User:Aryeh M. Friedman

Since writing this in 2008 I have changed my opinion on the *FACTS* of global warming (I still criticize the "science" behind it). Specifically actual lab experiments (Katrina, Sandy and many lesser known major storms and there historical unusual tracks, severity and timings) have conclusively proven that at least ***SOME*** of the predictions of global warming they do not imply other ones. The "scientific" community is still using deceptive and counter productive methods here. For example it IPCC 2014 report has essentially given up on prevention and focuses on only mitigating. For reasons explained below and the end of the fictional section SoF this is very stupid before we understand the full causes. One needs to look no farther then the forest fire example SC gives in the appendix of SoF. The deceptive part of this it again minimizes the first world's crime and pushes much of the burden onto the third world who didn't create the problem.

Since I have the good/unlucky skill to often stick my foot in my mouth (even when based on solid facts) this page is meant to set the record straight on what my personal views are on some of the articles I am an editor for.

Professional/Educational Background
I have been playing with/programming professionally/etc. computers and the Internet since I was 11 in 1981. I entered the ranks of professional programmers when I was 19, so that makes it so I have 20 years experience on the dot now. From the very earliest I was interested in the “why” as much the “how” and “what” of computing, which eventually led me to become a fairly well self-educated computer scientist. For a number of personal reasons I have spent the majority of my late 30's getting the "magic" piece of paper that objectively confirms my level of knowledge, namely my PhD. I am planning to pursue Operating Research in my Ph.D. work, including the fundamental assumptions made when we design both the infrastructure and the human interface.

I am the inventor or co-inventor of 5 patentable applied computer science inventions (the code actually works instead of being theoretical only); only 1 of them is on the patent track currently. The main areas of focus are wide area network (e.g. the Internet) suitability and problem resolution dealing with the transport of real time data streams (such as streaming video), application server architecture (with the actual work being used only in web servers currently), end-to-end "optimal" route finding, the effects of loss-only errors on data streams (it is possible to break Shannon's Limit completely in half if you only consider lost data [you either got it correctly or not at all]), and (the one on the patent track) search algorithms that do not have time/space tradeoffs for most practical applications.

In terms of actual positions, I have held the following titles: Sys/NetAdmin, Computer Science Tutor, Research Scientist, Director of R&D (Sr. VP level). If you want to know any more send me e-mail.

State of Fear
I agree with most reviewers that the literary value of the book is highly questionable (from a purely literary standpoint it is one of Michael Crichton's worst showings, and I am a *HUGE* MC fan [except ER]). But it is clear that a main point of the book is not to tell an interesting story (the skill needed to combine the science into a compelling plotline might beyond the ability of any writer), but rather to hold the attention of "Joe Sixpack" long enough so MC can make a very needed (and almost completely misunderstood) presentation of the "facts" behind Global Warming. See the section on Global Warming below and take a very careful read of both the article on State of Fear and the science debate behind it.

While I am slightly more supportive of the "pro" GW camp than MC, the long answer below is essentially same argument he makes, except he does not attempt to detail any sort of solutions. *THIS IS* the point that most people miss in reading the book: MC *DOESN'T* argue that there is no Global Warming and/or that we are the likely cause -- he only questions the "facts" this conclusion is drawn on. He correctly points out that it is a perversion of the science to use it to make policy unless we can actually call it "science". I do not think we can do that for most of the key questions in the GW debate. (By science I mean the result of the process described in the long answer below.)

Global Warming
Since the actual science (or lack thereof) is covered elsewhere I will only state my personal view here. While there is undeniable evidence of a short term warming trend (since roughly the Industrial Revolution) we do not have a good enough picture of what the climate looked like before this time, beyond some very crude indirect measurements. Nor do we have good enough evidence to create computer models that would be accurate enough to clear up the picture (I personally think such models are currently beyond the reach of theoretical computer science even if the climate data and understanding of the climate is complete enough to supply the raw input and model.)

If I were really forced to make a non-scientist-like answer as to whether there is Global Warming and if it is largely caused by human activity, my answer is:

Short Answer: Yes with a very large dose of skepticism

Long Answer (from here to the end of the section): The evidence does point to a minor (and unpredictable) rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution that is at least partially caused by human activity. Additionally the computational complexity of climate modeling is beyond the capabilities of every computer currently made (and likely would need some fundamentally new theoretical computer science to be based on real calculations instead of various computational shortcuts that do not work in all cases). We do not understand the forces that drive the climate nor the effects of human activity sufficiently well to pretend we can "fix" the problem.

