SPACE AND SCIENCE EARTH - CRKARLA

sexta-feira, 12 de agosto de 2011

Science: On the threshold of error ..


For eighteen centuries the official Science taught that the earth was the center of the universe.

The French Academy of Science is not taught that stones could fall from the sky.

Unfortunately the official Science is sponsored by powerful financial interests, not allowing scientists to disclose, with freedom, the results of their research.

Science must always be open to new possibilities for research, science no longer beworking with secular dogmas that do not may be controversial.

Scientists are making a serious mistake about the dangers that threaten the human species on Planet Earth at this time.

There is a total silence on the intensity and frequency of earthquakes ...

Total silence on the future of the fragile geological Japanese islands ...

Silence on the climatic and geological consequences ...

Silence on the consequences of changes in the Earth's axis ...

Silence on the effects of strong solar flares, which weaken the magnetic shielding of the Earth ...

Silence of the scientific community about the consequences of oxidation of the oceans, causing the extinction of species ...

Silence about the serious consequences of extinction of the forests ...

Silence on the consequences of higher sea levels rise ...

Science is silent about the consequences on the movement of tectonic plates, volcanoes, earthquakes and hurricanes, denying the existing link with climate change ...

Science is ignoring the implications of the discovery of oxygen in the confines of the universe ...

Science does not issue reports or warnings about the consequences of still unknown phenomena ....

There are serious scientific reports Admitting or denying the existence of UFOs ...

Science is always "on the fence", denying, smiling with contempt of science fiction, and conjecture and endless possibilities in the universe ...

Science is always lagging behind the free-thinkers and writers of science fiction ...

Scientists assume a position of public skepticism towards anything new, discovery or theory.

Scientists are similar to those politicians, denying the reality of the facts, putting at risk the future of humanity.


Read this article published in
http://www.physorg.com/

http://www.physorg.com/

'The idea that ecologists shouldn't be advocates, that they shouldn't be telling the public that what ecologists study is basically disappearing, is just nuts,' said Paul Ehrlich, Stanford professor of population studies. Credit:L.A. Cicero

Scientists, especially ecologists, have to be more active in explaining the meaning of their research results to the public if human behavior is going to change in time to prevent a planetary catastrophe, says biologist Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Ehrlich summed it up this way: "You often hear people say scientists should not be advocates. I think that is bull."

Ehrlich, the Bing Professor of Population Studies at Stanford, will be elaborating on that theme and several others when he speaks Thursday at the annual meeting of the in Austin, Texas.

In an interview a few days before the meeting began, he talked about the urgent need for scientists to take their research results and use them to inform the public about the threat of global environmental collapse. No longer can researchers consider publishing their results in a journal, no matter how prestigious, the end of their obligations.

"With society moving toward a collapse, the idea that scientists, especially ecologists, should just do their work, present their data and not do any interpretation leads to the kind of imbecility we have in Washington today, where you have an entire Congress that is utterly clueless about how the natural world works," Ehrlich said.

He said that scientists, before they embark on a research project, should ask themselves, "How, if my research yields all the results I'd hoped for, will it make any difference to the world?"

The once-dominant paradigm of "curiosity-driven" research being the "purest" way to do research is outmoded. "How you judge a good scientist, in part, is by what they choose to be curious about," he said.

It is also critical, he said, that the work ecologists do be of the highest quality and of general scientific interest. Ehrlich said he would love to see prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature and flooded with top-notch ecology research with clear connections to the human condition.

Calling ecology the most important science today, in light of the environmental crises that are looming ever larger on a horizon that is coming ever closer, Ehrlich said that ecologists have a singular responsibility to get their work into the public eye.

"The idea that ecologists in particular shouldn't be advocates, that they shouldn't be telling the public that what ecologists study is basically disappearing, is just nuts," he said.

For the first time in human history, a complex global society is at risk of environmental collapse. Human behavior is not changing fast enough to avert the crunch that will come when the world's growing population and its need for resources overwhelms the capacity of the planet to provide, Ehrlich said.

In an effort to head off such a catastrophe, he has joined with hundreds of other ecologists, social scientists and scholars in the humanities to start theMillennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere.

The goal of the project, called MAHB for short, is not just analyzing as the world sits poised on the edge of ecological , but starting a global dialogue that will eventually involve decision makers and the general public in altering society's response to its global predicament.

"We are trying to recruit the social sciences and the humanities into an attempt to make academia relevant in the world and help change the course of society," Ehrlich said. "If you are tired of living in a world where leaders think debt ceilings are more important than climate disruption and the degrading of ecosystem services, then do something about it: Join the MAHB and get active."

Provided by Stanford University (news : web)


RUI SANTOS DE SOUZA
Brasil, Curitiba - 12 de julho de 2011 - 21h:02

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

Observação: somente um membro deste blog pode postar um comentário.