these shots were taken with limited opportunities - I was paddling around furiously on a makeshift raft at the time, so when the birds came into view, I had to stop and move around gingerly lest I tip the thing over.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

"Darkest Of Night, With The Moon Shining Bright..."


Trying to put over a lot of writing in the next few weeks. I completely forgot that yesterday was Valentine's day; that's what happens when you spend your time hanging out with eagles.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Preceptor

Much better pictures today - the blue sky background makes all the difference. Not as sharp as I would like, but as good as I was going to get with my 250mm. The following three images are of one of a pair of crested serpent eagles that own Nanhua Reservoir.



Notice the clipped left wing in this next image below: there might be four or five feathers missing there, presumably the result of a fight or possibly from some sort of accident in bad weather...

Monday, 13 February 2012

2nd GE Prototype

"...as the EM Railgun program prepares for delivery of a second prototype launcher built by General Atomics."
Against the background noise of defense cuts, that's good to hear; surely somebody at Chungshan must have given some thought to an unguided, short range system for point defense against cruise and ballistic missiles.

Sunday, 12 February 2012

蛇鷹


I was out at Nanhua reservoir today taking more pictures for my reservoir essays, and whilst walking back to the road from the dam itself, I caught sight of a very large bird out the corner of my eye: I must have disturbed her because she re-settled in a brisbane tree just a short distance away. My guess would be that either she was just taking a time out from hunting, or she has a nest very close to that spot (which would make sense, since very few people would ever approach the dam structure itself from the western side). Hurrying out the long lens and creeping up as far as I dared go (lest she take off and I lose the opportunity), I took a host of hurried shots whilst holding my breath and trying to keep the lens steady. Then she turned to face me and just lept off the branch - my attempted composure went to shit as I wheeled the camera frantically shooting as much as I could.

However, the images are good enough to allow almost certain identification: she was a crested serpent eagle. Here's another area where I need to work on my camera skills - the images are atrociously blurred, but you can clearly see what a great moment this was...

Saturday, 11 February 2012

Ferguson On Hitchens

"In the event, no hit-obit of any consequence appeared. What he got instead from the world of mainstream journalism was an outpouring of love and praise that was staggering in its dimensions."
Andrew Ferguson in a delayed post on Christopher Hitchens at Commentary magazine. Unlike seemingly most other people, I at least had criticism to make and a question to ask to which I - of course - received no reply.

Friday, 10 February 2012

Scavenging Is Not Salvaging

I said it just over a week ago: it'll be either Santorum or Romney.

My bet: if the Republicans nominate Romney, they lose to Obama in November. If they nominate Santorum, they win. Simple:
  1. Conservatives are very likely still the largest ideological group in the U.S. at >40%; if they stay home in apathy, the Republicans lose.
  2. The commies will all turn out for Obama, but the uncommitted will not.
  3. The so-called "moderates" will break for a clear alternative candidate due to Obama's record.
Romney doesn't have the necessary background to even understand the relevant questions, let alone answer them. Santorum, on the other hand does recognize the questions (though he doesn't give the answers I would).

If Obama is not to enjoy another four years of subversion and havoc, then, for all his faults, Santorum has to win the nomination; Ron Paul is both better and worse, but the aspects in which he is worse mean he cannot win.

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Baihe Reservoir (白河水庫)

