I started on a new book today, Wild Weather; The Truth Behind Global Warming by Dr. Reese Halter.
From reading the reviews and the back cover, I got the impression that this book would be on the neutral side of things - a sort of "this is what we know, this is what we think we know, decide for yourself" sort of book.
I was wrong.
And I'm only into the 5th chapter! (they're very short chapters)
The first hint that it wasn't neutral should've been clear right from the first chapter, The Deadly Surge. It was all about Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans (you know, a lot of other places were wiped out of existence in that hurricane, but no one ever mentions them). This is a book about wild weather, however, so it made sense to me that it would talk about Katrina. If anything, I got the impression that building homes and cities in low lying, hurricane prone areas is really rather stupid. But then, so is living on a delta in an earthquake zone, and I've done that myself. ;-)
There were a couple of other hints that things were not that way they should be in the second chapter, Wild Weather. It described "extreme or wild weather events are those that surpass known records." It then goes on to say that, "since the inception of official records, there have been some exceptional extreme weather events, particularly in North America," giving examples in 1888, 1953, 2003, and of course, Katrina in 2005.
After talking a bit about how scientists use ice cores, tree rings and sediments to figure out past climates, and a brief mention of the "tremendous shifts in climate" during the Pleistocene epoch (which is when the last ice age occured), the author starts to talk about how long North Americans, the English and the Dutch have been keeping temperature records. North America is a big place, the English Empire spanned continents, and the Dutch had extensive colonies as well. The impression given is that these groups have been keeping continuous records over a wide geographical area. In reality, continuous record keeping is rather sporadic. I believe there's only one spot in England that has continuous records of more than 200 years. A lot of places haven't had any sort of continuous, reliable record keeping until very recently, and there are actually fewer weather stations in North America today than there were 30 odd years ago. Many European weather stations had to be abandoned during WWI and WWII, since people tend to be more interested in surviving than reading thermometers, so there are gaps there, as well.
Still, this is a very short book with very short chapters, so I figure there's only so much detail that could be included.
Then I got to this part. First, the author talks about the increases in human population and the burning of fossil fuels. He then writes:
The release of certain so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and 28 other trace gases, including water vapor...
Wait, wha??? Did he just call water vapor a trace gas?!?!?! Water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases. How can he refer to it as a trace gas?
He then proceeded to make numerous blanket statements, none of which are backed up in any way - no footnotes, etc. These included several inaccurate, dis-proven and questionable claims. First, there's the claim that the Earth's temperature has dramatically risen. The number changes depending on where you look, but all the ones I've seen have claimed an increase in average global temperatures of less than 1C over the last 100 years - hardly dramatic. He then claims that, as a result of these increases, there are more extreme weather events. Since I know that many climatologists, particularly hurricane experts, have been trying to counter this oft repeated myth, I found myself wondering just what kind of "expert" this author is. So I checked the bio at the back.
Dr. Halter, it turns out, is "an award winning conservation biologist and television host."
So here we have a book about extreme weather and global warming, written by a biologist.
Ok, I can accept that people can be a certified expert in one area, and still become experts in other areas without that official certification. However, if someone's expert enough to publish a book on a subject, you'd think they'd at least list how and why that person is qualified to do so. There's nothing of the sort.
All right, let's look at the back of the book on the inside. Surely there's an index or bibliography or some sort.
Not exactly..
There's a few fairly typical "THE EARTH IS DYING BECAUSE OF US, AND WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!!!!" quotes. There's a "select bibliography" listing book titles, but no research papers, studies, etc. There's some websites listed, including the IPCC website. The Acknowledgements lists more books, including An Inconvenient Truth, and a number of news articles and their websites. Still no references to actual studies, research data and base data sources. This is something I've noticed as a big difference between books claiming AGW and those that counter them. AGW books never list detailed source information, while the books that counter them tend to have very extensive appendixes, indexes, footnotes and bibliographies listing original research papers.
Ah, here we go - About the Author.
Dr. Halter is a conservation scientist (award-winning). He's a family man. A best-selling children's author (that explains the overly-simplistic style of writing), a syndicated science writer, a TV nature documentary host, and a professor of Botany at Humbolt State University. He's "founded Global Forest Science as a charitable international forest research foundation." Among the list of things this organization has accomplished, only one seems to be climate related; "using trees and forests in Manitoba and Wyoming as a barometer of rising global temperatures..." He also "visits schools and encourages children worldwide to embrace conservations, science exploration, and learning."
All well and good, but I still don't see anything that makes him an expert in extreme weather, related to global warming or otherwise.
Which explains, I suppose, his list of questionable information. In a few short paragraphs, along with erroneously claiming that extreme weather has increased due to global warming, he claims:
- accelerated die-off of coral reefs in the Caribbean. This is actually an unknown. There are many reasons corals might die from. Increased ocean temperatures *might* be one of them - or might not.
- increased droughts
- increased forest fires,
- with a subsequent increased die-off and damage due to insect infestations and disease.
This is just in the second chapter!
The third chapter, Hurricanes, opens with "Hurricanes are nature's fiercest storms." He describes 2 hurricanes in detail; one in 1900 ("Isaac's Storm, Galveston Bay, category 4) and another in 2005. That's right, Katrina again.
Chapter four, Tornadoes, opens with "Tornadoes are the most violent storms on Earth."
I don't know why, but claiming one type of storm to be the "fiercest" and another to be "most violent," somehow seems odd to me. Like you can have one or the other, but not both. Probably because, in weather, fierce and violent tend to be used interchangeably.
At this point, I stopped reading it for the day. We'll see how the rest turns out.
.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Wild Weather. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Wild Weather. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, October 15, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wrapping up the year.
Obligatory disclaimer...
Hello again! I hope everyone had a great Christmas, as well as the other holidays being celebrated this time of year.
I'd been staying off the computer a fair amount, but I still tried to get in my morning news. On Boxing Day, I found myself greeted with this headline.
Records broken in heat waves in North America, Europe
It was accompanied by the usual photo of adorable polar bears - a mother with two cubs, in this case.
The whole article was an interesting read, contradicting earlier articles and data, as well as the usual misleading wording (though that's not a reflection on the writer, but rather the terminology). Just a few examples.
At least it included "since record keeping began," which is considerably better than the usual "ever" or "in history." It's still misleading. I assume the writer is referring to a global average temperature, but worldwide, few places kept temperature records that early. Heck, even today, there are huge gaps in temperature records simply because there are no stations. Most records a from the US, the UK, Canada to a certain extent, and temperature readings from the oceans gathered by co-operative ships' crews that tossed a bucket over the side, pulled in some water and tested it, then recorded their readings for the behalf of others.
There's also the term "normal." The definitions of "normal" and "anomaly" are things I've discussed before, but in a nutshell, they mean something different in climatology and meteorology than in regular usage. "Normal" is the mean average temperature taken over a number of years (usually 30, because most weather stations have existed for at least 30 years). An "anomaly" is anything that isn't "normal," - in other words, anything above or below the mean average. Since mean averages are reached by taking a group of numbers, adding them together, then dividing that total by the number of integers, the range involved can be quite wide. So a temperature difference of 0.85C isn't necessarily unusual - it's just not the mean average.
Next we have...
I found these to be an interesting claims as well. Especially in light of these earlier articles.
Year of global cooling
By David Deming December 19, 2007
Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse Published 19 December 2007
So which is it? Warmest ever, or statistically unchanged? Let's see what else there is...
They've covered everything... No matter what the weather does, it can be blamed on global warming.
Although I suppose it depends on what your definition of "normal" is.
Hello again! I hope everyone had a great Christmas, as well as the other holidays being celebrated this time of year.
I'd been staying off the computer a fair amount, but I still tried to get in my morning news. On Boxing Day, I found myself greeted with this headline.
Records broken in heat waves in North America, Europe
It was accompanied by the usual photo of adorable polar bears - a mother with two cubs, in this case.
The whole article was an interesting read, contradicting earlier articles and data, as well as the usual misleading wording (though that's not a reflection on the writer, but rather the terminology). Just a few examples.
January was the warmest first month on record worldwide - 0.85 degrees Celsius above normal. It was the first time since record-keeping began in 1880 that the globe's average temperature has been so far above the norm for any month of the year.
At least it included "since record keeping began," which is considerably better than the usual "ever" or "in history." It's still misleading. I assume the writer is referring to a global average temperature, but worldwide, few places kept temperature records that early. Heck, even today, there are huge gaps in temperature records simply because there are no stations. Most records a from the US, the UK, Canada to a certain extent, and temperature readings from the oceans gathered by co-operative ships' crews that tossed a bucket over the side, pulled in some water and tested it, then recorded their readings for the behalf of others.
There's also the term "normal." The definitions of "normal" and "anomaly" are things I've discussed before, but in a nutshell, they mean something different in climatology and meteorology than in regular usage. "Normal" is the mean average temperature taken over a number of years (usually 30, because most weather stations have existed for at least 30 years). An "anomaly" is anything that isn't "normal," - in other words, anything above or below the mean average. Since mean averages are reached by taking a group of numbers, adding them together, then dividing that total by the number of integers, the range involved can be quite wide. So a temperature difference of 0.85C isn't necessarily unusual - it's just not the mean average.
Next we have...
And as 2007 drew to a close, it was also shaping up to be the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere.and
The decade of 1998-2007 has been the warmest on record, it said.
I found these to be an interesting claims as well. Especially in light of these earlier articles.
Year of global cooling
By David Deming December 19, 2007
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse Published 19 December 2007
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
...
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
...The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.
So which is it? Warmest ever, or statistically unchanged? Let's see what else there is...
U.S. weather stations broke or tied 263 all-time high temperature records, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. weather data.
England had the warmest April in 348 years of record-keeping there, shattering the record set in 1865 by more than 0.6 C.
and
Smashing records was common, especially in August. At U.S. weather stations, more than 8,000 new heat records were set or tied for specific August dates.
Well, I can't say much for England, because I simply don't know anything about their system, but perhaps these might explain why the US weather stations continue to show warming.
Climate scientists say that the Arctic, which serves as the world's refrigerator, dramatically warmed in 2007, shattering records for the amount of melting ice. Sea ice melted not just to record levels, but far beyond the previous melt record.
Another misleading statement - how far back to these records go? Not very far, though a search of other records has shown that this has happened before. There is even reason to believe the Arctic Ice Cap has melted away completely in the past. (And the polar bears survived just fine.)
The ice sheets that cover a portion of Greenland retreated to an all-time low and permafrost in Alaska warmed to record levels.
That would depend on how far back you look at the records, and what evidence you're looking for, whether in Greenland or Alaska.
Individual weather extremes can't be attributed to global warming, scientists always say. However, "it's the run of them and the different locations" that have the mark of man-made climate change, said top European climate expert Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in England.This is one I hear a lot - many claim that the weather we're having is somehow unusual, yet these claims are made over and over again. Having reviewed the book, Wild Weather, as well as other historical records, extreme weather events have always happened - and humans always search for something to blame it on. In the Dark Ages, it was blamed on witchcraft. In the 1970's, it was the coming ice age. Today, it's global warming.
Get used to it, scientists said. As man-made climate change continues, the world will experience more extreme weather, bursts of heat, torrential rain and prolonged drought, they said.
They've covered everything... No matter what the weather does, it can be blamed on global warming.
"We're having an increasing trend of odd years," said Michael MacCracken, a former top U.S. federal climate scientist, now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.
"Pretty soon odd years are going to become the norm."
Funny thing is... it already *is* the norm.
Although I suppose it depends on what your definition of "normal" is.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Partial book review: final impression
Obligatory disclaimer...
This is the continued review of the book, Wild Weather; The Truth Behind Global Warming. You can find part one here.
When I left off my earlier review, I was into the chapters of actual extreme weather events; Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Blizzards, Ice Storms, Drought and Fire.
Each chapter gave a at least one extreme weather events from the past, and at least one in recent years. Aside from the occasional statement of "global warming will make this worse/happen more often," it was quite balanced. The author does particularly well when discussing his specialty, trees. I did find his phrasing curious for many things. For example, when describing how insects survive freezing in the winter, such as how important it is that the freezing occurs between the cells, not in them, he describes it as if they are in control of the process. Or that animals choose whether to hibernate or migrate. I had this strange image of a squirrel thinking "gee, it's getting cold out. I wonder if I should store food and hang around for the winter, or go south this year?" I think, perhaps, a lot is lost in trying to simplify the descriptions, or perhaps he's just used to writing children's books and has the habit of talking down to children that is so common in books aimed at children. I don't know, but it sure was strange to read it.
Beyond that, there are little extras, such as How to Make a Quin-Zhee, or How to Prepare for a Hurricane Watch, as well as tidbits of trivia.
In reading the chapters, I came away with two things. First, the 1880's were a nasty time (which I'm not really surprised at, since there were two major volcanoes that decade, one in 1815, and Krakatoa in 1883). Second, even though he tries to imply that extreme weather events are more common and worse off today because of global warming, what we're seeing now doesn't hold a candle to some of the events in the past, such as three hundred year droughts.
Then we get to the second last chapter, Global Warming. This is where the balance disappears. I'll excuse the claim that 2005 was the hottest ever recorded, as the book was probably published after Hansen's error was discovered and NASA was forced to republish the corrected list, showing that 1934 was the hottest year instead of 1998. The claim that "Overall, Earth's temperature is within 1.8F (1C) of its highest temperature levels in the past million years," however, is another story altogether. It's already been established that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now, and that the Roman Optimum was even warmer still.
The one that really had me shaking my head was his description of the greenhouse effect itself.
While I can understand why the greenhouse was used as a metaphor to describe what these gases in our atmosphere do, it's probably caused more misunderstandings than anything else.
The author writes:
Radiation emitted by the sun passes through the Earth's atmosphere, which resembles, in a crude way, a pane of glass on the roof of a greenhouse. As the sun's short-wave electromagnetic energy (visible wavelengths between 380 and 775 nanometers) passes through the glass roof, it hits the floor of the greenhouse - the surface of the Earth.
So far, so good.
Energy is absorbed and then re-radiated as a much longer wave (longer than 775 nanometers).
Still on the right track...
The long-wave radiation cannot pass through the glass roof, and thus, the greenhouse gets warmer. Similarly; the next time you open your car door after it has been sitting out in the full sunshine with windows closed, you will immediately notice that it is much hotter than the air outside.
That loud noise you hear is me banging my head on the desk.
The car in the sun analogy is even worse than the greenhouse - and it's an analogy taken straight from a David Suzuki speech, if I remember correctly.
Here's what really happens. When those long waves pass through the atmosphere, the greenhouse gases absorb them - the word "trap" is often used - for a short time. These gases then re-radiate the energy back out in all directions, some back to the earth, some out into space.
