Origin XT Blog

He can rhyme too! What was that part about Amy about, anyway?

Mr. Wen: Jinghao, why aren’t you composing your “indirect boasts”?
Me: My ideas flow so rapidly that I have not time to express them–by which I mean what I turn into you may convey no ideas at all, so I am working to tone down the mental agility.

Cheponis is really nice. He contacted me as soon as he found out I was waitlisted, and gave me options on what to do if I still want to go to MIT. And when I responded, he immediately replied. Here’s an excerpt:

You will make fundamental contributions to Human knowledge. I strongly believe that.

If you really really want to go to MIT, do exactly what they suggest, returning the card, etc. I can write another note to the committee if you like. My personal guess is that 20-40 spots from the wait list will be used. As the note, below, says, you’re qualified, else you wouldn’t be on the wait list!

And, again I’ll mention as I mentioned to you in person, if you go elsewhere for undergrad, be _sure_ to apply to MIT for Grad School, as you mention.

I hope he won’t mind my posting this online, but it isn’t anything unflattering to him.

I am accepted into Caltech, although I am not quite sure whether I’d want to go there. The size is the biggest reason, and the lack of diversity only makes it worse. Plus, it looks like a place where people work diligently 24-7, not something I’d be comfortable doing. To make it worse, this year 10 guys got accepted for every girl! At the beginning of the year, I didn’t expect to have this dilemma; I only expected acceptance into Cal / UC Berkeley.

It’s strange I got waitlisted from MIT but accepted into Caltech, since the number admitted to Caltech is 1/10th of the number admitted to MIT. Oh wait, what did I hear? Caltech does not endorse discrimination on the basis of sex! That’s right. If MIT turned a blind eye to sex, I’d be in, but apparently it considered “diversity” a more important point of consideration than fairness.

I dedicate this page to the issue of global warming, specifically the two articles about global warming wherein the second completely owns the first.

This first article relies completely on irrelevant “evidence” to contradict global warming, making a fool out of the author:

Scientific `consensus’ on global warming doesn’t exist By Robert Cohen

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary, released Feb. 2, states that it is “very likely” that changes in climate are due to human influence. More recent comments in various media outlets have focused on a scientific consensus which supports the panel’s conclusions. Those who question this consensus have been compared to Holocaust deniers, and some have been threatened with job dismissal. This is no longer science, but scientific socialism. I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false.

The IPCC was formed under U.N. auspices, and while each expert contributed a few pages of the report, the final publication was vetted through governmental committees before release, where significant changes could be made. The documents signed by the contributing experts note that they agree with the pages they contributed, but not necessarily the complete report nor its conclusions.

There are a number of inconsistencies in the report. The most glaring is that the models on which the conclusions depend do not agree with various sets of observations. Following are a few specific examples: The summary notes an increase in mean sea level of 7 inches during the 20th century, with a forecast rise of an additional 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Observations, however, do not agree with these predictions. Stockholm, which has the world’s longest sea level measurement record of about 1,200 years, has shown increases in sea level of only plus-or-minus 0.06 inches per year, with an average very close to zero; these observations are well below the model predictions.

The Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu , barely above sea level, has requested permission to move its people to Australia or New Zealand, based on the predicted sea level rise. However, satellite data and sea level measurements indicate falling sea level at the island. The models predict that temperature increases will appear first at the poles. However, data published after the release of the IPCC Summary indicate that temperatures in the Antarctic have not increased during the previous 50 years. Those data frequently quoted in the media of increasing temperatures are only from a small region occupied by scientists; the Antarctic region as a whole does not show rising temperatures.

Away from the earth’s surface, models predict that temperature trends should show a strong increase with height, particularly in the tropics. However, observations indicate upper atmosphere temperatures showing flat or decreasing temperature trends.

Research has also shown that slight changes in energy from the sun can significantly affect the earth, particularly in terms of clouds, which are a weak link in the global warming models. The level and amount of cloud can determine whether temperatures will warm as the cloud layer limits heat dissipation to space or whether temperatures will cool as the sun’s incoming energy is reflected back to space before reaching the Earth’s surface.

Temperature has fluctuated significantly in the past, with shorter-term cooling and warming trends of about 1,500 years superimposed on long-term cycles of ice ages and glacial melting. The 1,500-year cycle includes the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, which together extended from about 900 to 1850 A.D. During the former, literature and archaeology provide evidence that the Vikings found grapes in Newfoundland, naming their new settlement Vinland. The Little Ice Age was associated with major diseases which were rampant, due at least partially to the cold weather. As the Arctic ice edge advanced, Inuit hunters in kayaks were observed as far south as Scotland around 1700.

Clearly, these changes were not due to human influence. It has yet to be determined whether we are in a warming period which is part of the normal climate cycle.

Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical observations?

The article above gets absolutely dismantled a week later by an article written by Rafael Reyes and Stephen H. Schneider:

The debate is over; we must address climate change now

In his March 5 opinion article, “certified consulting meteorologist” Robert Cohen seeks to cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the climate-change science consensus. His is a campaign of misinformation that relies on common misconceptions.

