(BBC) An extensive study of tree growth rings says there could be a link between the rise and fall of past civilisations and sudden shifts in Europe's climate.
A team of researchers based their findings on data from 9,000 wooden artifacts from the past 2,500 years.
They found that periods of warm, wet summers coincided with prosperity, while political turmoil occurred during times of climate instability.
This is not rocket science. If it's nice, life is better and (because) food grows well; if it's shitty food gets scarce and life generally sucks. So far no surprises, so what am I getting at here?
This is actually a big deal due to the source (BBC) as it flies in the face of the "establishment" climate change line. There is no possible way that human industrial activity caused these fluctuations, as what we would consider "industry" in this sense is maybe 200 years old, and I'd say more like 100.
You can suppress history, re-write it, do what you want, but you don't (can't) change the facts. In many cases the facts are nebulous, but data is what it is. You may not have enough, and it can certainly be manipulated (Climategate, anyone?) but when it's all there and you connect the dots you will get as close to the truth as is possible.
So if I'm the editor of this piece, do I have an angle? I'm being slightly (justifiably) paranoid in assuming a motive for passing this, but the bulk of the traditional media is still in the thrall of the Warming/Changing/Disrupted climate racket. I suspect that this is intended (editorially) to fan the flames of panic over Climate Change, which have been fading for some time.
If so, it's a big mistake. Sure unstable climate is distressing to people, as they can't predict it. By definition on a dynamic planet weather is changeable; the moon has no weather and is therefore quite predictable. Mars, which retains a thin atmosphere has experienced it's own "global warming" a few years back when the icecaps melted earlier than expected. You know for sure even more than here on Earth 2000 years back that human activity didn't cause that, but predictions are still complex. Once you get oceans and the associated heat transfer mechanisms (el Nino, la Nina, hurricanes, etc.) it gets unworkably complex to model accurately. That is not a flippant remark either; existing models cannot even (with all the historical data fed in) reproduce historical weather from the same start time.
It shows how polarized this stuff is that I can't just read an article anymore without suspecting the political slant it represents. This isn't obvious propaganda, but I can see how it may be a stalking horse for the real deal. On the other had, it's a great logical stick to beat them with on this whole "Climate Disruption" scam, though not in the league of that "10:10 No Pressure" video from last fall. Though not data driven, that video did a LOT of damage and I had more to say about it back in October.
I really hope that this is simply a science article, reporting on solid field and lab work. Most people don't pay attention to things that don't affect them, and Climate X (for whatever they'll re-brand it next) has shot its bolt with the general populace. If intended to introduce buzzwords and themes of disaster in support of the dystopian energy-starved future the Greens and fellow travelers want for us, this is another fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment