Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


We're accustomed to thinking geologic history has an extremely long, slow time scale. But in recent years Nobel Laureate atmospheric researcher Paul Crutzen and other scientists have proposed that human activity is changing the planet pervasively and permanently. As a result, they suggest, we've said goodbye to the Holocene epoch, which began 11,700 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age, and entered into a new, man-made Anthropocene epoch.

Okay, people, if you want to accuse me of being too stupid to recognize "an obvious fraud" (significant changes in our world due to human activities over a short scale of time), go right ahead. I'm tired of bullies like you who don't know jack shit about real science ("science is what Rush Limbaugh tells us"), and the other bullies who want nothing more than to take over the whole world and micromanage it and never, ever let people do anything worth a damn again, like getting back into space and heading for the stars ("science is a bourgeoisie affectation that we can use as a stalking horse to maneuver ourselves into the seats of power, and once we have, the hell with science, as it is nothing but a fraud"). The hell with all of you, Left, Right, and Sideways -- you've substituted smugness for real knowledge and a sense of superiority over people who are smarter than you are and have done more real work in the world to the good of everyone than you have. As far as I'm concerned, the lot of you are ignorant, stupid psychopaths, not one of whom is fit to kiss the feet of Galileo, Lavoisier, Robert T. Bakker, or any of the other great scientists. So bitch and bitch about it as you will -- you'll never, ever understand why "Love is the law, love under (as the foundation of) will." Left up to any of you, the world will soon perish and all humanity, your stupid, selfish, paranoid selves included, with it.



( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 20th, 2014 02:19 pm (UTC)
One thing that I do have some issues with is... In general, when politics and science enter a room together, only politics emerge.

During the hobby lobby case, I became aware that a number of widely published and circulated studies were outright fraudulent. That there is simply, mathematically, no possibility that "Plan B" can have the stated efficacy without preventing implantation.

As for global warming, that case is less cut and dried, and more nuanced than either side would have us believe. In scientific terms, there's *no* debate that co2 is a greenhouse gas. none whatsoever. However, there IS a vast amount of debate as to what the sensitivity of the climate is to a doubling of co2. No 2 studies agree on that.

What the IPCC does due to that lack of consensus on the sensitivity is average all the different predictions. Which is not a valid methodology, because IF you don't understand the mechanisms, then those models are not valid statistically. No number of dice rolls averaged will predict a bridge failure. it doesn't work that way unless your models are intrinsically valid.

That being said, yes, given the land-mass impacts of humanity (look at aerial photography, there is not that much land that isn't under management anymore), the fact that we ARE changing atmospheric chemistry, and all the other impacts of humanity, it does seem like the claim of the "Anthropocene" is a valid (and... kind of awesome) extrapolation.
Aug. 21st, 2014 01:23 am (UTC)
Thank you from the bottom of my heart! <3

So often I feel like I'm going crazy, looking at the data that tell a tale that people claim is fraudulent and something put out by the political party opposite to theirs (generally, they're on the Right, the opposition is the Left) to "deceive the people" and "allow tyrants to take over the nation/world/etc." Or something of the sort. The choice so often comes down to "Shall I continue to believe in what hard, scientifically acquired data, my education, and history tell us, or shall I be regarded by people as on their side and thus worthy of their friendship? That can be one hell of a hard choice to make, and having to make it every damned day of my life becomes very wearing. So, as you can imagine, someone agreeding with my on any of these critically important matters is a reassurance that I'm sane (at least to some extent), not mistaken in my understanding of what the science makes known, and not entirely alone in the world.

If new data come in contradicting the old data, and our scientific understanding of the chemistry, physics, and ecology of our world changes significantly, of course I would change my ideas of astrobiological reality on our world to match. But so far that hasn't happened. It's good to know that others can see that there are just too ****ing many human beings on Earth for us not to affect our world, often in drastic ways.

I'm currently reading a book by Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change, that explores the psychology behind our various attitudes concerning the issue, rather than climate change itself. In the end, I think, it will be that -- our emotional as well as intellectual responses to such issues as climate change and global pollution -- that will make the difference between our viability as a species, with a long future ahead of us as well as our descendants, and the end of the hominen/human lineage. I hope we come down on the side of the former, not the latter.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )


Let&#39;s Roll
Yael Dragwyla

Latest Month

March 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner