There are times when all good women, and men, need to come to the aid of the party. Times when profound changes in understanding occur. Times that put a stamp on a man (or woman) for better or worse. Times that try men's souls.
We have just celebrated the 150 year anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. There had been other ideas about where species came from - creation, inheritance of acquired characteristics - but Darwin (and Wallace) put an end to all that, once and forever. The combination of natural selection producing change in response to environment, and geographic separation letting that change produce different species, was so simple, and yet so profound, that it was game over. Oh there were all kinds of details Darwin didn't know about, and that have been worked on by tens of thousands of other scientists ever since - genes, DNA, exactly how separation causes species to diverge, how genes control development, the real age of the Earth, continental drift, the climatic changes of the past, the extent of the fossil record, and so on. But none of it mattered, none of it affected the basic theory. Game over.
Oh and game over for the combination of religion and science which was so common in Darwin's time. After 1859 it was no longer possible for a scientist to be religious. A true scientist. Anyone who claimed to be both a god-botherer and a scientist was either a fool or a liar.
One hundred years later another shift of a different kind. For years doctors and biological scientists had happily smoked cigarettes. Both groups had often appeared in the media to promote cigarettes, as being not only not bad for you but indeed possibly good for you, as smoking cowboys rode off into the sunset. But from the time the statistical link between heart disease and lung cancer and smoking was demonstrated, it was no longer possible to call yourself a scientist and promote tobacco. Oh, sure, there were details to be worked out - how did smoking actually cause the cell damage, what were the active ingredients, how did they relate to other environmental factors like diet and air pollution, and what about genetics. But these were details, the game was up, smoking was bad for you, devastatingly bad for you, and anyone who claimed to be a scientist and not understand that was either a fool or a well-paid liar. They were certainly not scientists.
And so to the third of this trio, climate change. From the mid 1990s when the physics of CO2 absorption of radiation was combined with measurements of rising CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels and observations of global warming, it was no longer possible to be a scientist and a climate change denialist. Anyone who claimed to be both was either a fool or a well-paid liar. Oh sure, there were all kinds of details to be sorted out relating to CO2 absorption by the oceans, positive and negative feedback mechanisms, research into CO2 levels in the distant past, measurements of glacial and polar ice responses, analysis of responses to warming in the ecology of plants and animals, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Work of tens of thousands of real scientists over the last 15 years have greatly refined the understanding of climate systems and how they work in detail. But nothing has altered that initial breakthrough in understanding about the role of CO2 in the atmosphere and the origin and implications of its rise and rise.
You think you know scientists who accept religion, but who don't accept evolution, tobacco effects on health, or anthropogenic climate change?
No, you don't.
But real science on The Watermelon Blog
Follow David Horton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/watermelon_man
- Mark Twain
seems to think it's 1) way worse than anyone believes, or
2) 'nature' will work out something useful.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
See also:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
The wisdom of John Atcheson, expressed in his Common Dreams articles Ticking TIme Bomb and the more recent Global Warming, warrants doing everything possible to end the need for fossil fuels.
However, the science that can help the most is usually dismissed as impossible. This includes fractional Hydrogen, in spite of the fact that Rowan University published experiments that produced excess heat that cannot be explained except by a new source of energy.
The experiments should be reproduced by skeptical scientists. When they are, that new source of energy will become easier to accept.
Since it indicates a gallon of water can replace 200 barrels of oil, that ought to be a high priority.
For a few of the implications, see - 5 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy on the website: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Hybrid engines likely to need only one gallon of water as fuel per 1,000 miles are on the horizon.
Cars, trucks and buses with such engines can become power plants when parked, selling cost-competitive electricity to the utility - and perhaps paying for themselves over time.
This potential does not depend on political agreements, but merely entrepreneurial efforts.
Once it is proven possible, the task to slow climate change is married to reducing dependence on oil.
That might infuse hope once again into discussions of the human future.
According to Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I think David would agree with that.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanChemSummer2009Report.pdf
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanHydrinoReport2009.pdf
I would also agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!
That is why those experiments need to be repeated at other laboratories.
However, since we have been following their work since it first surfaced and have somewhat parallel work of our own underway using fractional Hydrogen, we have little doubt that any open minded scientist will find similar results.
It would be great if the National labs reproduced the Rowan work without delay.