There's more to it than that, though, and you will rarely hear about it on either side of the issue. Earth is not a closed system the way a real greenhouse is, and certainly not like a car in full sunshine with the windows closed! What is forgotten is fluid dynamics. Things like clouds, wind, solar activity, even cosmic winds, the Earth's rotation and the tilt of its axis, all have their influence. The car in the sun with the windows closed has none of those things. That's why temperatures in a car can get hot enough to kill. To accurately compare, you'd have to not just open the windows, but the doors and the sunroof. You'd then have to make sure the car is in shade at least sometimes, slosh some water or ice shavings in there every now and then - oh, and it needs to be moving, too.
It doesn't get any better. In describing the make up of the atmosphere, he writes:
"... the troposphere, is made up of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.9 percent), and .1 percent other gases. This is the air we breathe. The "other" category includes gases such as CO2, methane, water vapor, and about 27 other trace gases..."
[head-desk]
Once again, he relegates water vapor to a trace gas, after CO2 and methane. It would be more accurate to call it a "variable gas."
Note that water vapor can be up to 4%. Heck, anything better than 1% puts it higher than all but two of the permanent gases - hardly a "trace gas." (I would like to know just where in the world water vapor in the atmosphere would be 0%, since even the driest areas of the world, such as the tundra and the Antarctic, still have some moisture in the air.) Water vapor is also responsible for most of the greenhouse effect (I've read anywhere from 70% to 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. See page one page two page three for a detailed description.)
The author then proceeds to make pretty much the same claims about CO2 and global warming that Gore does in AIT. Even the charts he uses look like the same ones in AIT. At least he brings up the Maunder Minimum and the effects of solar activity, though he repeats the claim that polar bears numbers are diminishing (they aren't), among others. On and on he goes with the litany of evils laid at the feet of global warming - without any references to back up his claims. Given what he's been using for resources, listed at the back of the book, it's no surprise that many of these are exaggerated, misrepresented, or simply wrong. I won't bother listing them here, since I've already discussed them when reviewing both the book and movie, AIT.
The final chapter is Hope for the Future. After another list of doom and gloom, he talks about things like how expected increases in the cost of gas is a good thing, as more companies are looking to producing hybrids, and mentions companies expanding into or using alternative energy sources. His historical perspective regarding recycling is a bit off, as he writes:
Twenty-five years ago, recycling was in its infancy. Today, recycling is a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry.
He forgets that humans have recycled (and reused) anything and everything they could for as long as we've around - it's just that no one ever called it recycling. The metal industry in particular has always encouraged recycling, Medieval tavern owners used to pay people to return the bottles drinks were sold in, and even scrap wool was sold on street corners to passersby.
That final chapter is the shortest of them all, at barely over 5 pages, and it's rather empty of anything that might be described as hopeful - unless you've got stocks in GE or DuPont. I'm not sure what that says about the author's real thoughts are about the future.
The book ends with a Wild Weather Timeline, Amazing Facts and Figures and What Others Say.
In conclusion, I found myself mostly unimpressed with this book. I can make exception for some things due to the size of the book, and I can live with the slightly odd phraseology he uses. The actual extreme weather events he describes are interesting, but he fails to make his case that these events are occurring more often, that they will get worse, or that global warming is the cause. There are too many factual errors and gaps of information, and a complete lack of hard references.
.
This is the continued review of the book, Wild Weather; The Truth Behind Global Warming. You can find part one here.
When I left off my earlier review, I was into the chapters of actual extreme weather events; Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Blizzards, Ice Storms, Drought and Fire.
Each chapter gave a at least one extreme weather events from the past, and at least one in recent years. Aside from the occasional statement of "global warming will make this worse/happen more often," it was quite balanced. The author does particularly well when discussing his specialty, trees. I did find his phrasing curious for many things. For example, when describing how insects survive freezing in the winter, such as how important it is that the freezing occurs between the cells, not in them, he describes it as if they are in control of the process. Or that animals choose whether to hibernate or migrate. I had this strange image of a squirrel thinking "gee, it's getting cold out. I wonder if I should store food and hang around for the winter, or go south this year?" I think, perhaps, a lot is lost in trying to simplify the descriptions, or perhaps he's just used to writing children's books and has the habit of talking down to children that is so common in books aimed at children. I don't know, but it sure was strange to read it.
Beyond that, there are little extras, such as How to Make a Quin-Zhee, or How to Prepare for a Hurricane Watch, as well as tidbits of trivia.
In reading the chapters, I came away with two things. First, the 1880's were a nasty time (which I'm not really surprised at, since there were two major volcanoes that decade, one in 1815, and Krakatoa in 1883). Second, even though he tries to imply that extreme weather events are more common and worse off today because of global warming, what we're seeing now doesn't hold a candle to some of the events in the past, such as three hundred year droughts.
Then we get to the second last chapter, Global Warming. This is where the balance disappears. I'll excuse the claim that 2005 was the hottest ever recorded, as the book was probably published after Hansen's error was discovered and NASA was forced to republish the corrected list, showing that 1934 was the hottest year instead of 1998. The claim that "Overall, Earth's temperature is within 1.8F (1C) of its highest temperature levels in the past million years," however, is another story altogether. It's already been established that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now, and that the Roman Optimum was even warmer still.
The one that really had me shaking my head was his description of the greenhouse effect itself.
While I can understand why the greenhouse was used as a metaphor to describe what these gases in our atmosphere do, it's probably caused more misunderstandings than anything else.
The author writes:
Radiation emitted by the sun passes through the Earth's atmosphere, which resembles, in a crude way, a pane of glass on the roof of a greenhouse. As the sun's short-wave electromagnetic energy (visible wavelengths between 380 and 775 nanometers) passes through the glass roof, it hits the floor of the greenhouse - the surface of the Earth.
So far, so good.
Energy is absorbed and then re-radiated as a much longer wave (longer than 775 nanometers).
Still on the right track...
The long-wave radiation cannot pass through the glass roof, and thus, the greenhouse gets warmer. Similarly; the next time you open your car door after it has been sitting out in the full sunshine with windows closed, you will immediately notice that it is much hotter than the air outside.
That loud noise you hear is me banging my head on the desk.
The car in the sun analogy is even worse than the greenhouse - and it's an analogy taken straight from a David Suzuki speech, if I remember correctly.
Here's what really happens. When those long waves pass through the atmosphere, the greenhouse gases absorb them - the word "trap" is often used - for a short time. These gases then re-radiate the energy back out in all directions, some back to the earth, some out into space.
There's more to it than that, though, and you will rarely hear about it on either side of the issue. Earth is not a closed system the way a real greenhouse is, and certainly not like a car in full sunshine with the windows closed! What is forgotten is fluid dynamics. Things like clouds, wind, solar activity, even cosmic winds, the Earth's rotation and the tilt of its axis, all have their influence. The car in the sun with the windows closed has none of those things. That's why temperatures in a car can get hot enough to kill. To accurately compare, you'd have to not just open the windows, but the doors and the sunroof. You'd then have to make sure the car is in shade at least sometimes, slosh some water or ice shavings in there every now and then - oh, and it needs to be moving, too.
It doesn't get any better. In describing the make up of the atmosphere, he writes:
"... the troposphere, is made up of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.9 percent), and .1 percent other gases. This is the air we breathe. The "other" category includes gases such as CO2, methane, water vapor, and about 27 other trace gases..."
[head-desk]
Once again, he relegates water vapor to a trace gas, after CO2 and methane. It would be more accurate to call it a "variable gas."
