Climate Change, and Global Warming, and Extinction, Oh My

Climate Change and Climate Hysteria always seem rather strange to me. You see when I was growing up, we were told many times by many people that the world was going to end because of one climate crisis or another. I was told the ozone would deplete and we would all die of cancer as solar radiation killed us because of aerosol cans. I was told that because of pollution we would all die from acid rain destroying everything and poisoning the water supplies. I was told there would be an ice age. I was told the polar icecaps would melt and we would all drown. Here we are today and a lot of stuff said just does not get mentioned anymore. Now it is climate change, where the world will be thrown into chaos by ever exaggerating seasons.

So let's start with the basics. What is Climate Change? Climate change is something that happens with or without us. Due to changing balances in the atmosphere, changes in our orbit, and a lot of external causes, the climates change. Even tectonic plate movement changes things.

So what is the big deal? Well, specifically people are arguing over man's impact on the climate. Climate change is real, but the effects people have on it are what is being debated. The biggest debate is over "greenhouse gases." So let's get a little scientific. When we are talking about greenhouse gases, we are taking about certain molecules in the atmosphere that hold heat longer. This is pretty much everything except stuff like O2 (oxygen), N2 (Nitrogen), noble gases (Hydrogen, Helium, Neon, Argon, etc.), basically simple molecules. Greenhouse gases themselves complex molecules like CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (Methane), H2O (water [vapor]), SO2 (sulfur dioxide), and so on. What makes these chemicals greenhouse gases is because of the ability to store heat longer. The idea is that these chemicals can vibrate much more than simple molecules, which is what heat energy is. This would mean that over the cooling cycle of night, the air stays warmer for longer. Thus there is less time to cool off and temperatures rise. On top of that, many of these chemicals have other effects or interactions with the environment. Consider O3 (ozone), a complex molecule that is really good at absorbing radiation. This protects us from a lot of dangerous radiation, but would also be bad to breath in directly.

So how do we know what will happen if the greenhouse gases keep rising? This is where things get a little more interesting. Back in the time of dinosaurs, take for example the Jurassic period, CO2 was much higher than now by about 5 times. About the only thing this amounts to would be animals adjusting to low oxygen environments, something people intentionally do to themselves for things like running marathons, and possibly bigger plants. There is a lot of data we have that is indirect from times when the atmosphere was "worse" than it is now. With the direct data we have now, it would be hard to tell what the effects would be.

So why all the hysteria? Part of it is our reliance on computer models. Remember, I work in IT. Computers are dumb. Computer models are stupid. It amazes me that people take our weather and climate models as being super accurate and at the same time laugh at how unrealistic games are when attempting to re-create simple physics. A computer model is just simply a person putting together an algorithm to calculate a human guess with much faster math. These models are not smarter than people, they are just faster than a person calculating and can often contain really bad errors. One of my favorite errors are floating point errors. Math on computers is not as simple or good as most people like to think. So when it comes to the "models," spare me because I call them out during hurricanes when they are about as good as people speculating and guessing with nothing to go on but their own experience and observations. Not to mention we do not know all the variables involved or the full effects.

Here's the real root of the hysteria part. Hysteria over climate change drives up oil and gas prices. Despite having no effect on the supply at the time, the hysteria drives prices up. The government adds taxes, joining in on the profit. It plays into the hands of big oil companies and the government, meanwhile many think they are fighting against and bringing down the exact same entities. Then as the oil companies get more money, these groups fighting them spring back and push more, gathering more money in donations and the like. It's a self-feeding beast. Now it is massive and has put us where we are today.

I am not saying climate change is fake, or humans have no impact, or that we should not do anything. Here is the reality. Climate change is real, we just do not know the full extent of it yet because we do not have that much directly observed data. Everything has an impact on it, even humans, we just do not know how much of an impact humans have on it. We do not need to panic, nature is good at doing what it needs to keep going.

Now many of the climate hysterical people tell us we need to cut back on fossil fuels. Here is the way I look at it. Countries and people that can should look at cheaper and more reliable sources of energy because that's the smart thing to do even if there was no climate change. However, there are a lot of poor countries that cutting it back now could cause more problems. So let's be smart about it.

On the opposite side of the table, there are people that say there is absolutely no cause for alarm, keep on keeping on. This is dumb. There are plenty of reasons to go "green" even if you don't care about the environment or think there is no threat.

Here is the reason you should go green to benefit you. Switching your light bulbs to LED may be an investment, but they last longer and cut back on the electric bill which could save you money in the long run. Getting a more fuel efficient car will save you money on gas, which means less money from gas taxes feeding the government beast. Walking or taking a bike is free to get around and good for your own health. Planting trees around your house can reduce costs on cooling in the summer with the shade and if they bear fruit, could reduce your food bill. If you are on city water, using less water saves you money. Reusable items can save you money and even time. Consuming less and not being a fatty costs less and is better for you. Recycling certain items saves energy and reduces the need for landfills. Really any reasonable way to save yourself some money here and there is probably going to benefit the environment and reduce the impact we have on the world around us.

I, personally, like keeping things green because I like nature and I like saving money. I have fruit trees scattered about on my yard, LEDs in the house, backyard chickens, a bunch of reusable stuff, I drive a hybrid (I drive around 100 miles a day, so gas can be a major expense for me), and really anything I can to save money or make my yard look better.

The world probably will not break apart at the seams tomorrow. Try not to be hysterical about stuff we are still gathering data on and probably have not identified all the variables yet. Also do not become complacent like everything is all okay. There are plenty of problems with the environment we should keep in mind. Most importantly, stop acting like stupid computer models ran by stupid computers made by people somehow can reveal all the secrets we do not know.

Soleimani Killed and Everything Going on in Iran

Everything going on in the news has been a little crazy. There are fears of a World War III, being drafted, retaliation, and so on. I wanted to hold off saying anything until giving some things time to unfold. The problem I see is that it seems all of a sudden, people are acting like experts in foreign affairs and politics of the middle east. I'll clarify one thing first, I am not an expert in foreign affairs and I probably couldn't even list off half the countries of the middle east, let alone tell you anything about their politics. As a result, I was unsure of what to expect.


Things are fairly confusing with all the propaganda being considered truth making its way through the information chains via celebrities and over-eager news outlets. It is hard to decide which sources are actually true, which is why I think most Americans need to pull back on their opinions. It's a little scary to see how easily people can jump aboard narratives and throw out common sense. I'll add a twitter thread I came across on Reddit that made a lot of sense to me.

Currently the US media is trying to blow this up like the biggest story ever. Sure it is high profile, but it is not anything new to our general relations with this area. Why we even have so many troops there seems a bit of a mystery to most. While many would claim this is all Bush's fault or something along those lines, a simple check online shows that we have been involved with Iran since World War II. So back in the 1940's we have had dealings with them and it does not look like at any point could we really consider relations good.

In the current times, relations appear very tense. As with everything we do over there, the US is met with both cheers and jeers. This is the nature of even appearing to pick sides. It is still unclear what will result, but I personally doubt the possibility of a new World War. Tensions seem to always be high in that area and due to how unstable the region as a whole seems, the unexpected could possibly happen.

While I do not think this was the right form of intervention, I also do not think that the US should just roll over when pushed. I would prefer we pulled all of our troops from every country with such strained relations and let it be dealt with locally. I do not think it is America's place to be the global police nor do I think it is worth sinking billions of dollars to manipulate foreign affairs. This money goes either through the military funding or "Emergency Aid" which is really just a quick way to fund "our guy." Our lack of understanding of the people and all the nuances almost always guarantees we will cause more problems in the long run. If we stop interfering, the people with the right knowledge and the adequate amount of power may actually stand a chance at fixing something. Alternatively things could get way worse, but then at least there may be an actual reason for us to go back there and fight.

