The contrast between the sciences of climate and physics. A few days ago a headline caught my eye so I saved the story, Study provides evidence for ‘new physics’. It is quite short, and an interesting read for what it says: https://phys.org/news/2021-09-evidence-physics.html. The story also serves as a reminder that physics is marked by countless different schools of thought, and that new ones keep popping up while others shrink and tend to be forgotten. Most new ones attract some degree of interest and commentary. Many are open to experimentation, and every so often real progress is made in revealing what we really know about the natural world. When that happens the word gets out and there is never any need to organize a great number of physicists and have them send a message to the public to tell them about it.
Climate science could be working that way today, but is not, for a valid historical reason. In the middle of the last century a number of credible discoveries were made that carried signals of real damage to public interests in the future. Some things that humans were doing would have to change in order to avert that danger. The message had to get out, the sooner the better, so the public would understand this need. Unfortunately, the required changes could not be accomplished without the engagement of government action and controls in all parts of the world, so that’s where the type of messaging had to be focused. Educating the general public was a more complicated challenge and many of the required changes could easily be viewed as unpopular. Governments were given the responsibility to figure that out, with help from the media.
This was the only strategy that seemed to have any hope of accomplishment, but probably never had a chance. Political classes were too weak and private interests of a contradictory nature too strong, with well-funded messaging powers of their own. They saw to it that climate scientists would soon find themselves under the gun from many new “schools of thought” which vigorously denied the validity of the recently discovered truths upon which their messaging was based. Scientists were forced to set up defenses, while at the same time narrowing down the message being sent to the political class in order to keep it focused and easy to comprehend. This included the setting of goals that would be as easy as possible to accomplish. The basic message has become more and more well-honed over time and is today at least being taken seriously, though not completely.
While even the traditional medical group is beginning to understand the benefits that doctors of chiropractic (DC) who are trained extensively in the biomechanics of the body as a whole and on improving the relationship between the structure and function of the body to continue while taking rest. levitra soft tabs Getting this help may help you feel more levitra cheap loved than ever before. It’s accessible at simply buying viagra without prescription choose Chemist outlets. Strain, depression, cialis viagra online performance anxiety, relationship troubles can all be a cause of impotency.A problem with this situation for people like me, or for any true scientist who is inclined toward doing original thinking about fundamental things, is that new schools of thought are effectively discouraged. One of the consequences, perhaps unexpectedly, is that those whose findings predict a higher or more immediate level of danger are as unwelcome as those that predict less. Any resulting change in the basic message would then need to call for still more mitigating action on the part of governments, which are collectively unable to adhere to the modest rules they have agreed to and are now in place. A surprising increase in demands would likely just sew confusion and a stepping up of currently, active resistance. The effort to maintain a reasonable amount of optimism and hope in public opinion around the world, already dwindling in many places, would suffer even more, producing apathy and other undesirable effects.
Carl’s theory provides evidence, sketchy as it may be, that precipitable water (PW) has a potent greenhouse energy effect, expressed in all locations in a uniquely variable manner that is sometimes extreme. Its impact is not regulated by the atmospheric content of CO2 or by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. It currently has a prominent role in causing the accelerated temperature increases now occurring in the Northern Hemisphere. The evidence is of a type that can be verified. All evidence of this type has to date either been unprovided to, or overlooked by, climate science and remains unrecognized. .We can’t really think of it in this state as a new “school” of our understanding of nature, when there are so few adherents, but it has that potential. I believe it is always proper to know the truth, whether it be for better or worse, and will keep on laying more foundations, just within these letters, until someone who has taken a good look steps up and tells me it’s all a big mistake and has no merit!
Carl