PERMANENT gases in the atmosphere by percent are:
Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%
(Note that these two permanent gases together comprise 99% of the atmosphere)
Other permanent gases:
Argon 0.9%
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%
VARIABLE gases in the atmosphere and typical percentage values are:
Water vapor 0 to 4%
Carbon Dioxide 0.035%
Methane 0.0002%
Ozone 0.000004%
Note that water vapor can be up to 4%. Heck, anything better than 1% puts it higher than all but two of the permanent gases - hardly a "trace gas." (I would like to know just where in the world water vapor in the atmosphere would be 0%, since even the driest areas of the world, such as the tundra and the Antarctic, still have some moisture in the air.) Water vapor is also responsible for most of the greenhouse effect (I've read anywhere from 70% to 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. See page one page two page three for a detailed description.)
The author then proceeds to make pretty much the same claims about CO2 and global warming that Gore does in AIT. Even the charts he uses look like the same ones in AIT. At least he brings up the Maunder Minimum and the effects of solar activity, though he repeats the claim that polar bears numbers are diminishing (they aren't), among others. On and on he goes with the litany of evils laid at the feet of global warming - without any references to back up his claims. Given what he's been using for resources, listed at the back of the book, it's no surprise that many of these are exaggerated, misrepresented, or simply wrong. I won't bother listing them here, since I've already discussed them when reviewing both the book and movie, AIT.
The final chapter is Hope for the Future. After another list of doom and gloom, he talks about things like how expected increases in the cost of gas is a good thing, as more companies are looking to producing hybrids, and mentions companies expanding into or using alternative energy sources. His historical perspective regarding recycling is a bit off, as he writes:
Twenty-five years ago, recycling was in its infancy. Today, recycling is a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry.
He forgets that humans have recycled (and reused) anything and everything they could for as long as we've around - it's just that no one ever called it recycling. The metal industry in particular has always encouraged recycling, Medieval tavern owners used to pay people to return the bottles drinks were sold in, and even scrap wool was sold on street corners to passersby.
That final chapter is the shortest of them all, at barely over 5 pages, and it's rather empty of anything that might be described as hopeful - unless you've got stocks in GE or DuPont. I'm not sure what that says about the author's real thoughts are about the future.
The book ends with a Wild Weather Timeline, Amazing Facts and Figures and What Others Say.
In conclusion, I found myself mostly unimpressed with this book. I can make exception for some things due to the size of the book, and I can live with the slightly odd phraseology he uses. The actual extreme weather events he describes are interesting, but he fails to make his case that these events are occurring more often, that they will get worse, or that global warming is the cause. There are too many factual errors and gaps of information, and a complete lack of hard references.
.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A couple more articles of interest.
Obligatory disclaimer...
A few interesting points in this article.
Humans are naturally selective in what we notice. For instance, selectivity occurs when, after being introduced to someone, you seem to meet them frequently. They were always there, but just not part of your "noticing." Similarly, the media and the public have started to "notice" extreme weather, glacier melting, sea level rise, etc. more because alarmists tell us that an increase in such events is a precursor to the coming 'climate crisis'. Since people are on the lookout for such trends they seem to be accelerating even though recent quantitative studies demonstrate they are not (NRSP 'allied scientist' Dr. Madhav Khandekar has shown this clearly in his studies for the Alberta government, for example).
This is a lot like when people's fears increase because of crime rates. The perception is that crime is increasing and their neighbourhoods have become more dangerous places, when crime rates are often actually falling. They get the perception of increased crime rates because they're hearing about crimes from all over, more often, because it's in the news so much. The mind takes what it sees and applies it to what it's familiar with, so seeing more crime reports in the media becomes a perception of increased local crime.
Phenomena such as severe weather events are now often presented as unusual or unique: it was the highest or lowest temperature, rainfall, etc., 'ever.' What is referred to is the barely century-old instrumental data-based official weather record, an inadequate sample of the Earth's five billion year history. Long term geologic records indicate much greater and more rapid changes occurred long before civilizations started.
This is particularly true, I'm finding, with the scare articles about loss of Arctic ice. Especially with the term "melting" is used. It turns out that there was indeed been less ice there than today, as recent as 1905. Yet the articles claim Arctic ice is at its lowest point "in history." "History," it turns out, started in 1979, which is when we first started having satellite records.
Besides the public's lack of awareness of our planet's dynamic climate history, a difficulty in comprehending long time frames has made them susceptible to the propaganda of Al Gore and David Suzuki. Echoing Suzuki's myth of nature's "gentle rhythms", then Canadian environment minister Stéphane Dion told the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 4, 2005, "Climate change is a new phenomenon, a very worrying one, but a new phenomenon." Dion's total ignorance of the issue is revealed by simply noting one historical fact - half of North America was under a vast ice sheet just 22,000 years ago.
This is something I've noted as well. Heck, I went through school being taught the "gentle rhythms" belief, and that global climate change was something that only happened very slowly, over 10's of thousands of years. That Dion should claim climate change is a new phenomenon does nothing but make himself look amazingly ignorant. Unfortunately, people believe him!
The exploitation of climate science for purely political goals is occurring throughout the developed world. For example, politicians in Canada have started to ban inexpensive and convenient technologies such as light bulbs, coal fired electricity generation and used oil heating to "stop climate change." They can't show how the alternatives being promoted will actually help the environment – we are expected to simply believe that such sacrifices for the climate will benefit us all, even if real pollution levels rise, food prices increase as agricultural land is converted to biofuels production and millions of birds are cut to pieces by wind turbines. 'Believe' is the key word here, not 'think'.
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about the whole issue! I'll have more to say on that in another post.
Along with Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders and a handful of other Democrats, Boxer is promoting the ludicrously titled "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act", also referred to as the" Sanders/Boxer bill, S.309". The phrase 'global warming pollution' is wildly inappropriate but is used repeatedly by Gore, Boxer and others in the hopes that the public will look upon their actions as honest attempts to help the environment by reducing pollution. In reality, the major target of the act, Gore's crusade and other futile attempts to 'stop climate change' (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) is carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas essential to life and in no way a pollutant. Using the sweeping and more threatening sounding term "greenhouse gases" (of which CO2 is only one), environmental alarmists clearly hope the public don't wake up to the fact that they are really speaking mostly about the benign gas CO2. While many politicians know very well that CO2 emission reduction is pointless and will have little if any impact on climate, some truly don't know the difference between CO2 and pollution – witness the Boxer-like statement of Canadian Liberal MP Joe Volpe before entering the House of Commons to vote in favour of Canada's ratification of Kyoto in 2002, "For all intents and purposes, there isn't anybody that I know that doesn't want cleaner air and a cleaner environment, so why would you vote no?"
Another point that gets my back up! CO2 and carbon, often used interchangeably, are both being labeled as pollutants! Well, carbon *can* be part of smog pollution. It is, after all, a solid and breathing it just isn't a good thing - any more than breathing any other particulate matter will cause problems. Thing is, we are carbon based life forms, living on a carbon bases planet. To label carbon and CO2 as pollutants is ignorant and disingenuous.
Divorcing themselves entirely from science, political opportunists proceed to claim the moral high ground by appealing to our natural instinct to protect children.
Ah, yes - the final and greatest emotional appeal! "Won't somebody please think about the children!"
*gag*
Of course we have no chance of "reversing global warming" (and why would we want to? Global cooling is far more dangerous and climate is never constant). Boxer's rhetoric is simply an appeal to emotion over rational thought. Such an unscientific stance is bad for society and, ultimately, bad for the environment as well, but political spin doctors seem to have concluded that it still attracts many voters.