First, regarding sea level, a common denier tactic is to say that observations in one location invalidate the global measurements of rising seas. This is like saying the stock market can’t be up if one stock is down. Globally distributed tide-gauge data from 1870 to 2004 shows the sea level is increasing over half a foot per century, and is accelerating.

Second, regarding upper-atmosphere temperatures and the effect of the sun, if the warming we are observing were primarily due to changes in energy output from the sun, the whole atmosphere would warm. This is not happening. The observed pattern - warming below, cooling higher up - is a “fingerprint” that emissions are trapping heat at lower levels, and is one of a half dozen such fingerprints that support human emissions as a main factor in recent climate trends.

Third, regarding past climate changes, current carbon-dioxide concentrations are higher than any seen in almost a million years! What’s more, the rate of global climate change that we are currently experiencing is greater than that during any time since the end of the last ice age. It is the rapid rate of change of temperature relative to previous eras that defines the unique and serious problem of global warming that we are facing.

The IPCC report is produced by teams of scientists under exhaustive review, and while government representatives may comment, the scientists are under no obligation to incorporate their suggestions. All responses by authors to comments are screened by editors to minimize any hint of bias. With nearly 4,000 participating experts in 130 countries, the IPCC’s report is probably the most scrutinized document in the world. There is virtual unanimity among climate scientists that carbon dioxide from human sources is a major factor in global warming. As noted by Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science magazine, a “consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science.”

By pouring new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are fundamentally changing the delicate balance that regulates the temperature of the planet. And the risks are severe. As one example close to home, the Sierra snowcap is showing signs of decrease and projections for resulting water loss in the state run from 30 percent to 80 percent in the coming decades depending on the extent to which we act.

There is no longer serious debate about whether we should take action to deal with the risks. Chief executives of major companies including BP America, Lehman Brothers, General Electric, Wal-Mart Stores, Alcoa, DuPont, Caterpillar and numerous others have called for urgent action. Even former skeptics such as Pat Robertson and Bill O’Reilly have acknowledged the reality of serious human-caused warming and the need to address it.

But this call to action is simply more incentive to do what we should do anyway. Burning fossil fuels is a major factor in the country’s asthma epidemic, with 50,000 deaths from outdoor air pollution annually in the United States. And too many of our dollars spent buying petroleum support dictatorships around the world, weakening our national security.

Further, there are huge financial benefits to realize from investment in alternatives. The opportunities are so great that Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s CEO, recently stated, “We think green means green. This is a time period where environmental improvement is going to lead toward profitability. This is not a hobby to make people feel good.” Our region will greatly benefit from the technologies and jobs that will come from addressing climate change head on. Already, many businesses are growing from the “clean energy” boom.

The science is strong; the debate over fundamentals of human-induced warming is over. We need action at every level and the time is NOW.

The failed attempts to contradict the scientifically based theory of global warming is clearly reminiscient of the days when nay-sayers of evolution reigned. Oh wait, that’s STILL the case in places like Oklahoma, whose Senator, who adamantly refuses to believe global warming, called Gore “Full of shit.” Good world!

MIT waitlisted me. Apparently notification of whether I’d be accepted or denied admission will come AFTER I notify my other college(s) whether I want in or not. MIT, if you really don’t want me, I don’t want you either. You won’t even give me stats for the waiting list and for admissions. I had to Google them up.

For the 2005-6 year, 7600 men and 2800 women applied to MIT, of whom 750 and 740 (respectively) were admitted. Those numbers are pretty demoralizing. I highly doubt that ALL of those 740 women were more qualified than ALL of the other 6850 unadmitted men (basically, I doubt the LEAST QUALIFIED of the 740 exceeds the qualifications of the MOST QUALIFIED of the 6850–something I believe is very unlikely). This is just a clear example of politically- and institutionally-endorsed discrimination (The P.C. variant of the terminology is the familiar “affirmative action”) gone completely wrong; instead of admitting students solely based on their ability, their past contributions, and their other records, MIT gives a 200% (3x) lead for women simply because they are women.

Let’s see how many men would have been admitted if the total numer of admission were the same, but men were admitted at the same ratio: total = 750+740=1490 ~ 1500. At this rate, 400 women and 1100 men would have been admitted. This means, IF ALL of the women in the waiting list were more qualified than I am, I still would have had 90.2% chance of being admitted.

Also from the same page, I see that of the 470 put on the waiting list last year, 0 were offered admission. Isn’t that just wonderful? Because of this, and the second period of uncertainty (third time for early applicants who got waitlisted), the experience is like being temporarily stored in purgatory while god determines whether there is space in hell (or heaven) for you.

I did not expect admission into MIT anyway, but the admissions office should have been frank with the waitlisted applicants by offering them detailed statistics of their chances of admission, how many applied, how many were admitted (both with men/women breakdowns), etc.

MIT is not the place for me anyway. I bid the rest of you guys good luck in finding suitable colleges that appreciate your admission.

