Global Warming
Much has been said and written about the myriad
dangers facing the planet. De-forestation, holes
in the ozone layer, melting ice caps - the list goes
on for longer than we intend to, but ultimately it
all boils down to the alleged spectre of Global
Warming (their capitals).
We cannot help but notice, however, that the
vast majority of this nonsense comes from a
bunch of twig-nibbling Daily Mail readers who
have never ventured further north than Croyden.
We, on the other hand, have actually been to the
Arctic, and will now use our superior knowledge
to explain to you, the discerning punter, why
global warming is utter bollocks.
dangers facing the planet. De-forestation, holes
in the ozone layer, melting ice caps - the list goes
on for longer than we intend to, but ultimately it
all boils down to the alleged spectre of Global
Warming (their capitals).
We cannot help but notice, however, that the
vast majority of this nonsense comes from a
bunch of twig-nibbling Daily Mail readers who
have never ventured further north than Croyden.
We, on the other hand, have actually been to the
Arctic, and will now use our superior knowledge
to explain to you, the discerning punter, why
global warming is utter bollocks.
| Arctic Monkey! |
The climate of this planet is a dynamic and complex system. Actually, 'complex' does not
get even close to describing the situation. It is a system which is unstable in the face of
small perturbations; in layman's terms very small alterations in initial conditions can have
a massive effect on how the system changes over time. Equally (and perhaps
surprisingly), large changes do not necessarily have to have any effect at all. This is all
very counter-intuitive, which is why people (and specifically the idiots who spout 'Global
Warming' nonsense) have such a hard time wrapping their tiny little minds around it. The
correct term for a system such as the climate is 'chaotic', and when you have a chaotic
system all bets are off in terms of the usual rules of cause and effect.
One of the things that goes straight out of the window is any notion of 'average'
behaviour. This should immediately set alarm bells ringing - the first thing you need if you
are going to make a claim about something changing is at least a vague notion of what it
is changing from. In the case of the global warming brigade, the generally accepted
technique is to pick an arbitrary point from a few thousand years ago which happens to
suit their flawed data, and extrapolate from that to their heart's content. They reason they
do this is because they are fucking idiots, but that doesn't mean you need to get involved
in the train-wreck that is their flawed logic. There are three reasons they are wrong.
Firstly, the climate has been around for a really long time. Ten thousand years is pretty
much sod-all in climate terms, so comparisons that don't even stretch back a couple of
ice-ages are downright misleading. Secondly, the best evidence available strongly
suggests that the climate need not have an average temperature at all, so for every point
in time you can identify when the climate was cooler than it is now, we can find one where
the climate was warmer. Thirdly, last time we were in the Arctic circle there was fucking
loads of ice everywhere; we quite literally had to get inside a bar and start drinking beer to
warm up. You can't argue with science like that.
get even close to describing the situation. It is a system which is unstable in the face of
small perturbations; in layman's terms very small alterations in initial conditions can have
a massive effect on how the system changes over time. Equally (and perhaps
surprisingly), large changes do not necessarily have to have any effect at all. This is all
very counter-intuitive, which is why people (and specifically the idiots who spout 'Global
Warming' nonsense) have such a hard time wrapping their tiny little minds around it. The
correct term for a system such as the climate is 'chaotic', and when you have a chaotic
system all bets are off in terms of the usual rules of cause and effect.
One of the things that goes straight out of the window is any notion of 'average'
behaviour. This should immediately set alarm bells ringing - the first thing you need if you
are going to make a claim about something changing is at least a vague notion of what it
is changing from. In the case of the global warming brigade, the generally accepted
technique is to pick an arbitrary point from a few thousand years ago which happens to
suit their flawed data, and extrapolate from that to their heart's content. They reason they
do this is because they are fucking idiots, but that doesn't mean you need to get involved
in the train-wreck that is their flawed logic. There are three reasons they are wrong.
Firstly, the climate has been around for a really long time. Ten thousand years is pretty
much sod-all in climate terms, so comparisons that don't even stretch back a couple of
ice-ages are downright misleading. Secondly, the best evidence available strongly
suggests that the climate need not have an average temperature at all, so for every point
in time you can identify when the climate was cooler than it is now, we can find one where
the climate was warmer. Thirdly, last time we were in the Arctic circle there was fucking
loads of ice everywhere; we quite literally had to get inside a bar and start drinking beer to
warm up. You can't argue with science like that.