The US has a problem. One of the causes du joir that politicians, celebrities and big business are pressing to seem responsible about is the environment. Now in terms of saving trees or having more parks or protecting wetlands, I think that's fine. In fact, I applaud it.
However, the newsest craze is the chasing down the accountability of CO2 since it contributes to global warming. This is where I have an issue.
To reiterate my position, I do believe that the earth is getting warmer. Most data we have collected supports that. Also, the geohistory of our planet supports that we are in a warming interglacial period. These two thing suggest that we are in a warming cycle that will continue for some time.
I'd also like to say up front that I fully realize that the interconnected nature of the biomes and types of ecosystems we have available play a large part in what type of life can flourish in those areas. This is something that climate and geology effect, especially when you look at it in geologic time. The issues that I have arise when you take that understanding and begin to try to add anthropomorphic elements to it.
Concepts like Holocene extinction event being based on human predation of larger mammals is iffy, but I can buy it. Likewise, I can understand the concept of trying to follow both the energy and chemical flow of human interaction and the environment to explain things like over-farming, soil degradation or over hunting. Those all interact at a biotic level and are easily traceable to human interaction with biota.
That line is crossed, in my opinion, when you try to explain natural weather patterns as a result of human interaction, without first being able to explain those processes in both geohistorical and paleometerological context. In saying it another way, if you can't explain to me the glaciation cycles, heating and cooling mechanisms, energy absorption models and chemical atmospheric effects on global temperature at the time that human interaction was not present then how are you supposed to tell me that those interactions today aren't acting in the same fashion, or if not, the degree of vaience being caused by them?
Additionally, the concept that we will be able to keep the earth functioning as a closed, unchanging system is not scientifically viable. Energy from our own Sun is in fluctuation and will continue to be until it burns out. Our land masses will continue to move, which will effect weather patterns. Volcanoes will continue to outgass. Species will continue to emerge and they will also continue to die. Extinction is the biologic rule, not the exception. All of that is inevitable.
These realities are being ignored while the theories of biotic/human interaction are being politicized. That pathway is one that leads us into more peril, not less. As proof of that I offer into account the former soviet system of Lysenkoism.
Segments from Wikipedia's Lysenkoism post:
Lysenkoism was a political campaign against genetics and geneticists which happened in the Soviet Union from the middle of the 1930s to the middle of the 1960s, centered around the figure of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.
...
In 1928, a previously unknown agronomist, Trofim Lysenko claimed to have developed an agricultural technique termed vernalization which used humidity and low temperatures to make wheat grow in spring. He promised to triple or quadruple crop yields using his technique. In reality, the technique was neither new (it was known since 1854, and was extensively studied during the previous twenty years), nor did it produce the yields he promised.
Soviet mass-media presented him as a genius who had developed a new, revolutionary agricultural technique. During this period Soviet propaganda often focused upon inspirational stories of peasants who, through their own canny ability and intelligence, came up with solutions to practical problems. Lysenko's widespread popularity provided him a platform to denounce theoretical genetics and to promote his own agricultural practices. He was, in turn, supported by the Soviet propaganda machine, which overstated his successes and omitted mention of his failures. Instead of making controlled experiments, Lysenko relied upon questionnaires taken of farmers to claim that vernalization increased wheat yields by 15%.
...
Lysenko's political success was due in part to his striking differences from most biologists at the time, he being both from a peasant family as well as an enthusiastic advocate of the Soviet Union and Leninism. During a period which saw one man-made or natural disaster after another in agriculture, he was also extremely fast in seeming to respond to problems, although not with real solutions. Whenever the Party would announce plans to plant a new crop or cultivate a new area, Lysenko would come up with immediate and seemingly practical suggestions on how to proceed. So quickly did he develop his prescriptions — from the cold treatment of grain, to the plucking of leaves from cotton plants, to the cluster planting of trees, to odd and unusual fertilizer mixes — that academic biologists could not keep up and did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted. The Party-controlled newspapers inevitably applauded Lysenko's "practical" efforts and questioned the motives of his critics. Lysenko's "revolution in agriculture" had a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics who urged the patience and observation required for science. Lysenko was admitted into the Communist Party hierarchy and put in charge of agricultural affairs. He used his position to denounce biologists as "fly-lovers and people haters," and to decry the "wreckers" in biology who he claimed were trying to purposely disable the Soviet economy and cause it to fail. He furthermore denied the distinction between theoretical and applied biology.
....
Between 1934 and 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's blessings, many geneticists were executed (including Agol, Levit, and Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943. Genetics was stigmatized as a "bourgeois science" or "fascist science" (due to the fact that fascists — particularly the Nazis in Germany — embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race). Some Soviet geneticists, however, survived and continued to work in genetics, dangerous as it was.
In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience"; all geneticists were fired from work (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who fancied himself as an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). Only in the middle of the 1960s was it waived. As a consequence, Lysenkoism caused serious, long-term harm to Soviet biology. It represented a serious failure of the early Soviet leadership to find real solutions to agricultural problems, allowing their system to be hijacked by a charlatan — at the expense of many human lives. Lysenkoism also spread to China, where it continued long after it was eventually denounced by the Soviets.
Does any of that look familiar to the Global Warming arguments today? I think it does. I think that it's a inconvenient truth we better get a handle on before we let this railroad car leave the station. Illuminating the debate on global warming by taking out of the shadowy rooms of the policy makers and allowing for scientific skepticism is a better route to finding the truth then to go off half cocked.Labels: censorship, global warming, media, morons, politics, science |
Here is a shot of a "Saw 'em off" shirt...
They don't look that similar at all. The snout is different - one is round and one is shorter and flat. The tops of the heads look different. I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how any one could confuse these two. However, here's one that looks pretty similar.