Just for the sake of completeness if my assumptions are wrong, what would happen if WWIII happened? When I was watching a video by Tim Pool, he made a good point I did not consider. Warfare has changed a lot. Wars are fought with technology. We have a never ending cyber war with governments and companies. In the IT world these are called APT (Advanced Persistent Threat). We also have drones, smart bombs, missiles with lots of capabilities, and so on. So the battlefield has changed drastically and there is no telling exactly where the major face of it would be waged. I also think it is a fair assumption to say that there may be many sides to it with constant challenging and retaliation as groups try to sneak in their own motives to work towards. I think there could even be an argument made that we have already been at WWIII for a while and it just has an ever changing landscape with no real sides to it.

Regardless of what happens, I still think we should work towards just getting our troops out of the area and as far out of the middle east as possible. It is my opinion that our interference has destabilized things and our continued interference makes it worse. I also think that when we pull out, things will get far worse in the immediate future but much better in the long run. It is unavoidable for things to fix themselves without some tragedy.

Is a President Impeached if it Does Not Go to The Senate

I have seen a few things arguing back and forth about if Trump is impeached or not. Most of them contain legal terms, metaphors, or references to the British laws around all the house of lords stuff that we got the impeachment stuff from. I notice this more and more, but the real problem in my opinion, stems from language changes. People now do not speak like people from them. Writing is also different than how we speak, and that has changed as well. I am no legal expert or language expert, but I am an IT person who hinges everything on logic. So let us look at things from a logical computer perspective because why not.

The argument seems to stem over whether impeachment is a process or a declaration by vote. It is being compared to the term indicted, but by logic different words are used for a reason. Let's check out the etymology first.

formerly also empeach, late 14c., empechen, "to impede, hinder, prevent;" early 15c., "cause to be stuck, run (a ship) aground," also "prevent (from doing something)," from Anglo-French empecher, Old French empeechier "to hinder, stop, impede; capture, trap, ensnare" (12c., Modern French empêcher), from Late Latin impedicare "to fetter, catch, entangle," from assimilated form of in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + Latin pedica "a shackle, fetter," from pes (genitive pedis) "foot" (from PIE root *ped- "foot"). In law, at first in a broad sense, "to accuse, bring charges against" from late 14c.; more specifically, of the king or the House of Commons, "to bring formal accusation of treason or other high crime against (someone)" from mid-15c.  The sense of "accuse a public officer of misconduct" had emerged from this by 1560s. The sense shift is perhaps via Medieval Latin confusion of impedicare with Latin impetere "attack, accuse" (see impetus), which is from the Latin verb petere "aim for, rush at" (from PIE root *pet- "to rush, to fly"). The Middle English verb apechen, probably from an Anglo-French variant of the source of impeach, was used from early 14c. in the sense "to accuse (someone), to charge (someone with an offense)."

So what does all that mean? Well it says to accuse, bring charges against when talking about law. Specifically, formal charges. This is where the little logic loop is coming from. The president is accused, but since the Senate does not have the stuff, the charges have not been brought. This still is not a definitive answer, as this is the word generically which to me seems like it could be interpreted both ways right now. He is accused, but there are no charges being brought up yet.

In one of the videos I watched, the key piece being brought to say he is impeached is where it states the House of Representatives has the "sole power of impeachment." This is where language is going to get annoying. The law also says that the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. So let's put these side by side and compare with logic.

"SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" and "SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS"

To try an impeachment would, to me, indicate that it is being used in the form of an accusation. This falls in line with the result if the charges go through, that being the point a president would actually be removed from office. If that works well, let's apply it backwards. Sole power of accusation (impeachment). This to me means that the main separation for the "sole power of impeachment" means they are the only ones who can start the ball rolling.

So back to the question, is he impeached after a vote if it has not reached the Senate yet? If I were programming something to give an answer on that, legally, sure? I can see an argument for either direction, but the bigger argument I see is that unless it goes to the senate and has a trial and results in actually going through, it's purely a moot point. The impeachment in a legal sense is nothing more than a formal accusation.

I think another problem we are having is people in our system are doing things that make no sense to drag out the dog and pony show that just frustrates everyone. I blame career politicians.