Last Saturday afternoon, I drove up to the little reservoir which lies in Tainan County's northeastern Baihe district (白河區). Taking route 172 out of Lioujia (六甲區), through Liuying (柳營區) and Dongshan (東山區) districts, it was only a thirty minute drive. Of the two google maps screenshots to the right, the first shows the location of Baihe reservoir in broader geographical purlieu: to the north is Chiayi City and to the south are Tainan's three major reservoirs (Wushantou [烏山頭], Tseng-wen [曾文] and Nanhua [南化]). The second screenshot brings the outline of Baihe reservoir itself into clear resolution with the border between Tainan and Chiayi Counties clearly demarcated to the north. Notice that this image describes Baihe reservoir almost by cardinal aspects: to the east the reservoir takes on a fractal shape comparable to the fantastic Wushantou reservoir; to the west, the reservoir splits into a more substantial southern pool and a more meagre northern splinter. However that image fails to convey several important facts for the tourist; the first is that public access is limited to the southern end of the reservoir, and the second is the fact that the northern splinter of the reservoir is hidden from tourist view behind several intersecting hillocks clothed in copses of bamboo and deciduous trees. In addition, whereas the tourist can make visual contact with the reservoir only from its' southern tributary river to the western spillway (a distance of perhaps somewhat less than a kilometer), the map clearly describes a body of water approximately two kilometers in length on a south-west - north-east axis; much of the reservoir's north-eastern extent is precluded from view by the presence of river reeds stretching out toward the first foothills of the eastern mountains. Although the public access road to the reservoir affords only a limited perspective, it may be possible to find a small farmer's road to drive up into the nearby foothills to the north-east to look down on the reservoir from above - the view from the mountains themselves will come at the price of distance and is in any case likely to be obscured by haze.

Route 172 (going northward) has only one sign for Baihe reservoir; to mark out the little left turn onto the approach road through the trees and bamboo thickets behind which the reservoir lies some few hundred meters away. Instead, the route is signmarked for the various hot spring resorts of the locally famous Guanzihling (關子嶺) area. Reservoirs and water management infrastructure is, of course, strictly a minority interest which has yet to be capitalized upon, although the grounds of the reservoir do offer some landscape shots. Unlike Baihe reservoir's three larger cousins in Tainan, it must be approached on foot (there is a small car park in the grounds for a trivial fee). The grounds preceding the actual reservoir itself warrant only a cursory description: a car park, some conventional landscaping and two buildings at either end - one to house an office of the Southern Water Resources Agency to the south-east, and one to to the south-west to house a seemingly pointless tourist reception office for the "Siraya National Scenic Area". Heavily advertised and signmarked along all of the major eastern roads throughout Tainan County, the "Siraya National Scenic Area" is the government's attempt to "promote" what remains of the long-since displaced Siraya people (an aboriginal group) for tourism. The broader ethical subject of how the aboriginal people should now be treated today makes me feel sick: I would treat them as individuals, not as "peoples"; I would spurn the pluralized collective noun so often used by the Left. What those people need, individually, is property rights and an institutional architecture in which those rights would be acknowledged and preserved.

After parking, I decided to walk up to the south-eastern building which is closer to the entrance. The path slopes upwards at a slight angle, meaning that the view of the water itself remains only a promise until you actually pass the building and reach the fence: what you then see is a trickle of the southern river below. It is fenced off from the further encroachment of wetland reeds by a wall of sandbags. To the right, the way was barred by trees, so turning to the left I climbed a steep, rough and obviously earthquake-damaged stone staircase up a small, tree-covered hill. I stopped to shoot a small spider spinning its little web among the long since wild vegetation, but other than that there were only birds. At the top of the hill there is an old, abandoned and fenced off building opposite an inviting but likewise abandoned stone pavillion obviously designed for picnics. It's one of those strange little places liable to give me a sense of dejavu. This little hill offers charmingly imperfect, picture-postcard views out over the river toward the hills and mountains in an easterly to north-easterly direction; the electricity pylons provide a strong focus to pivot the beige-brown of the reeds below against the blue-green of the mountains and sky in the background. However, the thickness of the trees at the hill's summit - both bamboo and deciduous - obscures all view of the reservoir to the north west. Since there wasn't much to do there except finish my coffee and get bitten by mosquitos, I headed off down the sloping, north-westerly trail to the other side of the hill. Even whilst walking this slope, the trees were so thick as to obscure the reservoir all the way until I reached the bottom and rounded them. Below is a shot of that heavily canopied hill overlooking the tributary river from the northern end of the reservoir's dam (since this image was taken facing south-east, the mountains on the horizon patrol the boundary with Tseng-wen reservoir [曾文水庫] and Chiayi County's Dapu district [大埔鄉])...


