Great Climatic Upheavals Are Coming

It is sometimes confusing for non-scientists to credit science for
postulating theory precisely because non-scientists do not understand that
a scientific theory is often better than facts. It is a postulate which is
testible. It is a tried and true position, much better than a hypothesis.
A theory is the same as fact and facts change as do theories when a better
theory comes along, or in the case of non-scientific facts, when a better
witness comes along.

E.O.Wilson says it well in "Scientists, Scholars, Knaves and Fools" in
Scientific American (http://americanscientist.com/):

"Science, to put its warrant as concisely as possible, is the organized
systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses
the knowledge into testable laws and principles. The diagnostic features
of science that distinguish it from pseudoscience are first,
repeatability: The same phenomenon is sought again, preferably by
independent investigation, and the interpretation given to it is confirmed
or discarded by means of novel analysis and experimentation. Second,
economy: Scientists attempt to abstract the information into the form that
is both simplest and aesthetically most pleasing--the combination called
elegance--while yielding the largest amount of information with the least
amount of effort. Third, mensuration: If something can be properly
measured, using universally accepted scales, generalizations about it are
rendered unambiguous. Fourth, heuristics: The best science stimulates
further discovery, often in unpredictable new directions; and the new
knowledge provides an additional test of the original principles that led
to its discovery. Fifth and finally, consilience: The explanations of
different phenomena most likely to survive are those that can be connected
and proved consistent with one another."

Science is considered to be only 400 years old. Before it became science
it was philosophy. And this is indeed an exciting time. Fifty years after
the acceptance of radio and discovery of amplitude modulation, soon to
somewhat co-exist with other more improved forms of modulation, but
preceeding any thought of solid state electronics, I discovered radio and
became a ham operator. That was actually slightly above the cusp because
radio really came into it's own during WWII. Most science is perfected
during war. But it was still the most exciting time of my life to be
involved with radio and computers when they were just starting. However
today is almost terrifyingly advanced; to the point of even discussing the
Singularity and what kind of future we will have, a great one, or
dystopian because our brains can't keep up with our technology.

Science now includes disciplines not even imagined when I was a youngster
building radios and computers out of tubes and wires on breadboards. Today
the microscopes; something I always wanted but never got, can see beyond
the glare and blinding light from our sun. We can see in ranges beyond
just the visible range we at one time thought was the only frequencies
which mattered. Today we can calculate space and time. In this lifetime we
perfected methodology for calculating the speed of expansion of our
universe and the age. We have telescopes that are millions of miles apart
connected by lasers which measure the beginnings of the universe and we
know it all began (in this universe) 13.7 billion years ago.

We have new science, which is rapidly becoming old science, i.e.
astronomy, biomedicine, genomics, and physiological psychology, among
others. And incredibly we still have charlatans who are pushing silly
pseudosciences and some who still believe in the supernatural and a flat
earth.

It hasn't been so long that we have know evolution is not about survival
but really all about reproduction; survival only being secondary to it but
not essential for it. Evolution is specifically about reproduction.

Survival is evolutionary because it contributes to reproduction and
fitness doesn't determine evolution but natural selection rather is the
result of how fit something is; that is, the determination of how
successful organisms are at promoting their genes.

"...fitness leads to the important prediction that natural selection
favoring a particular type should result in a larger proportion of that
type in future populations. This prediction has been repeatedly tested and
confirmed." (David Barash, Natural Selections, 2008)

Natural selection doesn't create. It is a negative process. Those not fit
fail over time in preference to those who are more fit to reproduce.

_Perhaps_ one of the most important research in this new century, though
there has been plenty, including the new super collider (more on that
later) has been climate variation measurements which were completely
preserved in the ice cores taken in Antarctica. It perhaps did lend more
urgency to the community of climate scientists about a need to understand
the current trend and how much it may be by -human- activity.

There is still an ongoing debate which many say has been settled but each
time it is assumed they know the answers there is new research to indicate
those answers may need to be more nuanced. What I mean by that is, I think
we can pretty assuredly attribute human activity to the speed at which the
worlds climate is changing, but not entirely to its cause. I say that the
results are still being debated; others may disagree. But as with any
science, it is irresponsible of us if we do not investigate in spite of
how positive many or most are that human activity is the primary cause.
How much have cows been responsible as opposed to burning fossil fuels for
example? Cows are ungulates. They have a special digestive system which
evolved to break down celulose. They belch a lot and they release methane
into the atmosphere which have a significant influence on the green house
effect. This is ongoing research. Lets not forget it as Joe Biden did in
the vice presidential candidates debate with Sarah Palin, when he
attributed climate change to human activity alone. That was never the
case. That is a missreading of the science to think it is. I don't know
any reputable scientist who could make a similar claim.

There is human activity which is speeding up climate change and likely to
result in great climate upheavals. There is also natural changes which
will result in great climate upheavals.

Hank Roth
POINTER: Start with links at http://pnews.org/ or http://inyourface.info/