There's some parts we're pretty sure on, and others we don't really know. So far, Can't Manipulate Gravity, but can take advantage of it in interesting ways. Mixing Soap and Water seems simple enough, but I bet there's a lab doing useful research on it right now. ( I may have made some of their gear.... )
Climate Science has produced a lot of computer models, and they don't work so good.
It's a ginormous puzzle, with a nigh infinite number of variables.
It's important research, and the models will get better.
If we really do have to do a massive terraforming project on our own planet we'd better get it right.
This, I'm afraid, is where we're at in the great climate debate – and have been for some time. The scenario I've just described will be familiar to absolutely every climate sceptic who has ever appeared on a public platform anywhere: you've come to fight by the rules of the Geneva convention – but there's the opposition using poison gas, napalm, Red Cross ambulances to transport healthy combat troops, slave labour, torture, whatever means comes to hand at any given moment to help them win at every cost.
By which I mean that climate alarmists threw all moral compunction or intellectual integrity out of the window long ago. As we saw in the Climategate emails they smear; lie; twist data; temper with evidence; bully; exaggerate; abuse the scientific method… almost as a matter of routine. When you debate them in public, though, you imagine somehow that they'll rise to the occasion, that they'll behave a bit better when there are other people watching. They never do though.
Their policy, you might say, has been borrowed from Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Substitute "piece of cherry-picked evidence" or "factoid" or "scientific reference" or "thing I read somewhere in the Guardian environment pages, can't remember when" for "word" and you'll get an idea of how frustrating it is trying to debate an alarmist. Your case is rooted in empiricism, in observed data, in historical evidence. Theirs might as well have been plucked from a parallel universe – as when, say, the Green party leader Natalie Bennett assured me in a Telegram podcast the other day that if renewables were a disaster for a Britain, how come they'd been such a massive success in continental Europe? No, Natalie – on every objective level renewables have been a total disaster for continental Europe, destabilising the grid, driving up energy prices, killing jobs, causing panic among industries rendered decreasingly competitive by the cost of energy. What you are claiming – whether wittingly or otherwise – is a complete reversal of the truth.
This may be the most important genetic data since the discovery of DNA. It is nothing less than evidence for some of the Lamarckian hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The last important advocate of that was Lysenko. If acquired characteristics can be inherited, then the mechanism of evolution changes dramatically.
We know that social characteristics can be “inherited” in villages – my cocktail party theory of the role dogs played in the evolution of human intelligence is an example, and I only call it a cocktail party theory because I haven’t the time to make a formal investigation and defense of the theory – but that only explains why there have been such rapid developments in humans.
We have certainly not heard the last of this discovery."
Very interesting article about inheriting learned behavior. I've often wondered about the idea that animals are born with "instincts" that guide their behavior. Those instincts have always seemed a bit too flexible in the short term to really be a behavior that is simply built into the species. Thanks for posting that up.
Ducbsa, That article is at least 10 years behind what's going on. It's not about the planet actually getting warmer anymore. It's about any weather event that may be good or bad. It's all covered by climate change and must be stopped. The science is settled. The science is settled! The science is settled!!! THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!! THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!
"That article is at least 10 years behind what's going on. It's not about the planet actually getting warmer anymore. It's about any weather event that may be good or bad. It's all covered by climate change and must be stopped. The science is settled."
I find it ridiculous when people (Garryb did it yesterday) point to weather events and attribute that to "climate change". The climate change theory, still relies upon, at least loosely, a warming earth to cause the change. Sure a warmer Earth causing changes in ocean and atmospheric currents causing regional cooling sounds plausible, but it still is based upon a warmer Earth. To point to these events without the warmer Earth simply points out their own ignorance, or their stubborn relationship to a failing ideology.
I think the worst of possible outcomes is that we spend trillions of dollars to prevent global warming, only to find that we really need to adjust to the new ice age, which can happen as fast as the warming alarmists warn of the warming. Warming tends to be slow, but the cooling often happens in a hurry.
Other possible outcomes could include that we just don't impact climate as much as the Goreiphiles claim. This actually seems to be the case with the long "pause" in the warming that has no possible explanation they can offer beyond somehow the heat that is getting trapped in the atmosphere is magically winding up in deep ocean water where we can't easily measure it. Color me skeptical about that explanation. The other possible outcome is what Aesquire mentioned, that man made warming has been canceled by the beginning of the natural ice age. I guess that kind of goes with my first scenario, the only variable is how much cash we throw to the wind trying to control things. Given the length of the current interglacial period, we are historically overdue for the next ice age. It is possible that natural cycles have changed to where the interval is now different. I don't think we really know enough about that to have much certainty.
The one thing that stands out to me though is the theory that our climate is affected by cosmic rays. It's actually the variability caused by fluctuations of the sun's magnetic field that vary the cosmic rays we see. It's been theorized, and demonstrated in a lab that this has an effect on cloud formation. You know how it feels on a hot sunny day when a cloud blows over. The visual part of the sun's magnetic field is the sun spots. There was a huge lull in the number of sun spots during the little ice age. This theory made the prediction that the next lull in sun spots would have us seeing a change in the climate. Now for the last decade or so, there has been an unusual lull in sun spots. We also see as slight cooling of the planet during this same period. This theory is working out much better than the man made warming theory. I guess time will tell.