Paying Your Fair Share

Something that often gets mentioned when talking about taxes is the idea of paying your "fair share." This idea to me always seemed childish. As I grow older I have to acknowledge more and more that life is not fair. Very few things could be considered fair. Yet people bring up the need for things to be "fair" or the idea of something being "deserved." I want to focus on the idea of "fair share" and why this is all just childish garbage.

Almost everything today gets taxed. You make money, pay a tax. You inherited money that was already taxed, pay a tax. Spend money, pay a tax. Own property, pay a tax. I could go on for quite a while, the point is there is a tax for everything. In most cases we all pay the same amount per dollar. Sounds reasonable, right? Despite this, if you have a larger income then you have to pay more per dollar than other people. That's not right, how is that fair? Well, it's not. So a fair share would be to pay the same amount, right? No, the people talking about paying your fair share means that if you make more money you should be paying even more. How is that a fair share in anyone's mind?

So the way it works is currently is (2019) we have a few "tax brackets" for different income levels. Currently it goes like this for a single person:

The first $9,700 is taxed 10%
From $9,701 to $39,475 is taxed 12%
From $39,476 to $84,200 is taxed 22%
From $84,201 to $160,725 is taxed 24%
From $160,726 to $204,100 is taxed 32%
From $204,101 to $510,300 is taxed 35%
And from $510,301 and up is taxed 37%

The first thing you may notice is that there are some big jumps, one being a 10% difference. So how much is it numerically for each at the top of the bracket. We start with $970, then $3,573, then $9,839, then $18,366, then $13,880, then $107,170 roughly when rounded to the nearest dollar. Added up that is $153,798. This averages to 30% of your income as taxes. this excludes marriage, dependents, and other things that you can deduct. We could go and average each bracket, but the bottom line is it's taking more per dollar from people that make more money. Even though they will pay more per dollar than anyone, people still think it isn't enough to be fair. we haven't even taken into account state income tax and all the other extras that are paid out on top of all of this.

From what I can find, in 2018, 44.4% of Americans actually did not pay any federal income tax, but they still pay out for Social Security and Medicare. That means that we burden 55.6% of wage earning Americans to float a huge portion of our federal budget. Despite this, people say it isn't fair and the rich need to pay more.

Often times to show the numbers, people try to show off the net worth of individuals as though they can take a huge chunk of it. What people fail to realize is that a lot of time it is not money on hand or income, but investments. I can have a million dollars worth of investments without a cent on me and make no income whatsoever. See the thing is, there are things that aren't taxed until you sell them. These fall under capital gains tax. This can be stocks, bonds, precious metals, real estate, and property. As long as the investment is held, it is not getting taxed. These are taxed differently than your income tax, but they are added together to find the percentage to be taxed.

Regardless, if someone is paying more per dollar, they are paying more than their fair share. The only fair tax would be a flat tax with no deductions, then everyone would be paying their fair share of income tax. In my honest opinion, we should be working towards eliminating income tax entirely.

You see, income tax was a concept for a way to fund a war effort. In 1799 Great Britain implemented income tax to fund fighting the French, led by Napoleon. It was viewed as temporary. The US considered income tax to fund the War of 1812, but the war ended before it happened. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which had income tax to help fund efforts in the Civil War. Due to problems with the details of income tax law, taxes were not collected until the revision in the Tax Act of 1862. It was amended multiple times until being repealed in 1872. The government was making most of its revenue through taxing imports, exports, and sales. The problem they found was it mostly effected the rich. They came up with a graduated income tax in 1894 and tried to enact it across the country. It was found unconstitutional in 1895 by the supreme court because all federal taxes had to be based on state population. To finally get a permanent income tax, they ratified the 16th amendment to eliminate the need that federal taxes be based on state population.

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In the same year, the federal government ratified the first permanent income tax law.

It starts as a temporary idea to help pay for a war. It then becomes an idea to make the average American pay their fair share. Now the rich are being told they aren't paying their fair share. There is a lot of history surrounding income tax, and taxes in general. Going through most of it, it is hard to imagine people are not rioting in the streets to repeal all the taxes. The bottom line for me is I think paying any income tax at all is more than your fair share.