When his team's findings first came out (if I'm not mistaken, from the Niels Bohr institute, no less) they were rigorously attacked with anything but scientific arguments, mainly by end-of-career scientists, seemingly more occupied by protecting their career making, older findings about CO2-correllation and book sales than furthering the scientific development of mankind's understanding of these natural processes.
It was painful to watch, and even more so to see that they partially succeeded in keeping this basic understanding of nature suppressed.
Today, seeing how the CO2-theory helped further a global, financial industry in itself (as well as a ground work for renewing mining, energy and manufacturing sectors suffering greatly before) it is easy to understand the unwelcome level of disruption from this knowledge, that was all new back then.
I find it baffling that such work could be treated with anything but respect... it's interesting, thorough and not to mention backed up by a huge amount of observational data.
As you say, perhaps more than a sprinkling of self-interest and corruption is involved - it would certainly make more sense! You raise a good point about 'CO2' helping to bolster other sectors such as mining, not just the parasitic 'renewables' sector... I hadn't actually thought of that before.
There must be many snouts deeply entrenched in the CO2 trough! Is this idea now simply 'too big to fail', I wonder?
My bachelor's degree is in Environmental Studies, and we never heard how cosmic rays impact climate back in the 80s, nor since then. But, as someone forced by frequent revelations that the mainstream 'got it wrong' about so many topics, I've come to be more open to contrarian viewpoints and even to "conspiracy theories."
Seeking a way to persuade friends to try new perspectives, I found an analogy that might give pause. Consider the assertion that "350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is the top safe amount, and we're already at 420 ppm— catastrophe is heading our way!!" Atmospheric chemistry and physics are beyond most people. But when we convert that ratio to money, which all of us use daily, we find that instead of 420:1,000.000 we get 4 dimes and 2 pennies to a thousand dollars: 42:1000.
Really, can you imagine any way that 6 coins would be significant compared to $100, much less have any power over $1000?!
Great article!
When his team's findings first came out (if I'm not mistaken, from the Niels Bohr institute, no less) they were rigorously attacked with anything but scientific arguments, mainly by end-of-career scientists, seemingly more occupied by protecting their career making, older findings about CO2-correllation and book sales than furthering the scientific development of mankind's understanding of these natural processes.
It was painful to watch, and even more so to see that they partially succeeded in keeping this basic understanding of nature suppressed.
Today, seeing how the CO2-theory helped further a global, financial industry in itself (as well as a ground work for renewing mining, energy and manufacturing sectors suffering greatly before) it is easy to understand the unwelcome level of disruption from this knowledge, that was all new back then.
I find it baffling that such work could be treated with anything but respect... it's interesting, thorough and not to mention backed up by a huge amount of observational data.
As you say, perhaps more than a sprinkling of self-interest and corruption is involved - it would certainly make more sense! You raise a good point about 'CO2' helping to bolster other sectors such as mining, not just the parasitic 'renewables' sector... I hadn't actually thought of that before.
There must be many snouts deeply entrenched in the CO2 trough! Is this idea now simply 'too big to fail', I wonder?
(Thanks for reading!!!)
My bachelor's degree is in Environmental Studies, and we never heard how cosmic rays impact climate back in the 80s, nor since then. But, as someone forced by frequent revelations that the mainstream 'got it wrong' about so many topics, I've come to be more open to contrarian viewpoints and even to "conspiracy theories."
Seeking a way to persuade friends to try new perspectives, I found an analogy that might give pause. Consider the assertion that "350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is the top safe amount, and we're already at 420 ppm— catastrophe is heading our way!!" Atmospheric chemistry and physics are beyond most people. But when we convert that ratio to money, which all of us use daily, we find that instead of 420:1,000.000 we get 4 dimes and 2 pennies to a thousand dollars: 42:1000.
Really, can you imagine any way that 6 coins would be significant compared to $100, much less have any power over $1000?!
Oops, I forgot a decimal point, it's .42:1000