Merryn Dineley wrote:
> I read this morning in the most recent New Scientist (page 16) a news
> item 'Global warming and bad air go hand in hand' ... seems to be A Fact
> as far as they are concerned. They say global temperatures have risen by
> 0.8 degrees C since the Industrial Revolution. And I have been told/have
> read in many places that it was 3 degrees C warmer in Neolithic Britain
> - so they could grow wheat on Orkney which they cannot do now because it
> is too cold (archaeological relevance!).
I think archaeologists are in a very good position to judge whether the
20th century temperature rise is really historically significant.
Moreover, I find it very difficult to accept current "doom-sayers" about
temperature rise, when archaeologists tend to talk of cooler periods as
being problematic and warmer periods as being beneficial.
This may be the result of most archaeology resulting from Northern
latitudes where warming is better and not from those closer to the
equator where higher temperatures would be more of a problem.
>> Merryn, the news is that Jan 2008 was the coldest month globally in 14
>> years, and that this century is now definitely seeing cooling.
> Ah, cooler! And I thought you were going to say something about rising
> temperatures ...what an interesting surprise! Surely all these patio
> heaters, air conditioning systems and many more man made devices too
> numerous to mention have had some impact? Ice is melting here and there
> on this planet and I thought this was because it is getting warmer.
TOPIC: CULTURAL IMPERATIVE OF HELL!!!
I don't think the idea of a MAN-MADE cause to global warming is based on
real evidence (in the sense that an assertion like this needs to be
tested against new data, and the new data this century isn't supporting
the assertion), rather I think there seems to be a cultural imperative
to find a "hell" to fit the "sin" of consumption. I don't know if this
is purely a Christian idea, but the idea that all these devices "must"
have an impact, is a very interesting one. Where do we get this notion?
I personally think it is an aspect of the western/Christian culture that
"if you do wrong" then "hell awaits".
A culture that has this concept of balance expects there to be something
awful for anyone doing "wrong". These days we have to stop ourselves
from over-indulging, we have to hold back from buying more and more
rubbish, hold back from eating too much, hold back from watching TV, and
in that type of culture many of us see consumption as some form of
"evil", "illness" or something corrupting us. If then you live in a
culture exposed to fairy stories where every "bogey-man" gets their
comeuppance, there is a compulsion to believe that consumption must lead
to some form of repercussion.
From what I read of Greek stories, there really isn't the same concept
of the "wicked witch" and the "beautiful" snow-white. Jason wasn't
"good" he was just "Hellenic" and some things he & other heroes did seem
pretty revolting. Greek and Norse gods weren't "good" they didn't
become powerful because they were "good" they had their foibles and
quite often did "evil" in the Christian sense and I think these cultures
had much less sense that "good" must prevail and evil will have its
"hell", they were more fatalistic.
I'd be interested to know whether there other examples of this "cultural
imperative that "for every sin there is hell". Indeed, it strikes me
that the underlying idea buying medieval indulgences and buying carbon
offsets is basically the same.
> Michael Haseler wrote:
>> If you want to see a graph see: http://www.lenzie.org.uk/scam.php
>> Whilst one snowflake doesn't make a winter, if like me you have been
>> employed in this area, you would be sick and tired of all the nonsense
>> around this subject and really looking forward to a time science is
>> not being so mis-used by a vociferous minority for clearly political