Pie in the Sky

Posted on by

The Phrase Finder (as is usually the case) has an excellent explanation of the origin of this expression, which is defined to mean “A promise of heaven, while continuing to suffer in this life.” It is an American phrase coined by a leader of The Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) in 1911. He wrote a song titled The Preacher and the Slave that contained the line in the chorus explaining that you won’t get anything to eat now (except for hay), but “You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.”

The phrase caught on in the later stages of the Great Depression and during the Second World War and was used to “…refer to any prospect for future happiness which was unlikely ever to be realized.”

Climate Science is Not Settled

Posted on by

There was an excellent article by Steven E. Koonin by this title in the Wall Street Journal. The subtitle was “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy…” The author refuses to be on either side of what has become an increasingly contentious argument about whether or not man’s activities are leading us to a climate disaster that, according to some of our politicians, beats terrorism as the greatest threat. The article adds refreshing reason to the discussion. He was undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy during President Obama’s first term. Perhaps those who are convinced that climate science is settled will dismiss his ideas because one previous position was chief scientist of British Petroleum. I suggest you will learn something regardless of your position if you chose to read his article.

The article leads with the statement that the claim that “Climate Science is settled” “…has distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment…it has also inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” The author observes that the crucial question isn’t whether the climate is changing “The climate has always changed and always will.” The average global temperature did increase by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the 20th century, and there is little doubt carbon dioxide levels increased in the atmosphere and influenced the climate. But the author follows those observations with, “The impact of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.” He also writes that he has “…come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.” Continue reading →

The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War 1945-1950

Posted on by

I worked at the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado where plutonium parts were made for nuclear weapons and have a natural curiosity about the policy decisions made by the government that led to that plant being built in the early 1950s. This book by Gregg Herken answers some of the questions. I do find it curious that the author mentions several times in the book that “too much was made” of the amount of information gained by the Soviet espionage on the Manhattan Project, code named “Enormoz.” My reading of other sources indicates the Soviets learned everything they needed to know to build and detonate an atomic bomb years before it had been predicted.

The dust cover of the book explains that American diplomats tried but “…failed to make the nation’s nuclear monopoly an advantage in negotiating with the Soviet Union. The author explains why the atomic bomb, supposedly the ‘winning weapon’ in military strategy and diplomacy, turned out to be a dud in such a confrontation as the 1948 Berlin crisis.”

Many American officials, including Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, believed that the bomb would make a decisive difference in postwar dealings with the Soviet Union. However, Byrnes was said to be humbled by the first meeting of the victorious powers when he observed that the Russians were going to be difficult. He said they were “stubborn, obstinate, and they don’t scare.” Diplomacy accomplished little after World War II. Churchill and later the United States accused the Soviets of raising an “iron curtain” as America began erecting what the author called an “atomic curtain shutting out the rest of the world.” Continue reading →

What Do You Do?

Posted on by

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

I was saddened to discover this wonderful quote is apocryphal.

Wikiquotes says a 1940 book titled A Treatise of Melancholie by Timothie Bright, attributes a close version to John Maynard Keynes: “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” But this source is also in question.

Quote Investigator says “The earliest statement found… that fits this template was not spoken by Keynes but by another prominent individual in the same field, Paul Samuelson who was awarded the 1970 Nobel Prize in economics.” He used it on Meet the Press in 1970: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

The Economist calls the quote an “oral tradition.”

It’s such a good thought that I’m willing to believe many people bandied it about and created their own versions. I’m glad someone said it.

As Kermit Says, It’s Not Easy Being Green

Posted on by

“Red or green” is supposed to be the official New Mexico question, asked about the chili you want smothering your meal. But in my little home town of Silver City, the question has been “paper or plastic,” and plastic lost.

At least, thin, filmy, single-use plastic bags lost. A ban against such bags will go into effect shortly, and since 90% of our bags come from inside the town limits, it will impact the whole county.

Silver City joins a list of cities worried about bags, for a variety of reasons. Mother Jones has an article out that says when stores charge for the bags, in one study “usage dropped to 27 percent (33 percent switched to reusable bags and 40 percent made do without).” Substitutes are not obviously better, depending on what parameter you are trying to make “better.” If your goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, versus single-use bags: Continue reading →

Lise Meitner: A Life in Physics

Posted on by

This book by Ruth Lewin Sime is a wonderful introduction to a fascinating person and a powerful example of the inequalities created by rigorous suppression of women in (hopefully) years past. The author says at six years old she must have seen a picture of Lise (pronounced Lee-seh) “in Life or The New York Times, or perhaps Aufbau, The German refugee’s newspaper…Lise Meitner was a celebrity:  the tiny woman who barely escaped the Nazis, the physicist responsible for nuclear fission, ‘the Jewish mother of the atomic bomb’—although she was a Jew by birth, not affiliation, and she had refused to work on the bomb…To me she was a hero…” Einstein referred to her as “our Marie Curie” for her physics research in Berlin.

The author was a chemistry teacher at a community college and was known as “…the woman the all-male chemistry department did not want to hire.” The author describes herself as a feminist; although it is doubtful she faced anything similar to the discrimination Lise experienced as a youngster wanting to gain an education and as a scientist. One of my favorite descriptions is about a research director (male, of course) who didn’t allow women in the laboratories because he was afraid they would set their hair on fire. Continue reading →