[Marxism] [progressivecaucuscdp] Fw: How many degrees does it take to screw in a crisis?

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Wed Apr 15 10:49:29 MDT 2009

Paddy Apling wrote:
> I can't help wondering why there is so much bother on these lists about the prospect of global warming - which is any case seems to have stopped - or even gone into reverse in the last decade.
> As a Food Scientist, only too familiar with the vagaries of weather and climate and its effect on food production and supply, I cannot but be amazed at the trust put by so many in the computer predictions not only of the future of climate change, but on the simplistic assumption that every climatic change is due to emissions of CO2.   (This arises from the simplistic assumption that a correlation necessarily means causation - which, in any case, can be interpreted either way - is increase in CO2 since the 18th century the CAUSE of the increase in general temperature by the 21st century? - or is the rise in global temperature the cause of the increase in CO2? - solubility in the vast amount of water covering 2/3rds of the world' surface area will DECREASE with rising temperature).
> It is, I think, more geologically sound to regard CO2 as the precursor of the O2 in the earth's atmosphere, resulting since the original development of photosynthesis by green organisms with conversion of CO2 and H20, under the influence of the sun's energy, to carbohydrates, with release of molecular oxygen.   Every horticulturalist is well aware that increase of atmospheric CO2, for example in closed greenhouses, gives rise to increased plant, flower and fruit production (cf. new developments in tomato production at British Sugar's vast refinery at Wissington in Norfolk).
> I had always thought that the main criterion for the radical was to severely question the commonly-held opinions of the powers-that-be - but in the last few years it is beginning to look as if I was wrong !!
> It is about time there was more critical thinking on this topic.....  
> Paddy

It may surprise you to learn that most have us have applied a great deal 
of critical thinking to this problem and found the science of the IPCC 
The science is far more than a simple computer model of atmospheric CO2 
and your statement to that effect almost had me ignoring this screed 
since you do not appear to be well enough informed on the issue to have 
an informed debate. Ill conceived screeds are generally best ignored.
The "power-that-be" have spent 50 years trying to cloud this issue with 
pseudoscience and unfounded doubt and it is most disappointing to see a 
food scientist offer them material support in that endeavor.

John Thornton

More information about the Marxism mailing list