That's the greatest power AGW proponents have - appeal to emotion. The "skeptics" and "deniers" tend to use logic to explain their views. People don't respond to logic unless it is tied to emotion. The politicians know this and use it to full extent.
The specter of industry-caused "climate chaos" - a ridiculous term used by Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May - ultimately leading to the 'destruction of the planet' is a perfect vehicle for people who want to radically alter, or even dismantle, western civilization. Chief among these is Canadian Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General's office. His comment, "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" speaks volumes about what is really going on in the minds of some environmentalists.
The following quotes illustrate the dangerous anti-human nature of cells within the environmental movement, many of whom have adopted today's climate crusade as their primary raison d'être:
Biologist David Graber (U.S. National Park Service): "They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value - to me - than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line - about a billion years ago - we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
Philosophy Professor Paul Taylor, City University of New York in "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics", p. 115): "Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth's community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty "Good riddance!"
Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
Earth First! Journal editor John Daily: "Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
An equally extreme case is Peter Singer, a 'bioethicist' at Princeton University. He maintains that the suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be "speciests".
And of course the macabre " Voluntary Human Extinction Movement " is apparently alive and well with its "volunteer" class members agreeing that, "All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens." Asserting that "Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health", the group's motto is "May we live long and die out."
In the extraordinary book "Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" written 150 years ago by Charles Mackay, is written, "Men … think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
...
Wow. What more can I add to that? Stunning!
.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Veiled references
There's a topic I've been wanting to touch on for some time. This post is going to be a little light on references and links, though, as I'm sitting in a coffee shop with bad Christmas remakes in the background, using a PITA laptop. *L* I might be able to update later, but no guarantees at this point!
All joking aside, the topic I want to address is no laughing matter.
Ever since France moved to ban face veils, I've been thinking about how and why veiling the face is such an issue in so many countries, the history of veils specifically, and facial coverings in general.
As someone who leans strongly towards the notion that people should be able to wear whatever they want and the state has no place in telling us how to dress, I do have limits to this. For example, I object to outright nudity, not because I have any problem with seeing the nude human body, but for reasons that range from sanitation and hygiene (would you want to sit in a chair after someone nude sat in it? I sure as heck wouldn't want to sit in someone else's butt sweat) to the fact that it's inflicting one person's preference (to be nude) onto someone else's (to not see some stranger's nude body). It's along the lines of, your right to punch me stops at the tip of my nose.
So generally, I have no problem with people's dress. If some guy wants to wear long flowing skirts and a belly dance shawl, I have no problem with that. In fact, my only regret is that I never got around to finding out where he bought those beautiful skirts! I haven't seen him in ages, and it looks like I've missed my chance. If another guy wants to wear brightly coloured spandex biker shorts with a thong on the outside? Weird, but fine. It's a bit hard on the eyes, but it's none of my business. Likewise, if women want to wear their pants so low they're showing off their thongs and butt cracks... that's their business, though I would make an exception; I would really prefer if they didn't wear them while working in the food industry. Someone's butt crack and underwear out for display does not go well with food hygiene. When I had my first job as a waitress, health regulations stipulated that we had to wear sleeves long enough to cover our armpits. If we couldn't flash our stubbly pits, we sure as heck shouldn't be flashing our cracks.
In other words, I expect reasonable limits to our freedom to dress however we like.
Enter the face veil.
First off, I do not have any problem with "traditional Muslim dress," whatever that may be. Any objections I might have are of a more pragmatic nature than anything else. The long flowing garments women wear can be stunningly beautiful. They can also, however, get caught on things and be a danger. There was a story not too long ago of a woman wearing a burka who was killed when it got caught in the wheels of the go-cart she was driving (note on the link: I believe the file photo identified as a burka is actually a niqab). While it happened to be a burka that got caught, I've seen other traditional garments that don't cover the face that would have been equally risky. I have similar objections in mind when I see people walking around with long chains or belts hanging off their clothes, or women teetering along on high heels. If the people wearing them are willing to risk physical injury for fashion, it's generally none of my business. It might become my business if, say, I were an employer and the dress would hinder their ability to do the work I've hired them to do, or if a particular dress code or image were required. Otherwise, it's no big deal and part of what makes people so interesting.
I do, however, draw the line at covering the face. I agree with France's stand in banning the burka and niqab, and would support such a move here in Canada.
Before I explain my reasoning, let's take a broader look at face veiling. This is not isolated to Islam. Covering the face for one reason or another probably goes back to the beginning of humanity. Islam developed in a geographical region of hot sun and a dry, harsh environment. People covered their faces then, as now, to protect themselves from the elements. At the time of Mohammad, few people actually veiled themselves. They are impractical garments that get in the way while working. The women who did wear veils were of the nobility; they were wealthy enough that the women didn't have to work in the hot sun, getting all dirty and sweaty. Smooth skin, untouched by a harsh sun or sandblasted by winds, showed that a woman was from a family of high status and wealth - their women didn't have to work for a living! When they did leave the confines of their homes and risk exposure to the elements, they could minimize the damage by wearing a veil. When Mohammad said that all women deserved to wear veils because all women were equally noble, this was what he was referring to. While some branches of Islam have taken his meaning to the extreme and turned it into a reflection of modesty, Islam itself does not require women to veil their faces. In reality, the wearing of veils is not rooted in modesty, but vanity. When Mohammad made this statement, most women still didn't wear the veil because it is such an impractical garment; their need to work for a living trumped the vain desire to protect their skin, and this was perfectly acceptable. With this historical perspective, the argument that wearing the burka or the niqab is a religious requirement doesn't wash.
The veiling of women in Islamic countries is very much a cultural tradition, wrapped under the guise of religious requirement. Growing up in a culture that expects women to cover their faces, one might have difficulty understanding why other cultures have a problem with it. So let's take a moment to explore facial coverings in other cultures.
Over the centuries, women in European countries wore veils of various kinds. One significant difference is that these veils, which often covered the entire face, were all open mesh or lace. The face was not completely hidden, and women would still be recognized as individuals. Lets look at other facial coverings which, like the burka and niqab, actually hide a person's identity.
Perhaps the most iconic Western example of face veiling is the cowboy with his ubiquitous bandanna. While driving large herds of cattle, a tremendous amount of dust could be kicked up. Weather also played its part as dust storms arose. Cowboys wore a number of things with very special purposes. Chaps protected their legs. Dusters were specially designed to protect them from the rain, even while riding a horse. Hats had brims that drained rainwater out the back. Bandannas were worn around the neck, where they could be easily pulled over the nose and mouth during dust storms or when thousands of hooves kicked up clouds of grit. No cowboy would be without his bandanna, unless he liked the crunch of grit in his teeth or breathing clouds of particulate matter.
Of course, living in Canada, we have our modern facial coverings to protect from the elements. Balaclavas, scarves and deep hoods all serve to keep our faces warm and protected from our often harsh winters.
There are those who make the argument that the burka and niqab are no different than wearing a balaclava. I always found that a rather silly argument. For starters, no one is forced to wear a balaclava, while in too many Islamic cultures, a woman without a veil can be beaten or killed for her crime. Even for those branches of Islam that view it as a sign of modesty, rather than the vanity its rooted in, there is a significant difference. When people protect their faces with scarves and hoods and balaclavas, they don't leave them on when they go indoors. In fact, in our culture, those who hide their faces are considered suspicious. In the days of the wild west, bank and train robbers would use the ubiquitous bandanna to hide their faces while committing their crimes. In modern days, sunglasses and hoodies are used the same way. Before anyone suggests that it's not illegal to wear sunglasses or hoodies, therefore it shouldn't be illegal to wear a burka, the city of Edmonton recently made the news for banning sunglasses, hats and hoods. It turns out there were so many jewelry store robberies where security cameras were rendered useless by criminals wearing hoods and sunglasses, a law was brought in. If you go into a store or bank with your face hidden, they have the right to tell people to take off their sunglasses and hoods.
