Posted by: bridget | 14 October 2007

Nobel Peace Prize, Oscars, Darwin Awards Interchangeable

For those of you living in a cave with internet access limited to this blog: Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Fear not, Hollywood: you can earn a Nobel without bargaining with genocidal maniacs!  In fact, you don’t even have to curb your energy consumption. 

Mr. Gore has already won himself an Academy Award for his film.  Why not go for a triple crown of Oscar, Nobel, and Darwin Award?  After all, is there anything more harmful to the preservation of humanity than stating that, if we were to just live like noble, peaceful savages, we would not have natural disasters?  Al, dahlin, they are called natural disasters because nature, not humans, causes them.  Your average semi-literate medieval peasant would have known that humans developed the earth to deal with a hostile environment, not the other way around.

 

In other frightening news, the pachyderm agrees with something written in the Boston Globe.  She’s been feeling under the weather recently (pun not intended), but had no idea that she was this ill… or that the world had changed while she was studying.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I am going to apply for a permit to move farther back in the cave. (Actually we are in the middle of harvest and our newest combine just broke, so this blog & Neil Simpson’s are how I view the world right now)

    I too, agree with the Globe (that’s why I am going back in the cave). But they fail to mention why they called it Greenland. They also do not point out that increased CO2 increases crop yields, which, by the way, consumes the CO2.

    CO2 is heavier that air so I still don’t get the mechanics of its travel to the upper atmosphere.

    Meanwhile, I am not lazy, I am just trying to save the world by avoiding overexertion, which produces extra CO2.

  2. Happy harvesting. :)

    The “green” in “Greenland” was not supposed to be ironic. Yes, things were a lot toastier back in the day. That leads us to two conclusions:
    1) the earth’s temperature is also influenced by non-human factors, which may outweigh human influence; and
    2) the earth has survived such climate changes before this.

    I can only imagine… at some points in history, should humans have been advanced enough, they would have been appalled at how toasty it is right now, how high the sea rises, and how few polar bears are living around the Tropic of Cancer.

    Love the last paragraph. As Tully said on Stubborn Facts, though, people who advocate for less human intervention are unwilling to take the one step that would reduce global warming without affecting anyone else’s rights, even when he offers to pay for the plastic bag and rubber band and take both to the recycler’s the next day.

  3. Speaking of the sea rising, try this. Take a glass and fill it with ice, then fill it with water. Let the ice melt and see what happens.

    The glass does not run over, in fact the water level is lower than it was. According to my youngest son, who figured it out for himself, due to the proportion of ice covering land and ice covering water, the ocean levels stay remarkably stable.

    I recently read an article by a polar researcher who made the same claim.

    On the other hand, who would take the word of a polar researcher over an expert like Al Gore.

  4. The water level should be the same, actually. It will only be lower if there is enough ice to cool it and change the density.

    One gram of water = 1 mL (excepting small changes for density when heated or cooled).

    Imagine that you freeze 10 grams of water. Instead of taking up 10 mL of space, it would take up 10 mL + x mL of space (as ice is less dense than water). It would only displace 10 mL of water; the x-mL would float. (Objects less dense than water displace their weight.) Once it melts, it would add 10 mL to the water level – which, as noted above, leaves you with the exact same water level.

    The only reason this would change is if the ice is resting on land – it would not be displacing sea water, and would just add to the oceans.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories