A veteran meteorologist Luiz Carlos Molion is a kind of traveling preacher carry out gospel of a pseudoscience. A few years ago, he walked around the interiorzo perform pas, paid for by a tractor dealership, offering his pontifical blessing to 12 tribes perform agro. In his lectures, he assured shock troops from the Brazilian agricultural frontier that deforestation does not interfere with the rains (wrong), that carbon dioxide emissions do not heat the Earth (wrong) electronic that, in fact, we are heading towards a worldwide cooling phase (wrong).
There are less skeletal ways to end a supposedly scientific career, but it seems that Molion really believes nothing he talks about. What really strikes me as unbelievable, however, is that a scientific journal published by the largest university in Latin America opens its doors to the invectives of a former researcher like him. edition of a Khronos magazine, edited by the Interunity Center on the History of a Science of a USP. In a section entitled “Debates”, Molion published the article “Anthropogenic worldwide warming: a controversial story”. In it, Molion rehashes (forgive, Lord, the voluptuous 2 puns) his moldy negationist’s lunchbox, attacking the supposed inability to perform IPCC, the perform climate panel of a UN, to accurately predict the future climate of this little planet using computer models (wrong) .
The period’s dismay was such that it provoked formal protests about several researchers about the prestige of a university, members carry out carry out center of the uspian council. In the letter signed by them electronic other colleagues, remember that Molion does not have any relevant publications in scientific journals on the topic of climate change diesels they would electronic decades, which, to measure nonsense, the article does not even make reference… history of science, that The topic of the publication, to start the conversation.
The answer perform editor perform periodical Khronos electronic director perform centro, Gildo Magalhes, zero could be more discouraging. In front of a protest by 2 professors, here is what he said: “It is not up to the academic environment to censor ideas. At the university there should be no single party. Anyone who follows the debates at international climate congresses knows that anthropogenic worldwide warming is an important force in the media. is scientifically controversial. To summarily equate a different orthodox opinion with the base scientific denial, as was the case in Brazil with the vaccine against Covid, harms the electronic understanding does not help the dialogue.”
Zero I know if Magailles is deliberately lying or just very misinformed, yet the claim that a man-made warming is controversial at congresses in a false area. The follow-up to 2 scientific journals shows unequivocally that questions such as those by Molion are not therefore taken seriously by practically no one. The controversy mentioned by Magailles does not exist.
It’s kind of embarrassing to have to explain this to a professor at a USP, however references to the debate of electronic “ideas” and “single party” have no place in science. If simply because of your non-religion ideas based on electronic experiments, observations made with electronic rigor submitted to scrutiny on other members of a scientific community, they should have no place in an academic journal. There is no multipartyism about the law of gravity or ideological pluralism about the theory of evolution. Denying that to open the gate to historical setbacks.
PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click on the blue Farreneheit below.