Baihe reservoir itself, although it has a certain scenic charm, is a comparatively trivial body of water; with a storage capacity of just 9.69 million cubic meters (effective: 6.91 million cubic meters), it is approximately one tenth that of Wushantou reservoir to the south, or - to really distend the comparison - it is one sixtieth (yes, 1/60) of Tseng-wen reservoir. Baihe reservoir provides irrigation water to an area of less than 3,000 hectares which is 4.3% of that of Tseng-wen reservoir (曾文水庫) and 4.2% of Wushantou reservoir (烏山頭水庫). It is comparatively tiny. My first impression of the reservoir was immediately distilled as "a glorified pond", though this is partly because the reservoir is deeper than might initially be suspected and partly because, as mentioned, much of the reservoir is obscured by nature. And yet Baihe reservoir boasts a spectacularly steep spillway seemingly out of proportion to the meagre visual span of the reservoir itself - the contrast is intriguing and impossible not to notice. Where that part of the reservoir visible to the public is cloistered in by trees and small hills to the north and south and encumbered by the encroachment of reeds to the east, the spillway from the dam itself roars down some two hundred meters or so into a wide, echoing valley below - one which has recently been quarried out further with the effect of embellshing the contrast. The apparent mismatch however, is not entirely unjustified. Despite the modest circumference of the reservoir as it appears to the public eye, it has a depth guage at the spillway gates of 110 meters, though this depth will be a mere artifice of the reservoir bed's curvature - which I suspect was excavated at the behest of the engineers during the construction of the dam in the early 1960s. Certainly, as the southern tributary river enters the reservoir, surrounded as it is by reeds, the depth is unlikely to be anything more than a few meters and so the topography of the reservoir bed must be strikingly uneven - a few meters of river water flowing almost immediately into a hundred meter ditch just behind the dam's floodgate.


Fitting with the coziness of its picturesque appearance, Baihe reservoir hosts a small flotilla of those ubiquitous, plastic-pipe rafts which the Taiwanese use for fishing. As I was getting ready to leave in fact, two of the locals grabbed one of these things and headed off toward the northern splinter of the reservoir hidden from view behind the tree-claden hillocks. On seeing that, I immediately thought "eutrophication"; in addition to being dammed, the reservoir is constantly exposed to incoming water through two rivers coming down from the mountains, both of which pass through obviously fertile land. Along with Agongdian reservoir, which suffers from a similar problem (a large quantity of mud transferred through its' tributary river), Baihe reservoir is apparently one of five eutrophic reservoirs in Taiwan. There is a pumping tower adjacent to the public walkway onto the dam, but no information whatsoever is provided as to how often this is used (wild guess: once or twice a year) or the condition of the reservoir. The dam itself is only a short walk of a couple of hundred meters across and is not especially impressive, except for its' spillway - as already mentioned above. The lower reaches of the dam are however, covered in vegetation, which is an obvious sign of heavy eutrophication. The only attempt at interpretative signage at the entire site is this small sign which, in addition to mentioning that the reservoir was constructed in 1965 for the dual purpose of irrigation and flood control, is noteworthy for its clumsily overt psychology - like too much make-up or something:
"Stand on the dam and look at the shoreline slopes, the verdant plant cover, the mist that hangs over the water all year, and the surface reflecting an infinite expanse of green, and you will feel yourself lost in a beautiful landscape painting."
Whatever, woman. I don't need you or anyone else to tell me how I will feel. What I would like to have are facts, particularly facts concerning the design and construction of Baihe reservoir and facts concerning the engineers who worked on the reservoir from 1961 until 1965. Did they learn anything from the problems at Agongdian reservoir (阿公店水庫) further to the south in Kaohsiung County? I would also like to know about the reservoir's flood control effectiveness, and facts about its relative state of eutrophication over the years, possible fish stocks and other wildlife.

It's a shame when an information panel does so little to inform but so much to pander to the uninterested. I at least am not uninterested - that is why I went to see Baihe reservoir in the first place.

Sunday, 5 February 2012

The Elision Of Nescience

Here is the very first sentence of today's Timid Times editorial :
"Taiwan faces a rising national deficit and increasing government debt, so it is reasonable that the government proposes new taxes."
Immediately, the alternative of real public spending cuts, is elided. Why is that? It is because the primary cause of the coming fiscal crisis is the insistence on over-inflated State provision of public goods such as education and social welfare - insisted upon by, among others, the editors of the Taipei Times themselves.

Reality check: in last year's NT$1.79 trillion budget, the two largest items were... education (NT$357 billion) and social welfare (NT$347 billion), neither of which need be funded by the State at all. Perhaps, however, the editors pass over the possibility of depolitizing reforms because they would be too painful. Would not real public spending cuts be especially hard?
"Of course, reform is painful and tax reform especially hard."
Of course, what the brave editors of the Timid Times are prepared to "fight for" is yet more coercive fiat imposed by the government, with, in this case, the implementation of yet more taxes to further the metastasis of the very tumour which is causing the fiscal crisis in the first place: over-inflated State provision of public goods.

I note also that this editorial seems to have been precisely cued by Turton's letter last month after the elections. Indeed, there is not a word in it with which he would disagree. I would write to them to protest, but criticism of this nature has long been unwelcome there.

Here is a question: if the Taipei Times shut up shop tommorow, what fucking difference would it make?

Saturday, 4 February 2012

Limelight


It was approaching three in the afternoon and the sun was blaring out a white glare everywhere to the west, so, for the want of filters, I set the shutter speed to somewhere over 1/1000, dropped the F-stop and switched the white balance up to blue-green. The best I could do: the dam for Wushantou reservoir (烏山頭水庫) is just about visible as a thin, dark, horizontal strip in the centre of the image at the horizon.

I drove out there this afternoon to check out the back end of the reservoir, and then off to have a look at Baihe Reservoir (白河水庫) at the north end of the county. There is a little village at the back end of Wushantou which is visible in the distance from the dam itself. It's called "Wangyegong", a very Hoklo-sounding name, and I drove in there on the big bike - which, when I saw the state of the little backroads out there, I realized was something of a mistake. One of the locals kindly ferried me up and down the steep, narrow, knackered little farm roads on the back of a scooter so I could take pictures. What I need to do at some point is go back early in the morning at or before sunrise and try out a few other vantage points to the north and south.

Persistent Pilot Error

Question: is there a "drinking problem" in Taiwan's Air Force Academy? They keep crashing their planes, and the investigators keep putting it down to pilot error. The question has to be asked in order to be eliminated: are they just getting into their planes still half-sloshed from the night before*?

Three different planes in the last three years: AT-3s this year, F-5s last year, T-34s in 2010 - and note that two of these planes are trainers whilst the F-5 is presumably considered a step up toward the F-16s, IDFs and Mirage 2000s. So it's unlikely to be the senior pilots who are misbehaving. Then again... somebody should check up on the number of "incidents" with the F-16s.

*Yes, I've heard rumours that this is what's going on.

On "Neoliberalism"

"I don't trust any label that starts with "neo" and ends in "ism." I'd sell that word short against the Euro."
A good little laugh. Comment #10 by Alan K. Henderson.

Friday, 3 February 2012

Syllogism

Me to Linda Morgan in the comments thread here. I owe the argument to commenter "IanB", formerly of Samizdata...
  • Major premise: violations of the non-aggression principle must be justified by appeal to value.
  • Minor premise: no value can be objectively shown (in the strictest sense*) to be preferable to another.
  • Conclusion: there can thus be no objective grounds for violating the non-aggression principle.
*Hume’s "is-ought gap", which is to say an “ought” statement cannot be directly deduced from an “is” statement without an intermediary “ought” statement.

Update: I've since made a technical correction to the major premise. See comments.

Thursday, 2 February 2012

Wushantou Recursion






Just a few of the pictures I took on a return visit to Wushantou Reservoir (烏山頭水庫) for my upcoming essay. New interpretive panels have been added since I was there last year, though I wouldn't have thought my previous write-up would have had anything to do with that. Most of Taiwan's major reservoirs are here in the south, but at some point I will need to go up north to Sihmen Reservoir (石門水庫) in Taoyuan County and Feitsui Reservoir (翡翠水庫) to the south-east of Taipei County. I should also try to get to the new Hushan reservoir under construction in Yilan County.