Lysenkoism the new cornerstoen of Global Warming

justoffal

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2013
22,629
14,878
1,405
ATTRIBUTED:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...f-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/


Trofim Lysenko became the Director of theSoviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the 1930s under Josef Stalin. He was an advocate of the theory that characteristics acquired by plants during their lives could be inherited by later generations stemming from the changed plants, which sharply contradicted Mendelian genetics. As a result, Lysenko became a fierce critic of theories of the then rising modern genetics.

Under Lysenko’s view, for example, grafting branches of one plant species onto another could create new plant hybrids that would be perpetuated by the descendants of the grafted plant. Or modifications made to seeds would be inherited by later generations stemming from that seed. Or that plucking all the leaves off of a plant would cause descendants of the plant to be leafless.
Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.

Also Lysenko himself arose from a peasant background and developed his theories from practical applications rather than controlled scientific experiments. This fit the Marxist propaganda of the time holding that brilliant industrial innovations would arise from the working classes through practical applications. Lysenko’s theories also seemed to address in a quick and timely manner the widespread Soviet famines of the time arising from the forced collectivization of agriculture, rather than the much slower changes from scientific experimentation and genetic heredity.

Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.

The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught as the only correct theory. All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed. Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics only as late as 1964.

The Theory of Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming

This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory serves the political fashions of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy. Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S., and in leftist controlled media in other countries. Critics of the theory are denounced as “deniers,” and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.

Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?

Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and publications.

The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is supposed to represent the best science of the U.S. government on the issue of global warming. In January, the USGCRP released the draft of its Third National Climate Assessment Report. The first duty of the government scientists at the USGCRP is to produce a complete picture of the science of the issue of global warming, which is what the taxpayers are paying them for. But it didn’t take long for the Cato Institute to do the job of the USGCRP with a devastating line by line rebuttal, The Missing Science from the Draft National Assessment on Climate Change, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2012, by Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling, Mary J. Hutzler & Craig D. Idso.

Check it out for yourself if you dare. Both publications are written to be accessible by intelligent laymen. See which one involves climate science and which one involves political science.

All the climate alarmist organizations simply rubber stamp the irregular Assessment Reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). None of them do any original science on the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. But the United Nations is a proven, corrupt, power grabbing institution. The science of their Assessment Reports has been thoroughly rebutted by the hundreds of pages of science inClimate Change Reconsidered, and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, both written by dozens of scientists with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and published by the Heartland Institute, the international headquarters of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.

Again, check it out for yourself. You don’t have to read every one of the well over a thousand pages of careful science in both volumes to see at least that there is a real scientific debate.

The editors of the once respected journals of Science and Nature have abandoned science for Lysenkoism on this issue as well. They have become as political as the editorial pages of the New York Times. They claim their published papers are peer reviewed, but those reviews are conducted on the friends and family plan when it comes to the subject of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. There can be no peer review at all when authors refuse to release their data and computer codes for public inspection and attempted reconstruction of reported results by other scientists. They have been forced to backtrack on recent publications relying on novel, dubious, statistical methodologies not in accordance with established methodologies of complex statistical analysis.

Formerly respected scientific bodies in the U.S. and other western countries have been commandeered by political activist Lysenkoists seizing leadership positions. They then proceed with politically correct pronouncements on the issue of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming heedless of the views of the membership of actual scientists. Most of what you see and hear from alarmists regarding global warming can be most accurately described as play acting on the meme of settled science. The above noted publications demonstrate beyond the point where reasonable people can differ that no actual scientist can claim that the science of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming has been settled or that there is a settled “consensus” that rules out reasonable dissent.

Indeed, 31,487 U.S. scientists (including 9,000 Ph.Ds) with degrees in atmospheric Earth sciences, physics, chemistry, biology and computer science have signed a statement that reads: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” See here. Some consensus.

( Notice here that they did not say we would not have catastrophic climate change only that it is highly doubtful and lacking in evidence to insist that Anthropgenic CO2 would cause it. There may still indeed be catastrophe waiting for us in the climate )

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vN1SyaSdCeM]Knowing - End of the World {Better Quality} - YouTube[/ame]

Real science, of course, is not a matter of “consensus,” but of reason, with skepticism at its core.
 
Granny says, "Dat's right - we all gonna die...

U.N. panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'
22 Sept.`13 - A United Nations panel of experts met on Monday to review a draft report that raises the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 percent and warns of ever more extreme weather unless governments take strong action.
Scientists and officials from more than 110 governments began a four-day meeting in Stockholm to edit and approve the 31-page draft that also tries to explain a "hiatus" in the pace of global warming this century despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will go through the document line by line and present it on Friday as a main guide for governments, which have agreed to work out a United Nations deal by the end of 2015 to fight global warming. "I expect the world will understand the simplicity and the gravity of the message that we provide," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said after the opening session.

Climate change "will transform our lives, our economies and indeed the way our planet will function in the future," Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, told delegates. A shift towards a greener economy, based on renewable energies, would hold multiple benefits for society, he said. IPCC drafts seen by Reuters say human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, are "extremely likely" - at least a 95 percent probability - to be the main cause of global warming since the 1950s. That is up from "very likely", or at least a 90 percent probability, in the last report in 2007 and 66 percent in 2001, draining hopes that natural variations in the climate might be the cause.

SEA LEVEL RISE

"There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level, and changed some climate extremes," the draft says of man-made warming. Most impacts are projected to get worse unless governments cut greenhouse gas emissions sharply, it says. The report, by 259 authors in 39 countries, is the first of four due in the next year about climate change by the IPCC. One of the hardest issues for the IPCC may be accounting for why temperatures have not risen much this century. "Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common," in historical climate records, an accompanying 127-page technical summary says. A combination of natural variations, including a cyclical dip in energy emitted by the sun, and factors such as volcanic eruptions - which send ash into the atmosphere and help block sunlight - have caused the hiatus, it says, predicting a resumption of warming in coming years. Thomas Stocker, a scientist from the University of Bern who is co-chair of the U.N. panel, urged delegates to produce a clear document "with no compromises to scientific accuracy."

The draft says temperatures could rise by up to 4.8 degrees Celsius (8.6 Fahrenheit) this century, but could be held to a rise of 0.3C (0.5F) with deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Governments have promised to limit a rise in temperatures to 2 degrees C (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times. The range differs from scenarios of 1.1 to 6.4C gains by 2100 in 2007, largely because of new computer models. The draft also says sea levels, which rose 19 cm (7.5 inches) in the 20th century, could rise by an extra 26 to 81 cm towards the end of this century, threatening coasts. That rise is more than was projected in 2007, although that report did not take full account of melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica. The report is the main guide for governments planning action against global warming and steps to mitigate its effects. It will face extra scrutiny after the 2007 report exaggerated the rate of melt of the Himalayan glaciers. A review of the IPCC said that the main conclusions were unaffected by the error. Environmentalists called for quick action. Greenpeace said governments should heed the report and shift to clean energies. The WWF's Samantha Smith said: "The natural world is sending a distress signal and we're ignoring it at our own peril."

U.N. panel to blame mankind for global warming, explain 'hiatus'
 
The Cato Institute is a far rightwingnut forum, not an acceptable source of science.

What you are stating is that all the scientific organizations in all the nations of the world have been taken over by a conspiracy among scientists. This is real tin hat stuff.

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state flat out that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger to our present civilization. It is you tin hat fruitloops that ignore the science of the past 200 years, prefering the alternative reality of some obese junkie on the radio.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
 
The Decline Hiders should be in full retreat, even the IPCC abandoned the CO2 Glacier Eating spaghetti Monster.
 

Forum List

Back
Top