One cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.
On the first day of January 2000, are we in the third millennium? Not if we have a calendar, not if we have a computer and not if we have
a brain. Of course, we can celebrate a new millennium every day, because the planet is old
enough to permit us to celebrate any millennium every day, but if we decided to take as
reference Jesus "birthday" we need to stick to it, even if we do not like it.
For those who need a bit of help, from year 1 to 1999, there are 1999 years. We need to wait until the end of year 2000,
to have the 2000 years anniversary. As a result, at the end of year 2000 is staring the new millenium.
Is not conservatism, is common sense. If we change the date with one year, we need to rewrite
the history. I do not understand how is possible, after so much development in science and
technology to be so ignorant at a planetary scale. One of the reasons, is maybe the
limitation of the human hand, that lets us count only until 10, and from 10 to 2000 is
It is interesting to note that this is not the first time that this controversy
has arisen. The Times must have received many letters towards the end of 1799,
since its editors felt moved to make the following comments about the beginning of the
"We have uniformly rejected all letters and declined all discussion upon
the question of when the present century ends, as it is one of the most absurd that can
engage the public attention, and we are astonished to find it has been the subject of so
much dispute, since it appears plain. The present century will not terminate till January
1, 1801, unless it can be made out that 99 are 100... It is a silly, childish discussion,
and only exposes the want of brains of those who maintain a contrary opinion to that we
The Times, 26 December 1799
In an ignorant world, you can debate on mathematics, on fizics, on chemistry, or on any other scientific subject for that matter. It even has a name. It's called The Global Warming Debate.