Mail: the ash cloud that paralyzed Europe for a week didn’t exist—the dust in the air was at one 20th the danger level
This is beyond belief. The Mail offers no explanation of how such a staggering and costly mistake, with its traumatic effects on hundreds of thousands of stranded air travelers, could have been made. Is there perhaps a “Global Atmospheric Ashing” ideology we haven’t heard about that has taken over the air safety agencies? Whatever the cause, a mistake of this scale, if mistake it was, seems like a sign that civilization is breaking down. Our civilization runs on science. If the scientific authorities become floridly incompetent, the civilization ceases to function.
UPDATE: based on a blog article linked below, apparently the reason for the mistake really was as simple as what is suggested in the Mail, but was so simple, and stupid, that my mind didn’t take it in as an actual explanation: a special airplane was needed to test the cloud, and the plane was unavailable for several days because it was being repainted. Further, in the absence of the plane, the risk assessment was based not on actual observation of the dust cloud, but on computer modeling of the way dust clouds disperse, just as global warming is based on computer models:
The National Air Traffic Control Service decision to ban flights was based on Met Office computer models which painted a picture of a cloud of ash being blown south from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.They shut down Northern Europe for a week, because of a computer model.
Well, here’s my model, my theoretical model of modern society, of which this incident is an illustration.
Modern society is run by people who rely on theoretical models (a.k.a. ideologies) about the nature of reality and don’t look at reality itself.
Furthermore, this uncritical belief in abstract theories, ideologies, catch-phrases, this refusal to grasp concrete reality beyond the catch phrases, is one of the main things, perhaps the main thing, that is bringing modern society to destruction..
I picked up the word “theoretical” from Melanie Phillips, who, responding to the same Mail article, writes:
“Scientific” assertions based upon theoretical computer models which produce merely speculation based on “might” and “if,” and which actually runs totally contrary to evidence-based, demonstrable reality? Ring any bells?Here’s the Mail article
Remember that ash cloud? It didn’t exist, says new evidence
Christopher B. sends this article, from the blog EU Referendum:
One of our Dorniers is missing—by Richard … Sunday, April 25, 2010A. Zarkov writes:
I was pretty shocked the UK Met could get this wrong. We have known to handle aerosol dispersal for a very long time. For example the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is equipped up predict how an ash cloud would disperse in real time. ARAC was originally set up to track and predict how (say) a radiation cloud would disperse from a reactor accident, or a nuclear attack. However, the methods are general an apply to just about any kind of release. Here is a photo of them as they track a Hawaiian volcano eruption. The British only needed to call ARAC (available 24 hours a day) and ask for help.Ed L. writes:
Even if the ash cloud was a fiction, the reality of the airspace shutdown dramatically underscored our utter dependence on airplane travel, which is as insidious as our dependence on oil. This is what happens when there are no alternatives. For a long time, I had been talking myself blue in the face, saying that just the slave ship discomfort of airplanes ought to have stimulated a revival of demand for transoceanic ship travel.D. in Seattle writes:
Ah, the parody writes itself:James P. writes:
-The people in Churchill’s England would be less shocked, astonished, and angry that an ash cloud didn’t exist, than they would that England didn’t exist.LA writes:
Good one, D. in Seattle.D. from Seattle replies:
To someone like me who just reads about these and similar events from a distance, present-day Britain resembles late-stage Soviet Union. The lies became less believable and the level of competence kept dropping, till the country simply imploded. I’m sure it’s an oversimplification, but the parallels are there.LA replies:
I don’t think that this is a silly comparison. The country has broken down and has lost the principle of life. All its leaders, its elite, its educated classes, are like dead puppets, their actions and words not connecting with any reality. (I’m not saying that there not lots of people in their own towns and communities still having decent British lives. But they have no influence in the dominant culture.)D. in Seattle writes:
I also hope you’re wrong. For comparison purposes, had anyone heard of Yeltsin before his rise to power? What I’m trying to say is, maybe there are leaders in Britain who would fit the mold of the new leaders you speak of, but we simply don’t know who they are, just like we didn’t know about Yeltsin till he became prominent.LA replies:
Yes. Yeltsin was the mayor of Moscow, and for several years he had been increasingly challenging the system. Then he was elected president of the Russian Soviet Republic, and when the USSR collapsed, he became the president of the new country of Russia.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 26, 2010 02:30 AM | Send