This does not mean we should not do anything! It does mean that we need to do more research and once something is established as a "proven fact" (see science debate on SoF for definition) attempt to use that knowledge to take baby steps in our management of the climate (as our knowledge grows the size of these “baby” steps will grow by leaps and bounds). Getting the climate under some sort of control and then managing it should be the “mega project” for the scientific community in the first half of the 21st century (think the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Program). We might (and should) pursue other large projects like colonizing the Moon. Among other things this will teach us what it takes to make a self-sustaining biosphere complete with micro climates and give us a scaled down completely controllable and realistic climate lab for the first time which enables us to actually use the scientific method in its full scope instead of by indirect observation only. Unmanned missions to Mars can only provide us with very limited data; it is like landing in the middle of Hawaii, and then attempting to extrapolate the Earth's climate from that alone. Mars colonization gives us the opportunity to gather very detailed data about why Venus (which is too harsh of an environment to send manned missions to currently) is a run away-greenhouse effect and Mars appears to have become a global freezer, despite the fact both of them have roughly the same amount of $$CO_2$$ the earth does. Thus, by definition it will never be as simple as we are led to believe. To do it right we will need to discover many new concepts/truths/technologies/etc.

This approach has already proven very effective for various environmental issues that are "proven facts" such as that dioxins kill fish or that carbon monoxide emissions from cars are a primary cause of smog and other air pollution. For example we don't hear much about acid rain any more because the problem is largely fixed because we *STUDIED* it then *FIXED* it instead of “fixing” it *THEN* studying it after we f*cked it up. In summary, many of the major names in the environmental movement have forgotten what the scientific method says, which is among other things to be very skeptical of any claim unless proven with physical/experimental evidence that is beyond any doubt. "Industry" (most companies actually should not be in this category) is equally wrong in attempting to deny stuff that is beyond a doubt. Science is not a court of law where whoever has the best argument wins. It is the process whereby we come to understand how the universe works. This process either leads to or does not lead to generally agreed on truths, within the scientific community. The level of critical thinking skills in the general population of the West is so weak that the scientific community should attempt to communicate its findings, but not be surprised if they are completely misinterpreted. For example a few weeks ago I met a young lady who was 100% convinced that “in 20 years Florida will have New York's climate and New York will have Florida's”. The only problem with this statement is not a single person in the global warming debate (either side) has ever suggested this or any outcome that is anywhere near this (i.e. it is complete and total fiction). Sorry, lady, this is not Hollywood and it is not “The Day After Tomorrow”.

See the section on State of Fear, above, to see what I feel the short term and long term non-science effects are of this type of thinking. One very important one, however, needs to be covered here. The Kyoto Protocols, while having very lofty goals, do not allow for the type of experimentation needed to really study the problem before we go screw it up more. Additionally since the only halfway decent climate data we have is from the era of the type of human activity that is the most likely cause of Global Warming, we have yet to establish any sort of good direct correlation between it and the amount GW it causes, i.e. if I add 1 part per billion I will get a .0001 degree fenerhit rise in global temperature. (This is not to say there is none we just don't understand the dynamics well enough to take immediate giant leaps before we have even crawled). Additionally there is good evidence that per-capita Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are down by a statistically significant amount since the signing of the Kyoto Protocols [note that the US (Senate) is the only developed nation to see through all the BS and not ratify Kyoto] (a trend that was already pretty well established before Kyoto). All this adds up to the conclusion that Kyoto locks us into a specific model for attempting to solve the problem when we don't even know what the side effects are. Thus Kyoto is bad policy based on "bad" science and should be redrafted to keep the same general goal (raise the base year to 2000 from 1990, but lower the implementation time from 2050 to 2030 or even 2025) for reasons listed here and elsewhere (namely it gives us a firmer baseline to determine the real effects of GHG's, see debate on SoF Article). Besides if we start down the new goals path right now there will a increase in GHG emissions in the short run because none of the signing developed world countries have anywhere near the technology to even meet this relaxed standard. As a result by the time we reach the goal we should have fairly good data, and most of the foundational work is done as to the complete nature of the effects of GHG's over the short run and much better guess of their long term effects. If the atmosphere did not have some sort of greenhouse effect then we would be living in a permanent ace age. Thus it is critical to find that Goldie Locks zone where we not unnaturally heating the atmosphere but we are not overcorrecting either.

Finally Kyoto also locks the world into a set of nations that were able to grow rich, and thus actually care about the environment, and those that now that the rich nations "care" are forced in to practices that are actually worse on a per-capita basis in GHG production than in the developed world. Wood and oil (pound for pound) produce nearly equivalent amounts of GHG's, but wood is nowhere near as efficient at converting its potential energy into a usable form (the entire progression of our fuel technologies has always lowered the amount used per-capita via efficiency). Thus the per-capita GHG production is higher in the Third World than in the developed world (once GHG's produced in activities that most citizens do not engage in directly). This means it is in our interest to help them become rich as fast as possible, but currently we only know how to do that in a way that will create more (not less) GHG's per-capita than they currently use. There already exist some technologies that are not normally seen as particularly "green" that can actually assist these countries in rapid development in a cleaner way then we did it there technologies they actually are more efficient then the older even more non-green ones. As final bonus the developed world tends to have lower birthrates then the Third World; thus as world wide wealth grows the population will stablilizes and perhaps even start to decrease. This is a win-win for everyone instead of the "We have ours, f*ck you" politically correct version of "the White Man's burden". In short the "nobility of primitive life" that the politically correct crowd likes to idealize *DOES NOT* exist; yes, there will be the inevitable waves of culture/future shock for the areas of the world that have the farthest to go but once it is established you will be hard pressed to find anyone who actually wants to return the "old ways" completely (keep the best aspects of course), the same way Western citizens enjoy the occasional camping/backpacking trip but almost none of would want that type of life to be our everyday life. This is not as hard as it sounds Judaism has done it successfully for over 2,000 in years of exile, violent anti-Semitism and severe pressures to completely get rid of the old ways good or bad. Of course, if the people being effected say they do not want to live in the modern world then we should honor that also. This does not mean we send them all the Sears/Roebuck Catalog and their desire for everything will force them to pick themselves up and work for it. It means we need to invest in these nations (especially their education, food production and infrastructure) and don't make up phony excuses like "cars are too complex for them so give them bikes instead". It means making them self-supporting, then rich as fast as humanly possible. It may even mean that they will have better technical infrastructure than we do because they have no "legacy" systems to replace and/or keep compatibility with. One last note: poor people are more tolerant of oppressive regimes and fanatical movements than rich ones, so it allows the West and the US in particular to accomplish our main goals in the war on terror ("and look good doing it").

The developed world can also benefit from such a willingness to experiment and invest in stuff that works. One of the most amazing things about the modern Western world is it offers absolute proof that when markets are structured properly to be in harmony with the social needs of the population there is no better way to make rapid progress towards some goal (provided it is profitable to do so). In more down to earth terms this means that if we find some way to reward people for doing the right thing in a market-oriented fashion then it is likely that GW will be solved much faster and less painlessly then a command economy style (such as Kyoto indirectly purposes). As explained in a very readable book called "Morals and Markets" (for non-techinical readers) by Prof. Daniel Friedman of University of California at Santa Cruz the entire reason for having an environmental crisis in the first place is that there is a disconnect somewhere in the marriage between morals and markets that leads to a dysfunctional system (namely once it is placed in "marriage therapy" the marriage should work just fine). While Dr. Friedman does not specifically say it, he implies that the primary dysfunction at work in environmental issues is some variant on the "Tragedy of the Commons". Specifically there is no one watching the commons to make sure they do not get overused. Given this I think the solution is obvious: we make it profitable to care for the commons. One way to do this is reward people/firms/non-profits/whatever that come up with real answers ans olutions to various questions and make a profit doing so. If there is one thing that the market system has taught us, competition makes everyone produce higher quality work, and for that reason any such system needs to reward competition instead of stifling it like Kyoto does. The easiest way to do this, and we can use the same method to find more ways to make money on protecting the commons, is for the government and/or some other neutral organization to offer real prize money/contracts/whatever for the first person to solve the problem and/or offer a complete workable solution. The last 5 to 10 years have seen amazing results from this way of thinking: less then 2 years after the X Foundation offered $1 million to the first non-governmental suborbital flight, someone claimed the prize (note that it cost them far in excess of the prize money but the prize itself is an incredible marketing tool). The Department of Defense has decided on which contractor to use for various major weapon systems and estimates it has saved up to 30% of the initial R&D time and cost of producing the weapon system because the contestants put the money up not DoD. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is holding a contest (no prize beyond bragging rights and being recognized as the "go to" person) to develop the next generation of Secure Hashes. When doing such contests for controlling the climate we need to, at least until we have much vaster knowledge, not rule out any possible solution. For this reason a standard practice used in software engineering should be adopted which is that there are separate documents circulated as to the "why", "what", "how", etc. of a new program. Specifically the "requirements document" (aka specs) purposely, ideally, does not make any innate assumptions about how someone might "implement" (either solve the problem or come up with a real world implementation of it) the system/solution. In computer industry jargon this is called "technology neutral" requirements. It only says what the solution needs to do not how to do it. The combination gives us the best of both worlds where as a society we determine what the goal is but then we reward the person/team that is smart enough to actually solve it (not just claim that they have). It also introduces competition into the process, so that group think is less likely than the current system. (One of the quickest ways to get ignored by the market is to offer products are no different then anyone else's.) This together with the "baby steps" approach outlined above fits extremely well in Dr. Friedman's general framework of how morals and markets co-evolve together.

Defense of ExxonMobil
Even though I corrected some non-NPOV statements made about ExxonMobil's environmental record I did this because I believe that when a claim is made that is clearly possibly biased, it should be based on the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts. Outside of that I think that the company's obscene profits (either by its own design or by accidental quirk of the economy), it's support of Global Warming deniers (people who doubt the claim regardless of what the facts say) vs. skeptics like me who want solid evidence before agreeing with a position, close cooperation with repressive regimes and such all put the company very solidly in my "bad guys" camp. For fans of cyberpunk I will make the metaphor that ExxonMobil is currently doing everything that gives "mega corps" a bad name. It is quite likely actively working to keep the current status quo of being an oil-based economy going long after it is amazingly clear to any objective observer that dependence on fossil fuels and everything that comes with it is *NOT* the wave of the future. As President George W. Bush has said, and every nationally known politician agrees with, "we are addicted to oil" and as any addict will tell you getting nonaddictive to something is extremely painful\, but not doing so, depending on the addiction, will kill them.