But what about outside the store?
Eldest and her friend, Raider King, found out about that. Some time ago they did their "post apocalyptic" walk. They wandered around our city wearing their costumes which, for Eldest, included a "scarfkerchief" worn over the face like a bandanna, with her eyes hidden by home made goggles. Raider King wore a gas mask. When they entered a mall, they were approached by a security guard and told they had to uncover their faces. They understood why and complied, but Eldest did wonder what they did for Muslims or at Halloween. Obviously, they make an exception for Halloween - the one day of year when people are actually encouraged to disguise themselves. Just as obviously, they don't tell Muslim women to remove their veils.
From this Western cultural perspective, face coverings are viewed with significant suspicion. People who hide their faces are doing so specifically to hide their identity while committing a crime. This extends even to protesters who hide their faces, since they are obviously trying to hide their identities from authorities, even if no actual crime is perpetrated. Those wearing facial coverings are far more likely to become violent during demonstrations, since they're more likely to get away with it. For all that I agree and support people's right to protest something, even if I wildly disagree with their cause, I fully believe it should be illegal for protesters to cover their faces in the process. If you believe in something enough to protest about it, you should believe in it enough to be identified, even if there's a risk of being arrested. Once protesters start hiding their faces, it tells me that their motives are less than altruistic.
When it comes to the burka or the niqab, security concerns are completely valid. There have been several incidents of late that have demonstrated this. One was the now infamous video someone posted on youtube where veiled women bypassed airport security. There's also the incident where some women made a fuss until the security staff let them through, without checking their identities. As they were walking away they were overheard, speaking in their native tongue, mocking Canadians. The man who overheard them did speak up, in their own language, calling them on it. Another recent incident involved a woman who was pulled over by a police officer. She accused him of racism and, when it went to court, tried to claim mistaken identity because he couldn't see her face. Thankfully, his dashboard video camera recorded the entire incident in question and he was exonerated, but it's another example of veiled women trying to take advantage of their cultural tradition to usurp local law. Meanwhile, there have even been incidents of male suicide bombers disguising themselves in burkas. The burka and the niqab is a serious and legitimate security concern, as is any other form of hiding one's identity. The difference is that people like my daughter and her friend couldn't make religious claims when the security guard told them to uncover their faces, as those who wear the burka or the niqab do. As far as I am concerned, religion cannot be allowed to trump safety and security.
Which brings me to another defense of veiling that is sometimes used. People claim it is a symbol of a religion, no different than a Catholic wearing a crucifix, or a Sikh wearing a turban. These religious symbols, required or not, do not hide anyone's identity (and we've already established that veils are do not actually symbolize Islam, nor do they represent the concept of modesty, but vanity). Rather, the Sikh's turban or Catholic's crucifix pendant openly show for all the world to see that this identifiable person holds certain beliefs. The veil, on the other hand, hides the believer away. The irony of such a defense is that, in some Islamic nations, other religions are illegal, as are their symbols and trappings. A quick look at the persecution of Christians in various countries will find many examples. In Western nations that object to veils, it's the veils themselves that are the objection, not necessarily the religion of the person wearing it. Unlike countries like Iran, it's not illegal to hold certain religious beliefs, nor is anyone trying to force someone to turn their backs on their faith, while nations that require all women to cover their faces require this of all women, not just Muslim women, even though doing so is against Islam. To carry over the metaphor, Islamic nations that force all women to wear the burka or niqab would be like us forcing a Muslim woman (or anyone else not a Catholic, for that matter) to wear a crucifix.
Okay, so we've covered face veiling from a couple of perspectives. Veiling fails from a religious perspective, as it is not actually a religious requirement. It fails from a modesty perspective, since veiling is rooted in vanity, and as a symbol of Islam, as it it neither required by Islam, nor is it limited to Islam. It fails from a security perspective for obvious reasons.
There is, however, another objection I have against veils. This one is actually hinted at in the other reasons, and it is purely psychological.
Let's go back to the modesty angle. Wealthy women in the Middle East began wearing veils to protect their delicate skin from a harsh environment. This clearly separated them from other women. It was an exclusive, rather than inclusive, act. Wearing the veil was a way of saying "I'm better than other women; I don't have to slave away in the hot sun. I live a life so luxurious, I can wear this completely impractical garment. I don't have to worry about getting it caught on things or getting in the way, because I don't have to work for a living." In this vein, the veil is a sign of privilege as well as vanity. It was a flagrant way of saying that one's wealth and status (or those of their family) made them superior to everyone else. There's more to say in that direction, but I'll cover that in a moment.
Let's now go back to the veil from a religious perspective, as so many claim it is either a requirement or a symbol of Muslim faith. Religious symbols are typically ways to identify people. Turbans, for example, not only represent Sikhism, but their colours can symbolize different things. If someone wears an empty cross, you can assume a Christian faith, but if they're wearing a crucifix, you can usually assume Catholicism. If you see someone wearing a pentagram, it usually identifies them as pagan. Granted, many of these symbols are now worn by people as pure ornamentation. Sikh men are required to wear a turban, but Christians have no such requirement to wear any symbols. These days, you're not likely to see people wearing turbans just because they like the look (though they were in fashion for a while), but you do see people wearing a cross pendant that isn't Christian, or a Star of David that isn't Jewish.
The point being that these symbols serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, the person wearing the symbol is identifying themselves as being part of a select group. On the other, they are making a blatant statement about their beliefs. Early Christians began tattooing crosses on the inside of their wrists, despite biblical admonitions against body modification. Why? At the time, Christians were considered a dangerous element of society and frequently executed in rather horrible ways. Identifying oneself as Christian was very risky. Indelibly marking one's body with a Christian symbol was a bold statement, and in doing so, these early Christians knew they were putting their lives on the line for their belief. A tattoo on the inner wrist could be easily hidden by a sleeve. It could be used to identify themselves to other Christians, since no one else would risk such a thing. Having such a tattoo discovered by the authorities, on the other hand, was pretty much a death sentence.
The key point, however, is identity. These symbols boldly state to the world, "this is what I believe. This is who I am." What does a veil do? It hides identity. "This is what I believe, but you can't know who I am." The veil hides the believer from the rest of the world, even from other believers, since Muslim women are expected to hide their faces from all men not their father's, brothers or husbands. Some Muslim women have even gone so far as to never show their faces to their own husbands. The veil becomes, not a symbol, but a barrier. A wall of separation quite different from open symbols of faith. With the veil, Islam becomes a hidden, secret thing, separating the wearer from everyone else, even within their own faith.
Which leads me to the final objection I have. The veil is not just a physical barrier, but a psychological one. It dehumanizes the wearer and isolates her. There's two statements made here. For the forced wearing of the veil, the woman behind the veil becomes nothing. She is no one. She is less than chattel; she is not worth even her own identity. She is no longer allowed to be human.
For those who choose to wear the veil, the psychological barrier is different, but no less disturbing. Here, the statement is reversed. It's not that the woman behind the veil is not worth an identity; but that those on the other side of the veil are not worth knowing her identity. In an open faced society, this psychological barrier is perhaps more damaging than forced veiling. At least with forced veiling, those who disapprove of veiling can feel empathy for the woman behind the veil. She is still a person to them; if her own culture does not value her as an individual, ours does. For the woman who deliberately walls herself off from everyone else behind a veil, she is dehumanizing those who do not believe as she does. We are the ones who are unworthy; unworthy to see her face; unworthy to be part of her world; unworthy of knowing who she is.
In the end, my objections to the burka and the niqab comes from two sources. The legal objection is one of security, based on hidden identity and it not limited to just the veil. I believe that, barring the need to protect one's face from the elements or similar reasonable exceptions, facial coverings in public should be illegal. My other objection is psychological. Whether the veil is worn by choice or by force, it is a damaging psychological barrier that seperates and isolates the wearer from everyone else, including those who follow the same faith.
Update: A hearty welcome to my visitors from Blazing Cat Fur. I hope you enjoy your stay. :-)
All joking aside, the topic I want to address is no laughing matter.
Ever since France moved to ban face veils, I've been thinking about how and why veiling the face is such an issue in so many countries, the history of veils specifically, and facial coverings in general.
As someone who leans strongly towards the notion that people should be able to wear whatever they want and the state has no place in telling us how to dress, I do have limits to this. For example, I object to outright nudity, not because I have any problem with seeing the nude human body, but for reasons that range from sanitation and hygiene (would you want to sit in a chair after someone nude sat in it? I sure as heck wouldn't want to sit in someone else's butt sweat) to the fact that it's inflicting one person's preference (to be nude) onto someone else's (to not see some stranger's nude body). It's along the lines of, your right to punch me stops at the tip of my nose.
So generally, I have no problem with people's dress. If some guy wants to wear long flowing skirts and a belly dance shawl, I have no problem with that. In fact, my only regret is that I never got around to finding out where he bought those beautiful skirts! I haven't seen him in ages, and it looks like I've missed my chance. If another guy wants to wear brightly coloured spandex biker shorts with a thong on the outside? Weird, but fine. It's a bit hard on the eyes, but it's none of my business. Likewise, if women want to wear their pants so low they're showing off their thongs and butt cracks... that's their business, though I would make an exception; I would really prefer if they didn't wear them while working in the food industry. Someone's butt crack and underwear out for display does not go well with food hygiene. When I had my first job as a waitress, health regulations stipulated that we had to wear sleeves long enough to cover our armpits. If we couldn't flash our stubbly pits, we sure as heck shouldn't be flashing our cracks.
In other words, I expect reasonable limits to our freedom to dress however we like.
Enter the face veil.
First off, I do not have any problem with "traditional Muslim dress," whatever that may be. Any objections I might have are of a more pragmatic nature than anything else. The long flowing garments women wear can be stunningly beautiful. They can also, however, get caught on things and be a danger. There was a story not too long ago of a woman wearing a burka who was killed when it got caught in the wheels of the go-cart she was driving (note on the link: I believe the file photo identified as a burka is actually a niqab). While it happened to be a burka that got caught, I've seen other traditional garments that don't cover the face that would have been equally risky. I have similar objections in mind when I see people walking around with long chains or belts hanging off their clothes, or women teetering along on high heels. If the people wearing them are willing to risk physical injury for fashion, it's generally none of my business. It might become my business if, say, I were an employer and the dress would hinder their ability to do the work I've hired them to do, or if a particular dress code or image were required. Otherwise, it's no big deal and part of what makes people so interesting.
I do, however, draw the line at covering the face. I agree with France's stand in banning the burka and niqab, and would support such a move here in Canada.
Before I explain my reasoning, let's take a broader look at face veiling. This is not isolated to Islam. Covering the face for one reason or another probably goes back to the beginning of humanity. Islam developed in a geographical region of hot sun and a dry, harsh environment. People covered their faces then, as now, to protect themselves from the elements. At the time of Mohammad, few people actually veiled themselves. They are impractical garments that get in the way while working. The women who did wear veils were of the nobility; they were wealthy enough that the women didn't have to work in the hot sun, getting all dirty and sweaty. Smooth skin, untouched by a harsh sun or sandblasted by winds, showed that a woman was from a family of high status and wealth - their women didn't have to work for a living! When they did leave the confines of their homes and risk exposure to the elements, they could minimize the damage by wearing a veil. When Mohammad said that all women deserved to wear veils because all women were equally noble, this was what he was referring to. While some branches of Islam have taken his meaning to the extreme and turned it into a reflection of modesty, Islam itself does not require women to veil their faces. In reality, the wearing of veils is not rooted in modesty, but vanity. When Mohammad made this statement, most women still didn't wear the veil because it is such an impractical garment; their need to work for a living trumped the vain desire to protect their skin, and this was perfectly acceptable. With this historical perspective, the argument that wearing the burka or the niqab is a religious requirement doesn't wash.
The veiling of women in Islamic countries is very much a cultural tradition, wrapped under the guise of religious requirement. Growing up in a culture that expects women to cover their faces, one might have difficulty understanding why other cultures have a problem with it. So let's take a moment to explore facial coverings in other cultures.
Over the centuries, women in European countries wore veils of various kinds. One significant difference is that these veils, which often covered the entire face, were all open mesh or lace. The face was not completely hidden, and women would still be recognized as individuals. Lets look at other facial coverings which, like the burka and niqab, actually hide a person's identity.
Perhaps the most iconic Western example of face veiling is the cowboy with his ubiquitous bandanna. While driving large herds of cattle, a tremendous amount of dust could be kicked up. Weather also played its part as dust storms arose. Cowboys wore a number of things with very special purposes. Chaps protected their legs. Dusters were specially designed to protect them from the rain, even while riding a horse. Hats had brims that drained rainwater out the back. Bandannas were worn around the neck, where they could be easily pulled over the nose and mouth during dust storms or when thousands of hooves kicked up clouds of grit. No cowboy would be without his bandanna, unless he liked the crunch of grit in his teeth or breathing clouds of particulate matter.
Of course, living in Canada, we have our modern facial coverings to protect from the elements. Balaclavas, scarves and deep hoods all serve to keep our faces warm and protected from our often harsh winters.
There are those who make the argument that the burka and niqab are no different than wearing a balaclava. I always found that a rather silly argument. For starters, no one is forced to wear a balaclava, while in too many Islamic cultures, a woman without a veil can be beaten or killed for her crime. Even for those branches of Islam that view it as a sign of modesty, rather than the vanity its rooted in, there is a significant difference. When people protect their faces with scarves and hoods and balaclavas, they don't leave them on when they go indoors. In fact, in our culture, those who hide their faces are considered suspicious. In the days of the wild west, bank and train robbers would use the ubiquitous bandanna to hide their faces while committing their crimes. In modern days, sunglasses and hoodies are used the same way. Before anyone suggests that it's not illegal to wear sunglasses or hoodies, therefore it shouldn't be illegal to wear a burka, the city of Edmonton recently made the news for banning sunglasses, hats and hoods. It turns out there were so many jewelry store robberies where security cameras were rendered useless by criminals wearing hoods and sunglasses, a law was brought in. If you go into a store or bank with your face hidden, they have the right to tell people to take off their sunglasses and hoods.
But what about outside the store?
Eldest and her friend, Raider King, found out about that. Some time ago they did their "post apocalyptic" walk. They wandered around our city wearing their costumes which, for Eldest, included a "scarfkerchief" worn over the face like a bandanna, with her eyes hidden by home made goggles. Raider King wore a gas mask. When they entered a mall, they were approached by a security guard and told they had to uncover their faces. They understood why and complied, but Eldest did wonder what they did for Muslims or at Halloween. Obviously, they make an exception for Halloween - the one day of year when people are actually encouraged to disguise themselves. Just as obviously, they don't tell Muslim women to remove their veils.
