He seemed way ahead of the pack and was probably an outsider because other scientists hadn't enough of their own research to peer review his work. Calling into question the consensus on CO2 in that time frame however is inaccurate because the science had already gone through the peer review process. Any questions brought up were usually done by outsiders linked to previous disinformation campaigns in the tabacco industry, or the aerosol manufacturers who delayed action on the ozone layer. Milan's work I hope will become parta multi pronged attack on the challenges we face.
Other scientists couldn't get grants to do such work is closer to the truth. When governments limit 'grant funding' to studying gaseous carbon dioxide, that's all scientists study. They sing for their supper, after all.
Unless you have multibillion endowment funds allowing institutions to fund whatever research they feel like, you will always have science controlled by the funders.
This is excellent, Rob. Thank you. Really happy to see this tight and well-written version of the larger story of the living climate and Millan's work. You've done a great job of explaining the concept and giving a brief history of it. I'm definitely going to pass this on to my readers. Great title, too.
When I was younger and working, I’d sometimes go for a massage to unwind, and (this was back in the day), the masseuse would play a relaxation tape that included the sound of a distant summertime storm, with faraway faint unthreatening thunder…totally relaxing (not like music). At some deep cellular level that sound was soothing to the mind and the body, since it probably quietly broadcasted the health and vitality of the ecosystem.
Another wonderful story built in the constrain o 2500 words but again a story needed to be told a 1000 times.
I loved last paragraph of about farmers cultivating rain. I will take it as a blessing for our new endeavor and how the work of the many years with www.mihuertoweb.cl is now helping to pave the way for #greenutocooldown.
Hi Diego, your website looks very interesting. I’m not sure if this is helpful but there are several people in Chile doing good water work. Check out https://www.waterstories.com/practitioners if relevant
It shouldn't need stating - of course the biota affects its environment, part of which is climate. Remove forests and the local climate will change. Build cities and they will have a different micro climate. It is important to understand the processes that make this happen although I suspect as with so many things they are more complex than any of our simplified models can begin to replicate. So because of our impact that we have made on this planet, we have affected the climate as we have affected the environment.
However, that does not make the thesis that CO2 drives the climate by increasing temperature, and that the increases are all due to humans burning fossil fuels correct. It is much more complex than that as many, many scientists: physicists, chemists, geologists, meteorologists.... have pointed out. Indeed as you recognise the importance of water, water is both a green house gas (indeed the whole atmosphere acts as a greenhouse controlling heat loss) and the major mechanism of transfer of energy on this planet. Over simplifying somewhat, the evaporation/condensation of water transfers heat energy from the tropics to the temperate regions. IPCC's models totally ignore this aspect of the
planet.
However, what the CO2/global warming narrative has done is allow industries to continue with their harmful activities as long as they are 'Zero Carbon'. Mining, fishing, forest clearance ...... all continue apace as long as it's done 'sustainably' which would be ironic if not horribly tragic.
I find your perspective full of insight - it makes perfect sense. I would just ask that you apply your critical thinking to the climate change narrative as well. Of course there is climate change, there always has been. And the planet doesn't have one climate, so one temperature is meaningless.
By the way, don't forget the oceans and the life in them. The oceans are crucial to the processes of this planet but the ecosystems aren't the same as on land. eg Storms are vital for mixing, temperature gradients are pumps as are pressure differences on land.
I just wish humanity could somehow discard its hubris and learn humility. We are part of a system much smarter and more complex than we can ever understand. At best we'll comprehend small parts. We certainly can't control it.
This says a lot about what people want in a conceptual-model, which is simplicity, clarity and certainty (even if it is sort of wrongish).
"What happened to the two-legged approach to climate? The land leg proved “incommodious,” as Millan puts, so the two were split. The CO2 leg, championed by the IPCC, strode into the climate spotlight to save humanity, while the land-change leg, housed under the IGBP, remained behind for further research. There it was funded at 10% of the IPCC, ignored by the climate press and in 2015 shuttered."
He seemed way ahead of the pack and was probably an outsider because other scientists hadn't enough of their own research to peer review his work. Calling into question the consensus on CO2 in that time frame however is inaccurate because the science had already gone through the peer review process. Any questions brought up were usually done by outsiders linked to previous disinformation campaigns in the tabacco industry, or the aerosol manufacturers who delayed action on the ozone layer. Milan's work I hope will become parta multi pronged attack on the challenges we face.
Yes. That was part of the problem. An alternate views were treated as climate denial. Thanks.
Other scientists couldn't get grants to do such work is closer to the truth. When governments limit 'grant funding' to studying gaseous carbon dioxide, that's all scientists study. They sing for their supper, after all.
Unless you have multibillion endowment funds allowing institutions to fund whatever research they feel like, you will always have science controlled by the funders.
This is excellent, Rob. Thank you. Really happy to see this tight and well-written version of the larger story of the living climate and Millan's work. You've done a great job of explaining the concept and giving a brief history of it. I'm definitely going to pass this on to my readers. Great title, too.
Thanks, Jason. I appreciate that.
When I was younger and working, I’d sometimes go for a massage to unwind, and (this was back in the day), the masseuse would play a relaxation tape that included the sound of a distant summertime storm, with faraway faint unthreatening thunder…totally relaxing (not like music). At some deep cellular level that sound was soothing to the mind and the body, since it probably quietly broadcasted the health and vitality of the ecosystem.
Thank you for this. As someone relatively new to these issues I very much appreciate your work and the work of people like Milan Milan!
Thanks, Josh!
Another wonderful story built in the constrain o 2500 words but again a story needed to be told a 1000 times.
I loved last paragraph of about farmers cultivating rain. I will take it as a blessing for our new endeavor and how the work of the many years with www.mihuertoweb.cl is now helping to pave the way for #greenutocooldown.
#ThanksDrMilanMilan
Hi Diego, your website looks very interesting. I’m not sure if this is helpful but there are several people in Chile doing good water work. Check out https://www.waterstories.com/practitioners if relevant
Thanks Josh!
I will reach them to see if we can do things together.
It shouldn't need stating - of course the biota affects its environment, part of which is climate. Remove forests and the local climate will change. Build cities and they will have a different micro climate. It is important to understand the processes that make this happen although I suspect as with so many things they are more complex than any of our simplified models can begin to replicate. So because of our impact that we have made on this planet, we have affected the climate as we have affected the environment.
However, that does not make the thesis that CO2 drives the climate by increasing temperature, and that the increases are all due to humans burning fossil fuels correct. It is much more complex than that as many, many scientists: physicists, chemists, geologists, meteorologists.... have pointed out. Indeed as you recognise the importance of water, water is both a green house gas (indeed the whole atmosphere acts as a greenhouse controlling heat loss) and the major mechanism of transfer of energy on this planet. Over simplifying somewhat, the evaporation/condensation of water transfers heat energy from the tropics to the temperate regions. IPCC's models totally ignore this aspect of the
planet.
However, what the CO2/global warming narrative has done is allow industries to continue with their harmful activities as long as they are 'Zero Carbon'. Mining, fishing, forest clearance ...... all continue apace as long as it's done 'sustainably' which would be ironic if not horribly tragic.
I find your perspective full of insight - it makes perfect sense. I would just ask that you apply your critical thinking to the climate change narrative as well. Of course there is climate change, there always has been. And the planet doesn't have one climate, so one temperature is meaningless.
By the way, don't forget the oceans and the life in them. The oceans are crucial to the processes of this planet but the ecosystems aren't the same as on land. eg Storms are vital for mixing, temperature gradients are pumps as are pressure differences on land.
I just wish humanity could somehow discard its hubris and learn humility. We are part of a system much smarter and more complex than we can ever understand. At best we'll comprehend small parts. We certainly can't control it.
"We" don't need to "control" the system, just to find ways to make a profit by destablizing it.
;-(
'Climate - A New Story' by Charles Eisenstein, covers these ideas in some detail
Yes. His book was one of the first I read on the subject.
Rob, can I get this as a pdf to share? This describes so clearly why we are doing the work we are doing at Soil Smart - Soil Wise!
This says a lot about what people want in a conceptual-model, which is simplicity, clarity and certainty (even if it is sort of wrongish).
"What happened to the two-legged approach to climate? The land leg proved “incommodious,” as Millan puts, so the two were split. The CO2 leg, championed by the IPCC, strode into the climate spotlight to save humanity, while the land-change leg, housed under the IGBP, remained behind for further research. There it was funded at 10% of the IPCC, ignored by the climate press and in 2015 shuttered."
I have used a core excerpt from your article to close my blog post "No More Pretending" today , Rob.
Thank You, again. https://drjohnsblog.substack.com/p/no-more-pretending
Thanks, John!