Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Kate Spinner <kespinner@gmail.com>]

In response to John and Pete V.: Scientists in their commitment to good science very rarely draw absolute conclusions and I think it is unrealistic to expect scientists to prove theories the way prosecutors try to convict criminals. In fact, expecting such absolute evidence could backfire by forcing scientists to draw premature conclusions due to pressure. 

When evidence mounts that a theory is holding true, good scientists usually phrase their findings in terms of suggestions and probabilities. They should not be faulted for that. Gathering scientific evidence is like constant and in-depth observation, probably very similar to the way farmers figured out that plants need certain nutrients and that ladybugs eat enough aphids to warrant making an effort to keep them around. Knowledge evolves based on bits of observation that accumulate over time. 

Climate modeling for future predictions is certainly new, but the models are grounded in basic forecasting science, which has improved significantly in the past decade or two. If bad weather is on the way, we know about it much earlier than we did even five years ago. Further, analysis of past climate trends points to rising global temperatures and rising seas. I don't know the explanation for subsidence, but I do know it has occurred in Louisiana and where I live in Southwest Florida. Here, subsidence and sea level rise is factored into regional planning and hurricane evacuation, so it is taken seriously by those in power. Erosion occurs from wave action, something to be expected from water whether it's rising or falling.

On Jun 14, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Pete Vukovich wrote:

This whole trend in science worries me from an intellectual standpoint for a whole bunch of reasons.

What I understand, and I understand little is that geology and climate science are pretty new things, they are much poorer at predicting what is happening geologically and climate wise than we are at predicting what will happen if you scatter infrared 90nm light off CO2.

Geologists still don't know what precisely makes sea levels rise or fall, or causes reversals in plate movements - etc. The are better at measuring it than they were 30 years ago, but thats it. I think its dishonest no matter who funds them to suggest its successfully predictive - again from what I understand. The problem is corporate funding which steers debate is largely devoid of scientific value. Scientific value has no predetermined purpose, corporate theologies purpose is obvious and antithetical to serious understanding. A lot is going on within the field that should be shaken out as serious intellectual debate, not marketing material.

Climatologists still have only vague ideas of how greenhouse gases work, when a release of energy from a melting ice cap causes cooling and when it causes warming. They don't factor in things like solar events, the specific heat of a desalinated ocean, geologic events etc, very well. There may be no grand unified theory in physics, but there really isn't much of a unified theory at all in Climatology from what little I know. They rely largely on statistical events and 'curve fitting' to predict the future. We do this with lots of things now days, and I don't feel its not well grounded science.

Its like predicting rain and nuclear war using statistics. You can say there were days like yesterday which had rain today quite a few times. You will not be saying much if you say there were days like yesterday in which global nuclear war occurred today. I think its also dishonest no matter who is funding them to suggest there's much ability to predict the future in that field either. Maybe I need to know more, or maybe its like geology, they've got better at measuring things but that's about it. If so their measurements should one day agree, and be shaken out as serious science, not rhetorical marketing material.

I feel we do know some things which are simple and need to be addressed soon. We are pretty darn sure (as I understand it) that we use more petroleum energy than is replaced by nature to feed ourselves. We know this because it gets more expensive to obtain it. We know we still handle land poorly in general. Same for water and most other sources of REAL wealth. We know genetics and biochemistry are still VERY young sciences and we know much less than we pretend about them. We know we have and are being cavalier in applying them. Same for chemistry for the most part. We are beginning I think to know that silicon technology doesn't hasn't saved anything, that plants are carbon based, not virtual or digital and we need them to live.  Its my personal view that as quaint as technology its utility is like a poisson distribution. At some point as we reach our limits technology reaches its limits - then its primary effect is to concentrate power and wealth in the realm of people who are less concerned with their place on the planet at the expense of more people who are. In short what worries me I guess is that we are concentrating wealth and arrogance instead of being aware of them.

Its what how I interpret what I see. Maybe I'm nuts or stupid (its a distinct possibility). Maybe things have always been like that. Maybe the weather isn't more unstable than it was 20 or 30 years ago, maybe I just forgot because I'm brain dead. Maybe sea levels will or wont rise, maybe acquifers aren't being depleted. Maybe the planet can hold 10 billion people comfortably. Maybe we are smart enough to dig ourselves out of each and every hole we create. Maybe it doesn't matter what we do. Of course if it does, we may be committing a sort of collective propagational and intellectual suicide which we may or may not feel the affects of in the near future.

It is mildly interesting that we are willing to place a premium on choice in some areas and at the same time minimize the inherent risk in making a choice - no matter what the choice.

Ok, I've babbled enough for the week.

--pete


--- On Tue, 6/14/11, paul@oneseedling.com <paul@oneseedling.com> wrote:

From: paul@oneseedling.com <paul@oneseedling.com>
Subject: [Livingontheland] Rising sea levels a myth
To: "Healthy soil and sustainable growing" <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 10:01 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

Paul the Skeptic
_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland