Rain

E.C.Apling E.C.Apling at SPAMbtinternet.com
Fri Nov 17 12:36:37 MST 2000



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-marxism at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-marxism at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Les Schaffer
> Sent: 16 November 2000 20:11
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: Rain
>
>
> Paddy said:
>
> > It IS nonsense to talk about CO2 as a danger.  It is a proven fact
> > that plants can only grow and photosynthesise with adequate supplies
> > of CO2 - and that increasing CO2 results in more rapid growth and
> > photosynthesis (given a sufficient reply of light, water, nitrate,
> > phosphate and potash + a variety of other trace materials).  It has
> > for long been recognised by greenhouse growers that a raised CO2 is
> > beneficial and many an installation provides for this.
>
>
> unbelievable.... absolutely amazingly incredible that you talk to
> marxist comrades worlwide spreading this nonsense instead of using
> your long experience and technical background to help non-technical
> people get a grip on what the latest scientific findings are
> indicating (or not indicating).
>

On the contrary - it is biological, chemical, agricultural and (most)
physical results which are the more dependable, based as they are on
EXPERIMENTAL data which were collected under controlled conditions and may
be repeated for checking by other experimenters.

Climatalogical results and predictions are the results of computer
modelling, which are based on inadequate data, collected {apart from results
from satellite and radiosonde observations - which it is agreed are not in
good agreement with the surface data) under conditions not subject to
control and checking by the climatologists themselves.  In this
climatologists are very much like epidemiologists - who also rely
essentially on computer modelling using other people's data (coroner's
reports; hospital reports, etc) whose reliability and format varies from
country to country.  However, where epidemiologists make predictions about
correlation of disease incidence with particular life-style factors it is
possible within a few years to compare their predictions with results
obtained from animal experiments or by the study of people who are pursuaded
to change their life-style (nutrition, lack of smoking, etc etc).

No such check is possible in the short-term in climatology apart from
comparisons between ground-level data [available with some (unknown) degree
of accuracy over the last 100-150 years] and results from satellite and
radiosondes available over perhaps the last 30 years.   For climatic changes
this is a very very short time over which to validate data, given the known
changes over the last millenia which can be inferred from historical
("anecdotal" ?) documentary and archeological evidence - such as the Viking
settlements in Greenland in the 10/11th century; the Little Ice Age in the
16th/early 18th century, etc. etc.,  apart from the vast changes in climate
known to have occurred over geological time, all of which were certainly not
due to human activities.  [On the other hand - the London "smog" -
completely stopped during my professional time - clearly WAS.]

Furthermore, as to the CO2 changes - if these do really lead to higher
global temperatures - this is likely to extend the available land for
agriculture and improve crop yields over vast areas bordering the tundra in
Canada and Russia. So it just cannot be seen as necessarily a global
catastrophe.

As to the problematic relationship of this discussion to Marxism; the
question is not one of Marxism, [tho' I admit the politics of it all, must
be subject matter for Marxist discussion and possible action - but here I am
completely lost as there seems to be a big gulf between bourgeois
politicians and bougeois industrialis] - but of general science and its
utilisation.  And on this question all I need say is that while experimental
results can and should be used to guide and improve industrial and
agricultural practice, it is extremely doubtful if results of computer
modelling can in any sense be relied on to guide practice; surely they
ALWAYS require experimental confirmation.

Paddy
NFHS Member #5594
Mailto:E.C.Apling at btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~e.c.apling/index.htm
or http://www.e.c.apling.btinternet.co.uk










More information about the Marxism mailing list