Hmm. No mention of Wiccans. The Original Fluffy Bunny loving tree huggers. ( and some great friends of mine )
Historian Lynn White, Jr. first made the argument in a 1966 lecture before the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, subsequently published in the journal Science, that Western Christianity, having de-sacralized and instrumentalized nature to human ends, bears a substantial "burden of guilt" for the contemporary environmental crisis. White's essay stimulated a flurry of responses, ranging from defenses of Christianity to qualified admissions to complete agreement with his analysis
I also feel if you are offended by someone wearing a cross, too bad.
Side note. If I was a deeply religious person and was ordered to remove a cross ( or other ancient traditional religious symbol. I occasionally wear a Hammer. ) I would have to decide to sue, ignore, or just pound the person into hamburger. ( I'm NOT Christian, so that is an acceptable reaction to that kind of A--hole. ) Near death experiences have a history of causing religious feelings, so I'm just helping out, right?
We could do a whole thread on the jerks who are so mentally Ill that they Crusade against Christmas. I do understand railing against the commercialization of Christmas, and I've heard logical arguments about not using public funds for religious displays.
Penn Jillette argues that if anyone is offended, even one person, by a public religious display on government property, parks, courthouses, etc., it should not be done. I don't agree. By that logic, you could object to ANYTHING and be a tyranny of one against the entire population.
You might even be right, but it does not, can not, work that way.
So you anti-religious extremists can kiss my shiny metal ass.
So I have to accept that you may indeed be an eco-freak religious person, and respect your desire to recycle, reuse, and conserve. I actually admire someone who builds a house out of old wine bottles and car tires. You go!
When you impose your faith upon ME, or others, Screw off. I don't care what faith you are. Islam, Greenie, Christian, Neo-Marxist or Wiccan. Enjoy your faith. You can't force it on others.
It's the First Law of real Americans. Freedom of religion.
Sifo, the hypothesis was that we are entering the ice age, and that the high CO2 levels might actually be holding it off. So the Global Warming of the late 1990's may indeed be human caused, but we should be grateful.
He may have changed the hypothesis by now, since he's a real actual scientist, not a political con man.
The same guy puts far more emphasis on particulates than CO2. He observed back in the 1970's that the reduction of particulates was changing long term weather patterns in the UK and Europe. When England went through a major electrification campaign, switching homes and businesses from heating with coal, to electricity, the classic London Fogs went away. People froze to death on the Riviera for the first time on hundreds of years. Less soot, colder weather. ( a simplification of a multi-page essay )
So it's obvious that man does indeed affect the weather, and planetary climate. Butterfly effect. Small changes can do big things.
You're completely right about the Cosmic rays, and the Sun's effect. On that and total energy input.
"It's the Sun, Stupid." might be the right mantra to combat Climate Change True Believers.
Hoot, if a neo-Marxist lives his life as he pleases and doesn't force it on others, he can enjoy his man made evil religion. Satanists too.
The problem you notice with the neo-marxist faiths is that their PURPOSE is to impose.
Unlike the vast majority of, for example, Muslims. It's a minority that imposes.
The Neo-marxist faiths exist to accumulate power and establish a self appointed aristocracy, ruling the rest.
You are correct, you are far more likely to get along with a Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan or Christian neighbor in peace than a Neo-Marxist. They just suck. The leaders are indeed, truly evil, and the followers are mentally ill, and stupid in astonishing ways. Hundreds of millions have been murdered by them. The Number one killer of man in history. I think they may have passed Disease as a cause of death. They might be #2.
Well, both of those are "for your own good" which means a couple of things.
1. It makes the person imposing his will on you feel better about himself. Self Righteousness is a powerful drug, and some folk are addicted. Nanny Bloomberg is a great example. He's better, smarter, and more kind than you are. Just ask.
2. Being able to convince ( note that "con" is the root word ) people that you should be allowed to take power over their lives gives you immense wealth and power. Over their lives. That's very rewarding. Note that almost every Senator is a millionaire. Also better & Smarter than you. Go ahead, ask.
The ACA is in fact a product of the neo-Marxist faith. Go ahead, ask. Is It Evil? "no, it for your own good"
Do you do any risk sports? Skydiving? Rock Climbing? Motorcycling? It's just a matter of time.
I bet that the last to go will be the sports enjoyed by the wealthy. So you Sailboarders, yachtsmen, and Polo players have some years to go. The Dirt bikers are in for a shock pretty soon.
After all, If I pay for your insurance I get a say in your life. That's the real, final point.
We've seemed to wandered a bit. Climate Change as a Con is really awesome.
Most people don't learn anything about science so they can't tell when they are being conned, AND it's not just "for your own good" it's also "for the Good of All Mankind" which naturally segues into massive moral superiority.
Arguably this is a good thing since without combustion you don't get smoke in your lungs, and smoking, in case you've been asleep for 60 years, is bad for you.
I have read that pot smokers are at greater or equal risk as tobacco smokers, since they hold the smoke in their lungs longer, and thus get more tars and particulates accumulated. ( they do not get the vaso-constricting effects of Nicotine, a serious issue in heart disease )
So......... in one sense this is a Positive Health thing.
It also offers the chance that I won't be overcome by the fumes and smell of "medicinal herbs" while I work. I have to resist the urge, often, to tell people to use the exhaust fan, damn it!
As one great writer has said, The worst thing about Marijuana is it smells good.
I may not agree, but it sure stinks.
Personal note: I feel the same exhaust fan impulse about Bacon, Curry, and Fish Sauce, all smells I like, or dislike, intensely.