AnonymousBy Jeff Mitchell, UC Santa Barbara
By all rights, Eunice Newton Foote should be a household name.
More than a century and a half ago, Foote was part of one of the most important scientific discoveries of our time: revealing the role of carbon dioxide in the earth’s greenhouse effect.
And yet relatively few people have heard of her.
Foote was the first person to demonstrate that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and also the first person to suggest that an atmosphere containing high levels of carbon dioxide would lead to a warmer earth.
Her research findings, contained in the paper “Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays,” were presented at the August 23, 1856, annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Being female, however, Foote was not allowed to read her own paper. Instead, Professor Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution spoke on her behalf.
A few years later, Foote’s findings were reflected in the studies of physicist John Tyndall, whose research expanded on Foote’s discovery. And while Tyndall’s research is widely accepted as one of the foundations of modern climate science, Foote has faded to relative obscurity.
The organizers of an upcoming symposium at UC Santa Barbara hope finally to give Foote the credit she deserves. “Science Knows No Gender: In Search of Eunice Foote Who 162 Years Ago Discovered the Principal Cause of Global Warming” will take place at 1 p.m. Thursday, May 17, in the McCune Conference Room, 6020 Humanities and Social Sciences Building. It is free and open to the public.
“Foote’s story has never been more compelling because it enhances the visibility of women in science, and their significant contributions,” said John Perlin, a research scholar in UCSB’s Department of Physics who will speak at the symposium. “Stories of brilliant women in science, such as the one we propose to tell, will empower and inspire.”
The event is co-sponsored by the environmental justice (EJ)/climate justice (CJ) hub of the UCSB Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies. EJ/CJ studies the global contours of environmental and climate injustice, investigates their deep structures and histories and seeks to intervene in their current political, cultural, economic and social practices and discourses by engaging the social movements, discursive productions and policy measures that address them.
According to John Foran, a professor of sociology at UCSB and a convener of the EJ/CJ hub, what happened to Foote offers a profound teaching moment for the university community. “It is precisely that, and it relates to the concept of social justice, which lies at the heart of the climate dilemma,” he said. “Until we mobilize effectively the potential of all members of the world community, we will be fighting the greatest existential threat in the history of our species with one hand tied behind our backs.”
Hard to tell what is right and wrong on this topic: “New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.” (Forbes)
It is very clear that global warming is real and caused by humans. A cherry picked article from Forbes from five years ago ,that was written by an energy industry shill, is not a real argument. It is right up there with the bufoons that think 9-11 was an inside job.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Human activity has been and is dumping huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. People who hold that global warming isn’t anthropogenic are just showing that they prefer fantasy to fact.
Plants require C02 – eliminate it and we all die, both plants and animals. NOAA is now an energy shill? Like I say, hard to tell right from wrong or right from left on this topic. Facts are stubborn things, but narrative can be anything you want them to be for whatever hidden agenda you may have.
Y’know FACTOTUM, if we hadn’t deforested the vast majority of the planet you might have a tiny leg to stand on. But with the huge numbers of mouth breathers around and most of them fossil fuel burners the tiny amount of CO2 re-uptake that is going on is tragically unable to do what you expect it to do.
So the mechanism by which so-called “greenhouse” gases heat the atmosphere was discovered in 1856, and ever since then massive amounts of confirming evidence has been gathered. This is no different from other science, like Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s theory of relativity (which predicted black holes long before they were discovered) — except for the resistance to these scientific facts from free market ideologues who would prefer the facts not to be true, and not to be believed. In this, it’s much like the theory of evolution — deeply confirmed science that is rejected by ideologues who don’t want it to be true.
Contrary to the deniers, consensus is an essential part of the scientific method. Scientific consensus comes about when the evidence is so lined up that nearly all the experts in a field — those most educated, active, those who do the experiments, publish papers, and read the papers of others — concur on what the evidence shows. Everything in science textbooks is a result of consensus. Everything accepted as the findings of science is a result of consensus. Nothing can be called “science” if there’s no consensus. Claims for which there is no consensus are just that, claims — they may be active areas of research, but they aren’t established.
Anthrogenic global warming is science because there is overwhelming consensus among the experts in the field — those most educated, active, those who do the experiments, publish papers, and read the papers of others.
Ensuring there is no shortage of cherry-picked quotes as well as alternate viewpoints for continued discussion, let alone penalty box entrants:
“Moore, Vahrenholt, and Lovelock are but three within an expanding multitude of scientists who are cooling on climate alarm.
When previously asked on Fox Business News who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives are, Moore said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.” (Newsmax)
Our prolix refugee poster from the Indy/NHawk sewer cleanup UnFactotum will not acknowledge facts that do not fit his alt-reality political convictions, with regard to climate science or any other subject. He is a poster boy for agnotology.
The editorial from five years ago in Forbes that “Factotum” referenced was written by an energy industry shill and he used NOAA data incorrectly. “Factotum” is just spreading lies and doubt about the well established science behind climate change.
As “hard to tell” as that tobacco smoking, asbestos inhalation, coal-mining & foundry dust don’t cause lung cancer. Look at overwhelming data–and follow the money. Remember actors dressed like doctors assuring us smoking promoted relaxation, attractiveness to the opposite sex, good times and wasn’t hazardous to health or addictive?
Projection at its best! Unfact parrots political opinion that is totally incongruent with reality (those stubborn facts), yet accuses others of using his own tactics. Right out of the Big Carbon playbook.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
For those of you amused by Unfact’s parodies of science, here’s a site that does a much better job than he does: http://denialdepot.blogspot.com
Using as an example UnFact’s choice of cherry-picked quotes in his last post, you can see a disturbing lack of critical thinking. First, his cited news sources are all of the “Miracle Diet Cures Cancer!” variety of fact-free reporting. None of the people cited as climate experts have done any work on actual climate science: Moore is a shill for the Heartland Institute, a Koch brothers funded Big Carbon mouthpiece, and was an ecologist; Varenholt was a chemist, and worked for a German electrical company and Shell Oil; Lovelock at 98 years old is actually a little less quacky, but was a medical researcher in his day.