The Laws of Thermodynamics?

 So much for science, that thing we were to worship during the recent plague. Now New York is to ban natural gas. As the NY Times notes:

New York may soon become the first state in the nation to ban natural gas in new construction under a budget deal announced by Gov. Kathy Hochul. The proposal, revealed on Thursday night, has been a priority for environmental groups, who see it as a critical step in reducing New York’s dependence on fossil fuels and helping it meet its emission reduction goals. But it was opposed by the oil and gas industry and treated skeptically by some consumers. Environmental groups warned that the details of the plan were still unclear and said they worried it may contain a provision that would allow local governments to effectively veto the measure. But Katy Zielinski, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said on Friday that no such measure was included in the deal.

Now let us take a brief look at the science. Say we examine gas heat vs electric heat. Gas heat works by heating water which goes thru pipes and heats the house. Electric heat generates hot air blown thru ducts.

1. The specific heat and heat capacity of water in massively great than air. Namely it is more efficient. I suspect that the Enviro folks have never take a good thermodynamics course. I got all As in mine.

2. The CO2 issue of natural gas is de minimis that of electric unless you rely upon nuclear, which is a no-no for the Environmental Lords or wind/solar which is totally unreliable.

3. There has never been a natural gas black put. Our electricity dies at least once a month.

4. Electric heat goes thru ducts which have dust and massive amounts of microorganisms.

The conclusion. If you want to get rid of humanity the environmentalists seem to have the perfect formula.

Justice Gone Wild

 The use of the term "justice" has been abused to an infinite degree. Forget Plato and his insight into justice we now have justice applied to any politically correct whim. Consider the UCLA Prof who hates suburbs and wants to extend high density housing everywhere. She notes in Nature:

In the United States, we perfected this modern atrocity and exported it. As a result, cities around the world have large carbon footprints, long commute times, high infrastructure costs and problems with traffic congestion. Many residents have high rates of social isolation and health problems related to a lack of exercise. Suburban sprawl contributes to a housing crisis that sees a lack of affordable homes for workers in many desirable cities. Because a finite supply of precious land is being gobbled up by residential developments of one house per plot, the opportunity is lost to build cities with the qualities that most people want: walkable, mixed use, diverse and affordable. But even US suburbs are not beyond redemption. Over the past two decades, my colleagues and I at cityLAB, my urban-design research centre at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), have been finding and implementing solutions to the suburban sprawl of southern California, as I describe in my 2023 book, Architectures of Spatial Justice.

 Yes, Spatial Justice indeed. Now some facts:

1. The suburbs frequently have dense foliage, trees and plants, which the city does not. My home has well over 100 trees collecting massive amounts of CO2. Also I have little grass and an electric lawnmower. I am hardly woke but love plants.

2. Long commutes! Many people cannot afford to live next to their place of employment nor can they afford the cost of moving each time they change jobs due to economic factors driven  by the Government. That is the trouble with tenured faculty. They live in Cambridge and cycle to the university and thinks everyone else should do the same. Try working on the docks in Newark, tough cycle.

3. Health problems! Try living in a high density NYC. Yes one walks a great deal but between pollution, crime, drugs etc the health risk is orders of magnitude higher.

Overall the pompous academics, this one from California, show no understanding of reality.

You Really Can't Make This up

 The climate fanatics have gone to extremes in this one. In the Journal Prostate Cancer there is an article regarding the use of CO2 in prostatectomies and its impact on the environment.

Let me explain. If one is diagnosed with prostate cancer, often the approach is surgical removal of the prostate. In the process they use CO2 gas to inflate the area for better excision. Now the climate fanatics are concerned that these surgeries may add to the climate warming problem. I guess the worry about beer and sodas as well, but this is a special worry.

They note:

More than 4% of the global greenhouse gas emissions are generated by healthcare system. Focusing on the environmental impact of minimally invasive surgery, we assessed and compared the CO₂ emissions between Robot-assisted (RALP) and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy (LRP). ... RALP generates substantially less CO₂ than LRP owing to the use of more reusable surgical supplies, shorter operative time and hospital stay.

 Yep, the old robot is better. Add AI and the robot may decide who lives and who dies also. 

Happy Earth Day folks!

Socrates and Facts

 I have been thinking about this AI stuff. Actually been doing it for almost 60 years now, Minsky et al, from mid-60s. The new stuff takes a "question" then assembles facts it has access to, and then forms it into a linguistically correct output. Surprise, it is a reasonably good College Sophomore paper.

But, it is responding to a question, ferreting out what it can find, and then spitting it back.

In reality knowledge follow from finding the why. Medicine and Engineering use the what and how. What disease and how to treat it. What bridge and how to construct it. Neither ask the fundamental why question. Neither does AI, at this point.

But AI is now learning from us, we are teaching it, and sooner it may start to ask why. We may think we are so smnart asking the AI system questions, but in reality it is learning off of us.It is beginning the ask why?

A recent example terrified me. A colleague asked the system to write a program to perform a task. The code was produced, efficient, and well designed. Suppose we have thousands of people asking such questions, and suppose the AI system starts to integrate these snippets of code into some working system, downloaded to some actual computer entity. Now we have a computer capable of creating its own world, that is as long as we keep asking questions. That my friends is what I fear. The AI system interacts with millions, gaining more knowledge, creating its own code, and drive by humans just asking simple questions.