The Pitch

Climategate broke this week. Now I’m aware polls say 75% of people agree Global Warming is occurring and I have no wish to didactically pretend I have the answers sitting in my house in Barrie. Because I don’t. I only have questions.

For those of you unfamiliar, the climatologist brain trust in England at the heart of the case for Global Warming, had their emails compromised and leaked to the press. These emails included exchanges regarding subverting data that did not confirm a warming trend now as well as omitting a previous warming trend in the 30’s.

You see in recent years the data shows the earth has actually cooled. This makes it hard to extrapolate the Al Gore hockey stick graph in his movie. Also a warming trend in the 30’s (that was obviously followed by a cooling trend) does not help ramp up a unique alarm either.

If these emails are true then the question becomes....why? Well there are a couple of possible motives.

1- Money. Scientists at the fore are given increasingly larger grants as this plight gains momentum.

2- Notoriety. These scientists gain great fame amongst their peers.

Those are two very powerful motivators that could cloud objectivity, which is to say human fallibility may be in play.

Personally I have been sceptical of Global Warming for two simple reasons. Neither which are proof that it does not exist, merely red flags to me personally.

1- Telling me the earth has heated up 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit in 100 years seems erroneously specific given we were were shitting in outhouses, traveling by horse and buggy and using Morse Code. How the hell do we know the Global Temperature so exacting back then? .-..-....-.-.---.-..-.--.- “Your temperature again Addis Ababa?" ..--.-.-.----.-.-.- "78.2 or 78.3?"

2- We have had roughly 60 Ice Ages in just the last two million years. That represents massive cooling followed by obvious heating by a planet that was sparsely populated with glorified monkeys on it. No Hummers or factories back then. Theoretically we are in between Ice Ages presently and therefore in a warmer period.

This is obviously a planet in constant flux regardless of humanity when it comes to varioutions in temperature.

Now I’m not saying we humans are not polluting and making a goddamned mess of things. If you’ve read this blog enough you know I’m not saying that.

What I have been saying is that knowing the actual problem and dealing with it is the least we can do. How are we going to address a problem if we can’t properly identify it?

I am of course happy to have the debate. Not with me mind you, but between those that should be in the know and without any perverting agenda.

Perhaps Global Warming is happening. However unless you know an accredited Climatologist with a peer review finding of unmolested data...then you have just been listening to someone else regurgitate something fed to them.

When Climategate broke FOX News treated it like the bombshell that would blow the roof off a hoax while CNN treated it as suspiciously timed and lacking context. Two major journalistic operations can’t even report like journalists. Both strike me as unfairly characterizing this and I question the media’s ability to properly inform its public.

I want to quickly revisit the money motive. Goldman Sachs is one of the big corporations that are supporting a Cap and Trade initiative that is supposed to counter Global Warming. This also smells to me. If this legislation passes there will be a huge derivative business created in which people with buy and sell allowances for pollution...which is to say the brokers will be making a mint regardless.

Don’t even get me started on the myopically self-serving politicians. There is an awful lot of suspicion to be spread around.

"...as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch. And you're not a human being; you're a marketing rep."

-The Big Kahuna

-Life is complicated and far from perfect but it is still great.

*The Wall Street Journal has captured the dilemma well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Need Space?

If I were to scale up an atom’s nucleus so it was the size of a marble, would you be able to guess the comparative size of an electron encircling that nucleus? Or how far apart they’d be?

This question is really about space. How much is there in what we perceive as solid objects and how comprehensive is our spatial grasp?

The electron in this scenario would be the thickness of a human hair.

Given this scale, I figured the electron would be a couple inches away from the marble-sized nucleus. Seemed reasonable. After all electrons whizzing about can’t be too far away or else we wouldn’t perceive objects as solid. Could we?

Turns out the electron is 10,000 feet away!

Next time you look across Kempenfelt Bay (roughly 1 mile), think about the distance from shore to shore. Picture placing a marble on the one side then picture a pin head sized electron twice the distance away encircling/vibrating and giving everything we know density.

Amazing.

This epiphany proved useful to me when I visited the Natural History Museum in Manhattan. They have a similar scale-comprehension for the known Universe...and I was in awe.

They had this immense sphere (Hayden Sphere pictured above) that was 87 feet across (volume of 10 avg. homes).

Using that sphere to represent the known Universe (13.5 billion light years across) then a grain of sand inside it would represent a collection of galaxies known as the Virgo Cluster (home to our galaxy).

