Wednesday, 28 July 2010

True climate threat - Addendum

In the comments to my last piece Mr Choos suggested that the Himalayas cause no problems to the climate so we shouldn't be concerned about buildings. I'm sorry to have to say this but he displays a desperate ignorance of the modern approach to science. Let me take you back to first principles.

In fact, let me start with an example drawn from different fields of study, zoology and modern anthropology. We all know that when lions need food they kill a nice antelope or zebra then tear off lumps of warm flesh and feast until sated. On occasions they might accidentally take a bit while their prey is still alive, but usually they ensure it is dead and the heart has stopped beating because they don't like to drink a lot of claret with their dinner. All aspects of the conduct of lions are to be applauded because they are natural beasts and do what Mother Nature intended they should do. We know she intended them to do it because they do it out of instinct, no television chefs or recipe books lead them from the path of natural righteousness.

Human beings on the other hand are subject to the wicked and unnatural forces of western commerce, a branch of what is mistakenly known as western "culture". Modern anthropology has established that the natural state for human beings is to live exclusively at ground level and eat only vegetative matter. You might have heard some "nature deniers" dispute this fact by reference to human canine teeth which, they claim, evidence a natural inclination to eat meat. Like so many of the denialist smokescreens applied in a vain attempt to deflect from the true path of modern climate science, this is a deliberate misinterpretation of basic facts in order to promote the interests of Big Oil. The true position is that human beings have canine teeth in order to allow them to make holes in babies earlobes prior to the insertion of raffia earrings as a sign of obeisance to Mother Nature and Her most bounteous crop.

We know that this is so because it was tested on computers. To be precise, in 1985 three Commodore 64s were used at the same time in different rooms at the Polytechnic of Mid Sussex and each produced an identical printout saying "yes" when asked "are human canine teeth designed for use in piercing babies' ears (glory be to Gaia)?" They had each been programmed by the Polytechnic's foremost expert in modern anthropology, Miss Camomile Tea, to provide the truth as disclosed in her seminal work Mother Nature's Labia. Of course we could just look the answer up in the book, canine appears in the index between camping and clitoris; but that would only provide partial proof. Those who wish to adopt old-fashioned methodology would assert that it is just Miss Tea's theory (although on this particular point her sister, Rich, helped with the basic analysis). To support her theory it was necessary that computers said the same thing, so she got some computers, set them up to test the hypothesis and they agreed with it. And there you have it, conclusive proof, computers have settled the science.

Having established this fundamental difference between human beings and lions it is necessary to identify the significance and what it tells us about human behaviour. On the one hand we have lions killing with aplomb in order to satisfy their natural instinct for food. On the other hand we have human beings murdering chickens, pigs, sheep, horses and cows in pursuit of an unnatural urge to consume the flesh of other creatures. The difference is that the former is natural and the latter is unnatural. They might seems like the same activities at heart - ending the life of another animal and eating it's flesh - but in fact they are completely different. One complements Gaia's great plan and the other does violence to it. One maintains the natural pattern of things, the other disturbs that pattern and necessarily causes other consequential damage in the process.

So it is also with the natural Himalayas and unnatural human-created buildings. When the Himalayas were developed Mother Nature took rock as only she can and turned it into a perfect form. In doing so she enhanced the balance of nature that, after all, is her job - she is incapable of doing anything else. It cannot be that the Himalayas interrupt the flow of air or cause Earth to rotate otherwise than perfectly because they are natural. The truth is that they steer air to where Mother Nature wants it and they stabilise the rotation of the planet. By definition, because they are natural they help create a perfect system. Human-caused protuberances above ground level, however, are a different kettle of ballgame. They are unnatural because they are the result of conscious decisions of human beings under the influence of Big Oil in comparison to the instinctive reactions of lions under the influence of Mother Nature.

The great Miss Tea has long since passed to the recycling centre in the sky but her book is still available. As far as I know there is now only one source (here).


Anonymous said...

Goodness me you are having fun.

Possibly the difference between most natural and man-made changes that concerns environmentalists is the rate of change, despite the impression that you may have, rapid natural changes that destroy current ecosystems; tsunami, massive landslides, prolonged droughts, giant asteroids and wildfire in rain forests, are also usually seen as environmentally destructive. The Himalayas certainly affect the climate throughout Asia, but it took nature a few million years to build them.

Andrew W

wonderfulforhisage said...

And what about all these wind farms? What if they are slowing down the earth's rotation which would mean that I will live longer and therefore consume a greater proportion of the world's natural resources than Gaia intended?

Food for thought methinks. Perhaps Mr FatBigot you and I should go on a diet to balance things up.

Norman said...

You're behind on your research Mr.B. Back in the 70's it was fashionable to think that we had ears for raffia earrings but since then scientific opinion has swung 180 degrees and it's been discovered that raffia earrings actually drive the number of ears. Our canine teeth developed to meet the needs of the raffia earrings, not the other way round.

The previous incontrovertible proof was actually a load of tosh, and our new and improved computers have revealed the actual truth - and not a moment too soon!

As there are now too much ears (with attached mouths to feed) on the planet global government has decreed that the number of raffia earrings be reduced by 80% before tea time Wednesday week.

To achieve this end bands of ruffians are raiding Head shops around the world as I type. We expect the price of rolling papers to go up by 3500% as Head shops compensate for their losses but we should all happily pay up as you're saving the planet for your grandchildren.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Don't forget that Eskimos are allowed to hunt whales, but not Japanese or Norwegians.

mister_choos said...

Ah Thank goodness for that.
I didn't realise you were talking about science in the modern sense. What us of a more mature bent would call "absolute bollocks"

But I don't believe a word about the raffia earings. Try as I might I can't even get close to being able to pierce my ears with my canines.

Further research is required. Please send me a large amount of money to help me in pusuit of this vital research. Oh an can you throw in a couple of fruity research assistants?

珍盈洪 said...

知識可以傳授,智慧卻不行。每個人必須成為他自己。. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

雅王任 said...

Poverty is stranger to industry.........................................

Pogo said...

Mark... I think that it's most unfair that Eskimos aren't allowed to hunt Norwegians. Even if permitted, Japanese would be a problem for them though as the kayak isn't normally used as a long-distance method of transport.