From this Western cultural perspective, face coverings are viewed with significant suspicion. People who hide their faces are doing so specifically to hide their identity while committing a crime. This extends even to protesters who hide their faces, since they are obviously trying to hide their identities from authorities, even if no actual crime is perpetrated. Those wearing facial coverings are far more likely to become violent during demonstrations, since they're more likely to get away with it. For all that I agree and support people's right to protest something, even if I wildly disagree with their cause, I fully believe it should be illegal for protesters to cover their faces in the process. If you believe in something enough to protest about it, you should believe in it enough to be identified, even if there's a risk of being arrested. Once protesters start hiding their faces, it tells me that their motives are less than altruistic.
When it comes to the burka or the niqab, security concerns are completely valid. There have been several incidents of late that have demonstrated this. One was the now infamous video someone posted on youtube where veiled women bypassed airport security. There's also the incident where some women made a fuss until the security staff let them through, without checking their identities. As they were walking away they were overheard, speaking in their native tongue, mocking Canadians. The man who overheard them did speak up, in their own language, calling them on it. Another recent incident involved a woman who was pulled over by a police officer. She accused him of racism and, when it went to court, tried to claim mistaken identity because he couldn't see her face. Thankfully, his dashboard video camera recorded the entire incident in question and he was exonerated, but it's another example of veiled women trying to take advantage of their cultural tradition to usurp local law. Meanwhile, there have even been incidents of male suicide bombers disguising themselves in burkas. The burka and the niqab is a serious and legitimate security concern, as is any other form of hiding one's identity. The difference is that people like my daughter and her friend couldn't make religious claims when the security guard told them to uncover their faces, as those who wear the burka or the niqab do. As far as I am concerned, religion cannot be allowed to trump safety and security.
Which brings me to another defense of veiling that is sometimes used. People claim it is a symbol of a religion, no different than a Catholic wearing a crucifix, or a Sikh wearing a turban. These religious symbols, required or not, do not hide anyone's identity (and we've already established that veils are do not actually symbolize Islam, nor do they represent the concept of modesty, but vanity). Rather, the Sikh's turban or Catholic's crucifix pendant openly show for all the world to see that this identifiable person holds certain beliefs. The veil, on the other hand, hides the believer away. The irony of such a defense is that, in some Islamic nations, other religions are illegal, as are their symbols and trappings. A quick look at the persecution of Christians in various countries will find many examples. In Western nations that object to veils, it's the veils themselves that are the objection, not necessarily the religion of the person wearing it. Unlike countries like Iran, it's not illegal to hold certain religious beliefs, nor is anyone trying to force someone to turn their backs on their faith, while nations that require all women to cover their faces require this of all women, not just Muslim women, even though doing so is against Islam. To carry over the metaphor, Islamic nations that force all women to wear the burka or niqab would be like us forcing a Muslim woman (or anyone else not a Catholic, for that matter) to wear a crucifix.
Okay, so we've covered face veiling from a couple of perspectives. Veiling fails from a religious perspective, as it is not actually a religious requirement. It fails from a modesty perspective, since veiling is rooted in vanity, and as a symbol of Islam, as it it neither required by Islam, nor is it limited to Islam. It fails from a security perspective for obvious reasons.
There is, however, another objection I have against veils. This one is actually hinted at in the other reasons, and it is purely psychological.
Let's go back to the modesty angle. Wealthy women in the Middle East began wearing veils to protect their delicate skin from a harsh environment. This clearly separated them from other women. It was an exclusive, rather than inclusive, act. Wearing the veil was a way of saying "I'm better than other women; I don't have to slave away in the hot sun. I live a life so luxurious, I can wear this completely impractical garment. I don't have to worry about getting it caught on things or getting in the way, because I don't have to work for a living." In this vein, the veil is a sign of privilege as well as vanity. It was a flagrant way of saying that one's wealth and status (or those of their family) made them superior to everyone else. There's more to say in that direction, but I'll cover that in a moment.
Let's now go back to the veil from a religious perspective, as so many claim it is either a requirement or a symbol of Muslim faith. Religious symbols are typically ways to identify people. Turbans, for example, not only represent Sikhism, but their colours can symbolize different things. If someone wears an empty cross, you can assume a Christian faith, but if they're wearing a crucifix, you can usually assume Catholicism. If you see someone wearing a pentagram, it usually identifies them as pagan. Granted, many of these symbols are now worn by people as pure ornamentation. Sikh men are required to wear a turban, but Christians have no such requirement to wear any symbols. These days, you're not likely to see people wearing turbans just because they like the look (though they were in fashion for a while), but you do see people wearing a cross pendant that isn't Christian, or a Star of David that isn't Jewish.
The point being that these symbols serve a dual purpose: on the one hand, the person wearing the symbol is identifying themselves as being part of a select group. On the other, they are making a blatant statement about their beliefs. Early Christians began tattooing crosses on the inside of their wrists, despite biblical admonitions against body modification. Why? At the time, Christians were considered a dangerous element of society and frequently executed in rather horrible ways. Identifying oneself as Christian was very risky. Indelibly marking one's body with a Christian symbol was a bold statement, and in doing so, these early Christians knew they were putting their lives on the line for their belief. A tattoo on the inner wrist could be easily hidden by a sleeve. It could be used to identify themselves to other Christians, since no one else would risk such a thing. Having such a tattoo discovered by the authorities, on the other hand, was pretty much a death sentence.
The key point, however, is identity. These symbols boldly state to the world, "this is what I believe. This is who I am." What does a veil do? It hides identity. "This is what I believe, but you can't know who I am." The veil hides the believer from the rest of the world, even from other believers, since Muslim women are expected to hide their faces from all men not their father's, brothers or husbands. Some Muslim women have even gone so far as to never show their faces to their own husbands. The veil becomes, not a symbol, but a barrier. A wall of separation quite different from open symbols of faith. With the veil, Islam becomes a hidden, secret thing, separating the wearer from everyone else, even within their own faith.
Which leads me to the final objection I have. The veil is not just a physical barrier, but a psychological one. It dehumanizes the wearer and isolates her. There's two statements made here. For the forced wearing of the veil, the woman behind the veil becomes nothing. She is no one. She is less than chattel; she is not worth even her own identity. She is no longer allowed to be human.
For those who choose to wear the veil, the psychological barrier is different, but no less disturbing. Here, the statement is reversed. It's not that the woman behind the veil is not worth an identity; but that those on the other side of the veil are not worth knowing her identity. In an open faced society, this psychological barrier is perhaps more damaging than forced veiling. At least with forced veiling, those who disapprove of veiling can feel empathy for the woman behind the veil. She is still a person to them; if her own culture does not value her as an individual, ours does. For the woman who deliberately walls herself off from everyone else behind a veil, she is dehumanizing those who do not believe as she does. We are the ones who are unworthy; unworthy to see her face; unworthy to be part of her world; unworthy of knowing who she is.
In the end, my objections to the burka and the niqab comes from two sources. The legal objection is one of security, based on hidden identity and it not limited to just the veil. I believe that, barring the need to protect one's face from the elements or similar reasonable exceptions, facial coverings in public should be illegal. My other objection is psychological. Whether the veil is worn by choice or by force, it is a damaging psychological barrier that seperates and isolates the wearer from everyone else, including those who follow the same faith.
Update: A hearty welcome to my visitors from Blazing Cat Fur. I hope you enjoy your stay. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)