Directly from PIV:

ENGL LIT AP 88/B+
PHYSCS B AP 100/A+
BIOLOGY AP 2 100/A+
MACROECON AP 99/A+ (I wish I did that one homework assignment…)
BADMINTON 100/A+
DIFFER EQN 100/A+
CHAMBR ORCH2 100/A+

And directly from PIV for Lit AP:

Paris / Eleven Revision (2007-02-05) 96/100 — A
Prose TW - Henry James (2007-02-09) 76/100 — C

Apparently I regressed 20% in the two consecutive essays. Wow, I suck.

EDIT: Orchestra is 100%; 100% on an econ test!… but that’s still a 99%

Japan Reassures China Over Defense Pact
http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_18568-Japan-Reassures-China-Over-Defense-Pact.html

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe says his country’s new defense pact with Australia is not aimed at containing China. Abe and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who is in Tokyo, are to sign the new security agreement Tuesday providing for closer security ties including joint military training and intelligence sharing.

The Japanese leader told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. the pact was not aimed at containing China’s influence in the Asian area, “… nor do we have any specific country like China in mind,” he said.

Abe said the agreement is in the security interests of the Asian region and builds on the longstanding cooperative relationship between Japan and Australia.

Wow, that’s as ridiculous as burying 500 gold nuggets in a definite plot of land and specifically telling people that there is no gold there.

I’ve come up with one solution to poverty in Africa, US budget deficits, and global warming. It’s a very simple yet elegant solution, involving the exploitation of the process of photosynthesis. I will break this post into two parts: what will be done, and how that will benefit the world.

What will be done: Move ALL of the world’s polluting factories into Africa–oil refineries, shit processing plants, nuclear waste storage facilities (etc). Relocate ALL tropical timber companies into Africa. Eliminate American farming subsidies, and foreign aid to Africa. Replace coal-fired power plants with gasified-coal plants or nuclear (which can be purchased from Africa). Demand as tribute “peacekeeping troops” from the African beneficiaries who will be taught English, be trained in American combat techniques, and be loaned American assault weapons.

How this will benefit everyone: The efficiency of photosynthesis is severely limited by the scarce abundance of carbon dioxide (thanks to photorespiration). This fact is especially evident in tropical areas where plants receive significantly more sunlight (in the light reaction) than they can store (in the light-independent reaction). Therefore, the amount of CO2 those plants can remove from the atmosphere and thus the amount of O2 they can release are limited ONLY by the limited supply of CO2, meaning that introducing additional sources of CO2 into that environment will not increase overall CO2 concentration in that region, but instead it will significantly speed up plant growth.

The capital investors can help keep the plant material level by planting trees for timber, then chopping them down (to act as constant atmospheric carbon absorbers). In doing so, they are not only helping to keep the natural equilibrium and balance but also profiting from this (in addition to getting cheap wood for the industrial nations). What will the additional CO2 source be, though, you ask? What else can they be? Industrial factories.

Moving those factories to Africa will dramatically decrease the demand of energy in industrial nations, and thus the greenhouse gas emissions. And the land originally used by those factories and power plants (whatever was moved away) can be now filled with tons of trees, which would offset (if not even undo) the waste produced by cars and other miscellaneous polluters that were not moved to Africa.

It will also create jobs (some of which may be somewhat high-tech) in Africa, which will contribute to its human capital (in addition to the physical capital), reduce (or virtually eliminate) its poverty, and ultimately make Africa self-sufficient (so the US does not have to send them money). Just in return, every eligible male African citizen is expected to devote one year of his life (6 months to adequate training, 6 months in duty) to serve as US (screw UN) peacekeeping officers for international tasks. They can handle all of Iraq; they can power humanitarian missions around the world; etc.

The US will have to spend significantly less on its military and foreign aid, and even less on volatile OPEC energy. It will also be self-sufficient in terms of wood, and it will have a happy trading partner. Therefore this would eliminate US budget deficits (by cutting unnecessary costs) and markedly improve (if not eliminate) trade deficits.

The environmental benefits are obvious, so I won’t cover that much. Basically moving factories to Africa won’t mean Africa will spew out more greenhouse gases, but it will eliminate (considering the neutralization factor with more trees) emission in industrial nations. (Sorry, I’m using the US and “industrial nations” interchangeably, but I mean the latter)

Some potential problems: Textile workers in Atlanta will lose their jobs to a much cheaper labor force in Africa. But, so what? New sectors always emerge in the economy, creating new jobs. An economic shift from labor-intensive work to automated-production is an emperical evidence for a successful economy. The whole industrialized world is quickly shifting to a services-oriented economy, meaning the moving of factories will have increasingly decreasing (lol) effect on the economy.

Another problem is more evident: Africa probably will not be content with the industrial world controlling and building crap on their land. To avoid this problem, they would need to be convinced that this plan will be mutually beneficial (I see it as a good deal on their part too), and if they have any rationality, this should not be too hard.

This is an incomplete idea, but the basic skeleton is there. Comment and critique, please.