This blog is a direct result of too much rain in Vancouver. I suspect it will be a place where I will post thoughts about my current readings or about the events of the day. Also, I have a book into which I have been writing "worthy thoughts" over the years as I read books so this may be a perfect excuse to go through all of those and remember the mental resonance that they caused.
I smell a rat. On Climate Change.
The article linked to here is just one example of what I have been following for decades now and something is "off" and people appear to be lying and doing so knowingly.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was created about 30 years ago and developed 100 different computer models to predict future climate. On the basis of those computer model projections, they issued some dire warnings in their first report, which then they cut in half (forecasts of global warming and sea level change and the like) in their most recent report.
But, because their first predictions have now been out for decades, one can compare forecast data with actual observations and the real world is refusing to cooperate with their models. The actual observed changes are much much less than any projections and hugely different than the average of all of their models put together.
This appears to be unacceptable to the main entities participating in this (the UN and the meteorological offices of the US, UK and Australia) and when the observed readings do not fit your forecasts, you "fix" the observed data, apparently.
Just one example of it is detailed in the enclosed and it is the "homogenization" of data of actual observations. The argument is that thermometers are sometimes located in urban areas where there is a "tall buildings effect" (tall buildings create shade due to which temperatures in the microclimate of a big city are lower than they would be otherwise) so they take the actual observed readings - what the thermometer actually said - and "adjust" it to what it would say if there was no tall buildings effect.
However, they appear to be doing this in the case of Australia for ALL of Australia's weather stations, not only those in large cities and they refuse to give other scientists raw data on how they calculated and adjusted for the "tall buildings effect".
If for whatever reason real world temperatures did not rise as predicted by the models, sea level rise would not be a concern and all of these people would have nothing to do. Nobody can tell me that they do not understand that and that they are able to separate their concerns about their livelihood from how they handle the data. Or at least they should show the world how they do it but they refuse to.
Another example that I have been following for years where something is "off" too is the project to put more satellites into orbit to measure the thickness of ice in polar caps, not just its area (or "extent") as is done now. It makes sense if you think about it because if 90% of an iceberg is below water, you would want to measure that more precisely than the 10% or so which is visible to establish how much ice in total there is.
So I read about these new satellites being put in place by the EU about 5 years ago and have been waiting to see the data from them but there is nothing reported anywhere. It is very odd and I have looked several times a year for a few years now.
What if they did measure the ice volume and it turns out that what is seen on the surface where there is quite a bit of seasonal variability and year-to-year variability is not quite the same "under the surface"? What if the total volume of ice in water in the Arctic is 2% less or 2.5% less than 30 years ago. Or what if there is actually more of it - would the data still be widely shared and reported because after all, it was "good news"? I do not believe it would be as the academic and political industries of global warming cataclysm are simply too big to not be worried about their own survival.
Just my sense and happy to be proven wrong. But please bring data if you do want to prove something. Not the "flat Earth society" stuff. Good thing Hitler did not say anything about climate ever so at least there aren't those tired analogies to mine.
Here is a PSA for anyone confused by Bitcoin this, Bitcoin that, "cryptocurrencies", "blockchain" and all that.
First of all, you do not need to understand what "blockchain" is any more than you need to understand how your iPhone identifies you by your fingerprint. It is underlying technology serving a purpose.
Second, you do not need to understand anything about currencies. Later, you may but to understand the fundamental concepts involved which you can explain to a 12 year old, you don't.
So in order to avoid that let's start with something that is not money at all. Imagine that there was a ledger (a book with records) in which ownership of every piece of land was recorded. Each parcel of land is uniquely identified and it says next to it who owns it. There is such a ledger - it is called "land registry" or "cadastral system" and just about every country has them. Many of you have bought and sold property and are familiar wit…
This was a while ago after the U.S. election but it is so good it is worth posting at any time. It's by Pete McMartin of the Vancouver Sun:
"By my reading of national and international opinion, the average Republican voter is a slack-jawed cracker named Cletis who lives in a double-wide in Hogspittle, Miss., where he worships rapturously at the First Baptist Church of the Second Coming. He loves NASCAR, hates hockey. He likes his beer with a shot, his shot in a double-barrel, and his double-barrel trained on gays, Darwinists and anyone with pigmentation duskier than his own. Cletis - quelle houreur! - believes in the Bible, the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, the war on terror and the idea that any peckerwood who buys a Honda Civic instead of a Dodge truck is a traitor. Cletis is not just a southerner by inclination or geography: His IQ is south of the Mason-Dixon line, too. He cain't read or write good, except to mark his "X" beside George Dubya's name.
The business model of Facebook is to get paid by serving advertising to you and me - the ads that show up in your NewsFeed in between posts and ads on the side panel. The more time we spend on Facebook, the more ads we "pass by", the more money FB makes.
So if I were Facebook, I would work on setting up my algorithms in such a way that people spend the maximum amount of time on FB. I would find things that make people stay online longer and post more. Posting a pic of a flower or your meal will get a few likes that take less than a second to click on and then we move on. But arguing and "debate" - well that is endless.
If I were FB, I would set the algorithm to show me posts which I am more likely to "engage" with and these days that means argue and disagree with. I would make it so that if on a thread of comments somebody has called me an idiot or a "moron" in the past, those should be the posts that I see first. Because it is more likely ther…