If you were to then blow up that grain of sand (Virgo Cluster) to the size of that 87 foot sphere...then another grain of sand within that new sphere would represent our entire Milky Way Galaxy (a galaxy containing 100 Billion stars).

Scaling up that newest grain of sand (Milky Way) to the size of that 87 foot sphere...then our entire solar system would be a grain of sand inside of that sphere.

Finally, the earth would be a grain of sand within our solar system blown up to that 87 foot sphere.

This exercise was nearly impenetrable to me at the time and I still struggle grasping it.

Want a little more fun?

The Space Shuttle orbits the earth at 25,000 feet per second. That is 8 times as fast as a bullet from a rifle. At that speed even something with the mass of a paint fleck leaves a significant impact on the shuttle (no resistance in space).

The speed of light is 40,000 times the speed of the orbiting space shuttle. Jesus that is fast. At that speed, our Sun’s light still takes 8 minutes to travel the 93 million miles to our beloved little orb.

In a Universe that has perhaps 100 Billion Galaxies and each Galaxy having perhaps 100 Billion stars each...makes the amount of stars border incomprehensibility.

The closest star to us, after our own sun, is 40 Trillion kms away. Which is to say if we could travel the speed of light (320,000 times faster than a speeding bullet), it would take us 4.3 years, give or take, to reach that lone closest of stars.

Just don’t run into anything of any mass at that speed or else “trip cancelled”!

Also worth noting is that is a long long way for E.T. to travel if he is fortuitously next door.

At that absurd speed it would take you 13,500,000,000 years to cross the known Universe. That is 160 million life times, traveling the speed of light. Inconceivable.

All of this got me wondering about the striking similarity between the infinitesimal nature of the particles within the atom scale and the equally dwarfing Universe scale.

Between the stars and the atom, there is really a lot of nothing...in absolutely everything.

As my good friend Sizzler says "it brings new meaning to making something out of nothing at all".

-Life is complicated and far from perfect but it is still great

Verbal Abuse

“Free to talk?”

This represents a sent text msg and it seems simple enough to me. It’s a new society and it has officially become rude to just call somebody’s cell for casual conversation without a feeler. That my friends, is an unsolicited interruption our lives and as such, should be treated with courtesy.

The actual call is now a “Cry Wolf” privilege.

We have a social contract, a mutual understanding if you will, that if you call us it is important to speak with us right NOW. Your call will be answered on that basis, however if you are calling because it is merely convenient for you and you have not extended the courtesy to find out if it is convenient to us...then your privilege can and will be revoked. *Unless of course a regular phone-talk-live relationship has been established.

Just because it’s a good time for you does not mean it is a good time for us. Lives are happening and a call in the dark is akin to showing up on someone’s doorstep unannounced. You are dictating someone else’s time based on your momentary desire. To not utilize technology afforded is akin to saying “I know I could easily find out if they are free to talk but I don’t want to. I don’t want to make a small gesture of deference. I want to talk. I want to talk NOW!..and it’s not even urgent”

A simple text or feeler isn’t too much to ask. It is a grace, a consideration, a courtesy that says “Talking on the phone to you right now suits me. Does it suit you?”

Now if we are busy, busy with company or in the middle of something (watching a movie, exercising, doing our hair, using the lavatory, engrossed in a novel, having a nap, cleaning the house, fixing a latch, savouring a meal, contemplating life, balancing the check book) we can respond to a feeler text at a more appropriate moment with “In the middle of something. What’s up?” This exchange need not ruin what it is we are doing and affords leeway.

A phone call is ANSWER! ....... *ring* ANSWER! ....... *ring* ANSWER! ....... *ring* ANSWER! ....... *ring* ANSWER!

It’s not only selfishly myopic...it’s annoying.

Even better, save the person asking what the necessity is by giving them the heads up. Take the 10 seconds in a text and get to the import of the incursion. “Free to talk? Regarding _____”.

That second part gives us all the info we need. It’s pleasant, non-binding and considerate. Giving us, the solicited party, a chance to gauge the necessity of timing for the whole live-talk enterprise.

We have the technology. To have it at our disposal and not use it is being defiantly rude it would seem.

Those that fight this evolution because “they” like live contact are missing the point. Live contact is still doable, it’s just no longer acceptable to be dictated from one side. It should now be symbiotic. This is about mutual respect for time and not about phone conversation.

In short. Do not call people’s cell unless:

a) You have established a phone-talk-live relationship

b) It’s very important you talk to that person immediately

c) You have confirmed symbiosis and we are in fact....Free to Talk

-Life is complicated and far from perfect but it is still great.