This article caught my eye:
Climate change 'may put world at war'
What struck me is the relatively fanciful notion, probably fantasized about by Greendu practitioners, that there might be this coalition of morally upstanding nations to stand up to those nations raping the planet (which is typically considered to be America...developing nations are given a pass). It is the Rebel Alliance taking on the Empire. Canada, Sweden, France, Liechtenstein, etc.; a fearless alliance of Green Righteousness standing against the Axis of Evil (Western nations united under Halliburton). Like I said, it is a bit of a fantasy, so you have to give them creative license.
What makes it funnier to me is the idea of a Green Military. Carbon-neutral hybrid tanks, solar powered helicopters, emission free artillery, etc.
Don't laugh, it could happen here. The idea of emotionally sensitive boot camp and political correctness in the military was probably laughable fifty years ago. Now pretty much everyone is comfortable with the idea.
And not that a more efficient tank engine isn't a good thing...in fact, range is one of the more important aspects of tank design. Hitler's tanks towards the end of WWII (Panther, Tiger I, Koenigs Tiger, Elefant, Stuermtiger, Jagdpanther) were all impressive, well designed, powerful tanks, with superior armour and armament when compared to the tanks of the Allies. But the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler's last offensive, stalled miserably when these behemoths ran out of fuel, and were abandoned in large part. If a Prius engine would have moved these 65 ton monsters, maybe Hitler should have gone Green?
6 comments:
I am tired of hearing about CO2 and climate change. This article (among many others) points out the obvious flaw in Al Gore's (and his backing scientists') theory that CO2 caused the temperature change: It is clearly the other way around
Who is Al Gore? Wait...didn't he invent the internet? Must be a credible resource then.
Re: Study showing rise in CO2 follows temperature change
I have a couple problems with their study. First, any study like that is based on statistics, including some sort of confidence interval. The best you can hope for in any analysis is around 5% confidence...
The reason that matters is that they solidly conclude that a rise in CO2 follows temperature change based on a 1000 year span - which seems like a long time, but in the scope of their study, is well within that 5% variability (1000yrs/18000 = 5.6%). So, assuming they used that confidence interval, there is no reason to make the conclusion they do. Based on that study, of course...maybe there's better studies I haven't seen.
Also, they don't identify any potential source of CO2. That stuff doesn't just appear. Where would these particles have just appeared from? We know we produce and release a lot of it. This illustrates my personal opinion on the matter...that we can't possibly know the effect/lack of effect of that CO2 release because we have such a small sample size of temperature data available.
I would agree with your statement regarding not having enough evidence, Matt...while I did find the article interesting. I didn't take it as a conclusive evidence that heat causes rise in CO2...just as a contradictory study that flies in the face of Big Green Al's statement that "the debate is over".
It would be kind of like the scientists in 300 AD or so having a debate about the shape of the Earth. Some might say lobster-shaped, some might say banana-shaped, some might say amphibious landing craft-shaped, etc. And maybe the Grand Poo-bah of scientists of the time would speak glowingly of the consensus that the Earth is shaped like the patch on the yet-unborn Mikhail Gorbachev's forehead, and pronounce that "the debate is over". I think regarding climate studies, we are in a similar boat; sufficient reliable evidence does not exist for us to be able to attempt anything beyond wild surmising.
Well I merely appreciate the observation that the very evidence Al uses to prove HIS point does in fact... not.
And I agree 100% with the observation that a few thousand years of core samples is a drop in the bucket of geological time (assuming that the Earth was around long before Adam which may or may not be the case) and that we cannot possibly hope to know or understand the ebb and flow of Earth's climate variations any more that the weatherman can tell you in fact whether there will be clouds or sunshine 2 weeks from today.
Of course, while our dialogue is enlightening to me, we must not forget how irrelevant it is. Global warming is a science-themed (to use a computer term) "skin" for a religious ideology.
Christians (and members of other religions) are often accused (and unfortunately all too often guilty) of molding interpretations of history or science around a preconceived article of faith. Add global warming to that category! Truly a religion for the antireligious.
Post a Comment