Posted by: bridget | 29 October 2007

Miscellanea

YAY RED SOX!!!!!!!!!!!!  Congratulations to Mike Lowell, MVP. :)  The pachyderm is thrilled that Boston got its World Series win in 2004; tonight can’t compare, but is wonderful to know that the boys have done it again.  YAY!

(PS – substantive blogging to resume soon.  Homework, blogging, sports: pick two of the three.)

——

Some Neanderthals may have had red hair.  The elephant would like to remind her detractors that this does not mean that all redheads are Neanderthals. ;)

——

Volvo, for life: except when you drive it the wrong way down a highway at 100 mph.  No, even a Volvo cannot protect you against that.  Assuming that the BMW was traveling at 40 mph (as it probably slowed down when seeing the oncoming Volvo), the impact was akin to either car  (of twice the mass) hitting a wall at 140 mph.  The force of impact is proportional to kinetic energy, which is 1/2 * mass * speed ^2.  So this is four times as bad as hitting a brick wall going 70 mph.  Volvos are incredible – they just aren’t that good.

—–

The New York Times admits that Greenland used to be green.  Admist the “global warming” frenzy, there is a mention of the fact that the earth used to be a veritable sauna compared to modern times:

It was relatively green then, with forests and fertile soil, and the Vikings grew crops and raised sheep for hundreds of years. But temperatures dropped precipitously in the so-called Little Ice Age, which began in the 16th century, the Norse settlers died out and agriculture was no longer possible.

So much for human-induced global warming, never before seen on Earth.  Correlation does not equate to causation.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Stalking you again….

  2. Hey there! :)

    Check out the troll action a few posts down. You know you miss blogging….

  3. Congrats on the Sox! I only watch baseball under duress, but that must have been exciting.

    The Greenland thing would be funny if the topic weren’t so serious. Has it occurred to the NYT that perhaps all the radical “solutions” they are endorsing aren’t necessary after all?

  4. Has it occurred to the NYT that perhaps all the radical “solutions” they are endorsing aren’t necessary after all?

    Maybe I’m a conspiracy theorist, but it sounds more like an excuse for a power-grab to me. The standards for granting power are very nebulous: you are not able to refute the “science,” or even objectively determine the ideal temperature of Earth, let alone how many resources ought to be expended to prevent such variations (even when they are not our fault).

    The end result is that there are no standards for relinquishing power. After all, if there is no “ideal” temperature of Earth, when do we stop? When are we able to burn coal? If earth is “too cold” (whatever that may be), are we then subjected to equally onerous, albeit different, regulations to correct that problem?

  5. Yep, a power grab. I wonder what the Greens’ exit strategy is for their global warming “solutions?”


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

%d bloggers like this: