1
1
0
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 3
Quite frankly, I'm by no means surprised...I took a fair level of grad coursework on upper atmospheric physics, and, while I'm obv not expert at it, I am at least fairly familoar with a good deal of the science involved. I'd also been exposed to a fair level of synoptic !eterology, as well as the study of the air-ocean interface, which is a very serious scientific field, that much I do know. I'm thus fairly familiar with how such scientists think, are trained, and their publications, so, as I'd said, I'm by no !means surprised, by any means, for whatever that might be worth. I can understand, certainly, why many are highly dubious of such science, however, if one looks at population growth, over the past few centuries, esp look at the text by a Carlo Cipolla on the subject, even if such growth hasn't necessarily been strictly exponential in a classic !atjusiam sense, I rather think that thismplamet wasn't exactly 'designed", if you will, to support its present population, however!many billions it is at present, indefinitely. There's also the GAIA hypothesis, that the planet is, in fact, a living organism, a theory I very earnestly commend be read about, as I very seriously think it quite intertwined with the entire science discussed in the piece Jere, I hope that was of interest, I realize I'll be disagreed with of course, many thanks.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next