Skip to main content

More Climate Misconceptions

I was reading the New Scientist today and found an article about the Global Warming/Climate Change debate that is raging today.

Page 2 of this article (Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics) makes a statement that is, well, sophomoric:

"The UK Met Office this week published data showing that the first decade of the 2000s has been the warmest on record."

A very long time ago, this planet was covered in ice and snow. Slowly, this global "ice age" receded and has gradually given rise to the modern world of today (2009). Yet, there are still large ice sheets on the planet (the Arctic and Antarctic Poles) that are continuing to melt.

For these large sheets of ice to melt, the average atmospheric temperature of the planet must increase. Without that increase, we would still have more ice and snow, and likely no humans and fancy fast cars. Therefore, it goes without saying that the Plant's average temperature is increasing, and it HAS been increasing for a very very very long time. We are all glad it has, because I could not write this critique without it being a balmy 75 degrees Farenheit outside today.

Imagine for a moment if you lived your entire life in a moving car. As a child, you never noticed that it was moving fast, so you just lived your life happy, playing with your toys. Then one day, self awareness started, and you noticed your surroundings moving fast. Bumps would jostle your body and your head would bounce about like a balloon. Now you're a little older, and the car is still going the same speed, but you care a little more about yourself. You realize "hey, we're moving fast, we better slow down," much to the dismay of the older and wiser operators of the car.

Humans, today, are in this point of reference. We are seeing now that the planet is warm, warmer than it was a thousand years ago. Yet we have eaten billions of fish and shat billions of tons of waste in those thousand years too. Are we drowning in our waste? Are there still fish in the Oceans? Yes, and no, mostly.

Anyone who claims to have any clear answers about "Global Climate Change" today is nothing more than a fool. We've only managed to monitor climate on this plant for a few hundred years (with any respectable accuracy). That's just a passing fart in the nearly 5 BILLION years of this planet's life. Yet, there are a bunch of misguided people at this Copenhagen Summit, causing "constructive violence" in protest of climate control policies and "elitism."

I had a chat once with one of those misguided "eco-terrorist" types. She had some very misinformed ideas about farm subsidies, government involvement in crop rotations, and trade negotiations. These people are given a little information and told to "fight the good fight," in the name of human preservation. They rarely research on their own, and seek out self-fulfilling half-truths to further their agendas.

There isn't any "Climate Crisis" yet. This planet is going through its own natural climate changes that it has experienced consistently in its lifetime. We are at the final stage of the current global warming trend (Heleocene) and will be entering into a global ice age soon (5,000 to 10,000 years).

Humans will no longer be on this planet in 5,000 years though. Our adolescent view of the world is ending and, like all adolescents, we must grow up and leave the comforts of our nests. The time, effort, and money that we waste on this "Global Climate" debate can be better served solving real social issues on this planet.

Children are murdered and raped every day on this planet, and yet we are spending billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours worrying about what will happen on this planet in 100, 200, 500 years? We have giant ice bergs of fresh water floating in our oceans, and yet we need to build desalination facilities to extract fresh water from our coastal waters?

The absurdity of this debate and our times makes me think that Monty Python is behind this global comedy. Are we living the Flying Circus?

Popular posts from this blog

Stock Option Debt Income

The 2024 Presidential election has brought out a topic of interest that seems to have been perverted. There is this "Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains" [1] movement that is being falsely attributed to Vice President Harris. Clearly, this is a change in the revenue code that was designed by someone in office long before VP Harris was in office. My money is on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. What is this change in the revenue code though? For that you have to understand what Silicon Valley zillionaires are doing with their stock options. Many of these people in this special economic area have huge discounts on stock prices for companies that are not public yet, or are public and can not be sold [2]. To be fair to these holders of equity, banks allow them to finance debt using leverage against those options. If you hold an option that is worth $5M then a bank might lend you a share of that value, thus realizing a debt against the option [3]. This is a fair debt instrument and...

A Self Defeating Race False Narrative

2020 is the year of the pandemic. The SARS-Cov-2 (Covid19) virus has rampaged across the planet infecting 4,893,136 [1] people by May 20, 2020. At this time, of those 4.8M people, 323,256 people have perished from complications that arise from the infection. Arising out of this pandemic has been a narrative about non-white ethnic groups being disproportionately affected by the infection [6,7,8]. A narrative that conditions people to believe that they are perpetually victims only creates a "collective victimhood" [4,5] in that group. This "collective victimhood" costs its members millions in unrealized potential, sends them cowering from social interactions that would otherwise benefit them, and ultimately creates an environment that perpetuates itself. Let's try to dispel that false narrative and deal just with data. I pulled my data from the CDC [9] looking at mortality only. The mortality data from CDC contains per-state mortality rates on a per-infectio...

Number of Primes

Anderson's Theorem (a) The number of primes in [1,n] is no more than 2+floor(n/2). The probability of n being prime when n is not prime is 1/2 - see Dasgupta,Papadimitriou,Vazirani "Algorithms" page 26. Therefore, the E(pi(n)) is n/2. (b) There does not exist another set of adjacent primes other than {1,2,3} 5: 2 + floor(5/2) = 2 + 2 = 4:=> {1,2,3,5} : 4 <= 4 7: 2 + floor(7/2) = 2 + 3 = 5 => {1,2,3,5,7} : 5 <= 5 11: 2 + floor(11/2) = 2 + 5 = 7 => {1,2,3,5,7,11} 6 <= 7 26: 2 + floor(26/2) = 15 => {1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23} : 10 <= 15 Lagrange's Theorem is Inaccurate Lagrange's theorem about primes states that pi(x) is the number of primes <= x. The pi(x) is approximately x/ln(x). He postulated that the lim of pi(x)/(x/lnx) as x-> infinity was 1. This is incorrect. if the number of primes is bounded by n/2 then refactoring and reducing Lagrange's Theorem results in the lim of ln(x) as x approaches infinity. This is alwa...