We know enough today to determine that Jim Hansen is neither Galileo, nor right. Galileo observed, with great insight, and was punished for it by the Inquisition. Hansen seems more comfortable, frankly, with the role of Inquisitor than with that of humble scientist.
Don't Sell Your Coat, available on iPad, Nook, and Kindle and as a paperback ... amzn.to/w3FQx8
I'd like to point out that studies of grandmothers in particular have shown that environment can significantly affect what was previously considered to be genetic inheritance to at least the 2nd generation. Apparently the environment experienced before, during and immediately after birth can & does affect the subsequent offspring.
The studies I've heard of include both physical & emotional content of the environment.
Unless I've got the wrong guy, I suggest you may be seriously defaming Lysenko by such comaprisons.
“Hansen seems more comfortable, frankly, with the role of Inquisitor than with that of humble scientist.”
Good point woodstove.
Lets review the facts:
Al Gore has advocated “Civil Disobedience”. Do you think he and his supporters will stop with that?
Jim Hansen has already supported and advocated acts that are criminal in most countries” He also has advocated persecuting energy executives that have commintted no crimes by charging them with “crimes against humanity”.
Hansen’s supporters like Heidi Cullen have advocated revoking the AMS certification of Meterologists who don’t agree or are skeptical of the claims made by agw.
Other prominent supporters have advocated holding “Nuremburg like trials” for scientists who question agw.
That in addition to all sorts of other accounts of people concerned about their jobs and families if they speak out against agw.
Then there are the legislation and pending legislation that will cost taxpayers literally trillions of dollars and continue to increase regulation of into every facet of their lives. All based on what is no more than a controversial hypothesis that has no result of failure that can be tested for.
This is not a scientific debate. This is a political prosecution. Perhaps even reaching to this site.
I think that Lysenko could have been half right - he perhaps was working on his own version of Lamarkism. As in the climate and weather nature is not straight forward and the way genes are expressed can change the 'standard' output of a genome. It is not like a standard blueprint at all.
There are parallels here between climate models and genome models when the weather and the gene expression don't actually follow what would normally be expected under the model rules - because the system doesn't actually work in the 'simple' way it is modeled.
I not sure that either Darwin or Lamark were ever even aware of Gregor Mendel. His work was published in 1866 (Origin of Species: 1859) and only cited 3 times before 1900.
2 points though:
Gene inheritance with things like genetic recombination, random drift (never forget Haldane's dilemma), junk DNA that might not be junk, and a host of other factors make inheritance much more complicated than Mendel probably ever realized. But it doesn't change the fundalmental fact of inheritance. Except for mutatgen effects enviornment does not change genes. It apparently does effect gene expression, but it doesn't change the gene. Via effects like natural selection it can influence the survival of certain characteristics via the survival of individuals with those genes, but it can't change the genetic makeup of an individuals genes during its lifespan except for mutagenic effects which typically are fatal anyway. That however is a big other subject.
I don't consider Lamark or Lysenko to be any degree right, but there is a difference which is pertainent to the discussion of agw.
That brings us up to point 2.Namely, that Lamark and Darwin and Huxley had a great historic scientific debate about the subject. And I am sure it was very heated at times.
Lysenko, however, who by that time in his career had Al Gore...I mean Joesph Stalin on his side didn't even waste time threatening any one with crimes against humanity, he just had them carted off to Siberia where they could build concrete block walls at 70 below 0 until they starved to death. I believe that Al Gore and Jim Hansen are green with envy about that, and if they could they would do exactly the same thing. And I am dead serious about that. Of course they would be quick to claim that they were in Tennesee and Florida and didn't know what was happening up in the Northwest territories since they thought it was so much warmer up there. Much like the people who want everyone drive their cars with ethanol, conviently ignore the problems caused to the food supply.
The issue isn't the science. The agw'rs don't care about that, they only care about the money. And what the real fanatics want is some back to nature wet dream so fewer to no humans will remain on this planet.
The Swiss polititians must be the evil twin of the agwr's. They passed a law that states that anyone doing research on plants must consider the "dignity" of the plant and whether the results of the research will "humiliate" the little green things.
I'm not making this up. It was in todays WSJ..front page.
Look out fiver. Now that Maggie isn't in charge this stuff will spread to your island.
Just as Stalin before him Al Gore goes on the offensive again:
"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."
Scientific Debate??? We don't need no $#@#$% debate!!!
What worries me is how various fringe groups will take advantage of the inevitable downfall of AGW, Creationists, astrology-fans, etc will dismiss all debunking by claiming that the scientific consensus against them is just as flawed as the AGW "scientific consensus".