We can take the heat !!
I’ve tried real hard to stay out of this discussion, but am compelled to weigh in today because I hate seeing people I like and generally respect citing pseudo-science and buying into mythology being promoted by some.
As background, I’ve been working as an environmental professional since 1973, focusing on various aspects of marine and freshwater aquatic environments. Early in my career I collected water and air temperature data on NOAA ships working from the Atlantic coast to Alaska and the far Pacific. Most of my work in the past 35 years has been for commercial airports, port authorities and private industry, and often employing computer models that incorporate weather as an influencing factor. I work with other environmental professionals in commercial, government and research sectors who are dealing with this issue, from the basic science to planning and designing infrastructure for the extreme conditions we’ll be seeing in the future. My opinions on this topic are based on both my experience and knowledge of the data and science. Based on that, there is no doubt in my mind (or those of essentially all folks who work with climate change issues) that humans are a major driving factor behind the rapid climate changes we are experiencing.
What moved me to post is this science-based analysis of an article that Fox News claims to prove that humans aren’t a factor. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
Please read this analysis before citing the Fox News claim, because it is demonstrably incorrect and you run the risk of embarrassing yourself.
If you’re seriously interested in learning more about the science of climate change and how humanity is driving it, there is a vast amount of solid information available. PM me and I’ll be happy to direct you to some very digestible scientific references aimed at the non- or semi-technical reader.
If you think its all a conspiracy or want to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about, please refrain and I won’t insult you for being misled by the same folks and institutions who told us DDT and tobacco are good for us (seriously).
I’m getting back to the intricacies of keeping Alfas alive and how we love them.
Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.
Also Lysenko himself arose from a peasant background and developed his theories from practical applications rather than controlled scientific experiments. This fit the Marxist propaganda of the time holding that brilliant industrial innovations would arise from the working classes through practical applications. Lysenko’s theories also seemed to address in a quick and timely manner the widespread Soviet famines of the time arising from the forced collectivization of agriculture, rather than the much slower changes from scientific experimentation and genetic heredity.
Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.
So, it just a big conspiracy?:nerd:If your list of references does not include research and articles by Richard Lindzen, Don Easterbrook, Michael Shellenberger, David MacKay, Nir Shaviv, Roger Pielke Jr, and Alex Epstein to name a few then you are fooling yourself into believing you know all there is to know about climate change and man's ridiculous conceit to think they can actually manipulate it. This is politics at its very best and its very very worst.
If you are so worried about CO2 levels then you should be promoting nuclear power because it is the ONLY source of energy that can affect that. But of course the enviros are completely against it. Why? Politics folks, pure and simple. They really really really want to control the world.
Not a conspiracy Osso. But we are talking about science made to serve the political goals of a social movement. And, when that happens, you get politicization accompanied by demands for allegiance. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper said, any theory than cannot be disproved isn't a theory but is, instead, a metaphysical belief. His point is that, at some point, all theories will be proven to be false and, when this happens, new more appropriate theories will be constructed. Scientific inquiry is therefore an evolutionary process where new inventions constantly challenge established order. "Settled science" can only legitimately exist until someone successfully disproves it. But, for this to happen, you have to have fair and open discourse, something to which social movements with a primary interest in lifestyle reform are usally allergic.So, it just a big conspiracy?
Seen from space, Earth's meaningful atmosphere is very thin indeed, and Man's influences on it can be, and are, significant.
Those who cannot open their minds and eyes will never see. What will happen, and is increasingly happening all around this orb, will happen, regardless.
It's because most people are lazy and don't get they can change things with diet and exercise. Take a pill and keep eating french fries.Sorta reminds me of the cholesterol scam levels, every mg/dL., decrease (was 250 some years back now 200) yielded 100S of billions of dollars in statin sales to pharmaceuticals.
Does it really matter if it's politicized? Does the fact that it's politicized actually change things?Not a conspiracy Osso. But we are talking about science made to serve the political goals of a social movement. And, when that happens, you get politicization accompanied by demands for allegiance. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper said, any theory than cannot be disproved isn't a theory but is, instead, a metaphysical belief. His point is that, at some point, all theories will be proven to be false and, when this happens, new more appropriate theories will be constructed. Scientific inquiry is therefore an evolutionary process where new inventions constantly challenge established order. "Settled science" can only legitimately exist until someone successfully disproves it. But, for this to happen, you have to have fair and open discourse, something to which social movements with a primary interest in lifestyle reform are usally allergic.