Now that I’ve got Mike’s attention I have a little story.
First let me clarify Mike has changed my thinking of the effects of CO2. I’m not totally in his camp but closer.
Some may remember I have said our son is a researcher/professor at a midwestern university specializing in forages. I have also mentioned one of his projects deals with CO2 in the atmosphere and forage yields. Briefly we know the relative yields of various forage species in today’s environment but not in the environment of the future.
Our son does basic research, more on that later. He has a growth chamber (large greenhouse) in which he can duplicate, as much as is possible, growing conditions anywhere in the world and at any time period. The last variable is his interest. He researches C3 and C4 plants and wants to know how various plant species will react to an environment of the future which has more CO2. Will the relative yields be the same, or will some species benefit more than others ? What should farmers plant to make best use of the future environment ?
Basic research such as this results in no patents, is supported by no large agribusiness; it doesn’t pay its way. This research is best done by universities.
Well enter short sighted red state politicians. In their view research must support itself , basic research doesn’t, strike one. Research smelling of “climate change” (which isn’t occurring as we all know) is bad. Strike two.
So funding gets pulled, strike three and he’s out. More to it but that’s the result. He’s still welcome, even encouraged to stay on, just change your research a little.
Now he has always wanted to teach and do research at a big time school. Back in the day my sister taught economics at the university and he thought that was what he wanted to do. Certainly not throw bales like his old man. He was awarded tenure at the earliest possible. He has authored a textbook, just out, used at the graduate level. He is an editor/peer reviewer of international journals, some you may recognize. One is a “nature” journal. All this and in his early forties.
But starting in January he is with a different employer, one you also may recognize, and not a university. His pay went up considerably and in talking with fellow researchers he is confident he will be able to follow wherever his research leads him.
So long story, and forgive the bragging but it is central to the discussion. Politicians putting their noses in places they don’t belong to further agendas they have, cost the taxpayer a quality researcher and teacher, and the public will suffer.
Politicians need to listen to the scientists.
You have made a great case for you son. I imagine he is the real deal that uses the scientific method and goes where the scientific facts lead him....now what do we do with 40 year bureaucrats like Fauci who should of retired years ago and now change their tune with the wind and make 417,000/yr to do it?
“now what do we do with 40 year bureaucrats like Fauci who should of retired years ago and now change their tune with the wind and make 417,000/yr to do it?”
That’s an opinion a majority of the people do not share.
Politicians putting their noses in places they don’t belong to further agendas they have,
What an intrigiuing statement, and one I would not have expected from you. IMO, 90+% of what politicians do involve sticking their noses where they don't belong to further their agenda and it costs us a lot more than good researchers..
judging fauci this past few years is really easy. read what he did during the aids epidemic to start. What he has done thispast 2 years is fresh on ever bodies mind and not hard to remember. He has been all over the board and back including changing with the wind which hardly has anything to do with the scientific method. Even now he thinks 2 pieces of thin paper are in order for the masses while he sits at the all-star game totally maskless. After all he would be an overpaid elite who mysteriously has not missed a pay check while the local store keeper down the street has lot his entire livelihood, lifes avings and wonder how he will survive. Go figure. Yes I think by now if you have not figured Fauci out its your own doing.
wonderful post and story mcfarmer!
on climate change, my absolute favorite posts are those that disagree with me.
those are the people that:
a. stand to learn the most
b: i can learn the most from
and trust me, i will pay close attention to points that differing views make. often, the learning for me is in understanding WHY they think that way and then presenting the authentic data accurately to combat a misunderstanding they might have based on misrepresentations of data/science by others.
i am 100% about data/facts when discussing science.
i would love to hear your sons views mcfarmer.
there are career phd scientists that think we are having a bigger problem with climate change than the data/facts support. people way smarter than me on paper and in many realms. i read their stuff/reasoning and often think.............if i could just get them to ignore their cognitive bias and look at the data....if only.
mcfarmer is exactly correct about the politics here.
a persons opinion on climate change can be assumed based on their political party.
seriously.
how can legit science be interpreted differently?
the physical laws and data are universal. gravity doesnt cause a dem to weigh less than a pub.
CO2 is a beneficial gas in all realms of authentic science. biology, agronomy/plant science zoology, weather/climate. the optimal level for most plants is around 900 parts per million....over double the current ambient level.
the only exception to this is.............politics. in politics, co2 has been defined as pollution. climate science has been hijacked and climate history was rewritten.
that sounds nuts but i s\how the solid proof of it numerous times and the reason here.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/
my offer always stands. read my stuff and show where i might have some things wrong....using data and i will adjust it/them, just like i did 25 yeras ago when i found out the crisis narratives that i was reading contradicted the authentic data.
mcfarmer may especially like this one
NEW: Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level. See the proof with thousands of studies. Showing Scientific American.....and mainstream science sold to us........ to be wrong about plants and the affects from Climate Change. December 2020
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/
am 1 finger typing because of my repair of the left biceps distal tendon on thursday