And all scientists know that it's not science until you get peer reviewed. I don't know why he's posting work on his private page; but I imagine it's because he knows it wouldn't withstand scrutiny from people who know about what's he's talking about.
My point stands; it's not peer-reviewed, it's not science.
The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming
Interesting hypothesis, but I'd claim that it's falsified. On the contrary, the money is in supporting AGW.
ExxonâMobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skepticsâ"less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one fiveâthousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
The money is in good science; if you don't do good science, you don't get money. Hell, most people who do good science can't get money.
Those that manage to get money from NSF don't get MONEY; they get what amount to a living wage. And they get that money regardless of what conclusions they reach. And NSF pays out before conclusions are reached. So, my claim stands; there is no explicit money in supporting AGW, but fame and fortune awaits that scientist that can disprove it. Don't hold your breath.
PS- that small amount of money that Exxon gives to public science is drastically outweighed by what the spent privately on research. Exxon is currently offering around $80k/y (plus benefits) for research scientists, starting, for a person with an MS. A _PhD_ in academia will be lucky to make that after 20 years hard work. Those PhD's could leverage amazing, paradigm changing work into book deals and the public talk circuit. Except, they're generally not motivated by money; they just want to do good science.
Scotese is the only reference on that page, but unfortunately, you're talking about a very, very long document with only one reference.
Plant fossils of WV is a cool site, but its rhetorical flourishes on global temperature aren't exactly scientific gold.
The fact that things have changed over time isn't evidence that modern models and "greenhouse theory" are wrong. They mean that a system is complicated- and probably shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
The truth is that the scientists are probably right.
In the 70's, there were very, very few scientists that thought that anthropogenic effects would lead to global cooling. That "shrill proclamation" you hear is denialists taking a tiny number of papers and using them as a talking point. The scientific consensus during the 70's is the same as today; global warming due to anthropogenic causes.
Please keep in mind that the scientific consensus does not include a proscription for future action.
The Earth is warming because of CO2 is a scientific fact; but it does not dictate a course of action, any more then the fact of gravity demands that we must fight gravity.
Spending the bulk of our effort, as you say, on dealing with the warmer climate, instead of stopping it, may very well be the best plan we have! I agree! The science is firm; we can only hope that the denialists come around and realize we should talk about what should be done, not what the facts are.
Heck, it was essentially launched by a political opportunist.
First off, you're displaying your prejudices here. Nice.
What are you skeptical of? The science? The science predates said politician, and has only gotten stronger in the ensuing decade. Those who decry the science usually don't understand scientist's motivation. Any scientists that gives evidence that global warming isn't/won't happen will receive fame and fortune, just as Darwin, and Galileo, and Einstein received fame for showing the establishment to be wrong.
Are you skeptical about the calls to action? Well, sure. It would be nice to be able to have a reasonable debate about what actions should be taken, but we can't--- because one side is using denialism as their only talking point.
We should be having a debate about what we should do (and the Democrat's answer is clearly wrong)-- but instead we're mired in this debate about what's true. Very, very sad.
We're also in an incredibly cool climate today; During those periods of high CO2 you mention, the temperature has been about 15 degrees C warmer worldwide. The Earth seems to have two stable temperatures; about 10C, and about 25C. When scientists are talking about feedback loops, they're talking about the transition to a global hot-house.
As you can see, our current climate is unusual. Global temperature was similar during the Precambrian (before any animals), at the end Ordovician and the end Carboniferous. As you can see, the global temperature stayed where in these cold zones for a relatively small time.
So yeah, the trees will be fine if we ramped global temperature 15C, but the point is that it wouldn't be great for human civilization.
If this guy is for real, I hope he carries on and gets the fame and fortune he's due. But that's going to take proving his hypothesis to the real skeptics--- scientists. Best of luck to him.
In any case, yes, global temperature is a control on oceanic cycles. It also is probably a system with feedback loop. That doesn't do anything to disprove my assertions, however.
All the relevant data is in the literature. You can look it up.
There are other ways to measure climate besides direct measurement of temperature.
These methods include Ca/Mg ratios in forams and other critters, oxygen isotopes, paleobotany data, et cetera.
CO2 can either be a lagging factor (when other things force temperature) as well as leading one (when CO2 forces the temperature). It's clearly complicated, and if you're interested, you can go get a PhD in climate modeling and join the discussion. Armchair pontification isn't gonna cut it.
There are good reasons why they could be withholding the data; it's not a red flag. It is common for scientists to hold data back so they can publish on their work first. Your conclusion is pretty extreme considering that most of this data is available via NOAA and other sources.
If climate scientists wanted money, they'd go work for industry. The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming--- which just goes to show you don't understand science, scientists, their motivations, or their principles.
What effect does diffusion in ice cores cause? It flattens the data-- it causes it to move to average. This means that the real signal would be stronger then that recorded if this is a problem. Which actually just makes the ice core conclusions stronger. Another check on this is using other methods and seeing if the agree; and these other methods, such as isotope ones, support the ice core evidence.
On ocean cycles: You realize that global temperature controls ocean cycles, right? So you're agreeing with me?
It's clear you don't really understand the science; both of your citations can't even be used as evidence to support your claim that there isn't data. It's also clear that assumptions are being tested and as such the conclusions that can be reached are stronger. Which is exactly what you'd expect if it's a real trend.
You're completely wrong. We have excellent data on global climate back about 850ky, good data back to 60mya, and some data back as far as bya. There is something unusual about the climate today.
The idea that there is a stable weather utopia circa 1988 is CRAZY, and you're the one bringing it up as a straw man. Current models account for solar cycles (Milankovitch and others)--- currently, the sun is currently as a period of low output, actually, based on sunspot activity. These are well understood cycles. In spite of that, we have an overall trend of global warming. When you try to account for that data, the best fit to that data is easily the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Scroll down to the part of the wikipedia page where is says "Criticism"
"Both the assumptions and the behavioral predictions of rational choice theory have sparked criticism from various camps. Some people have developed models of bounded rationality, which hope to be more psychologically plausible without completely abandoning the idea that reason underlies decision-making processes. For a long time, a popular strain of critique was a lack of empirical basis, but experimental economics and experimental game theory have largely changed that critique (although they have added other critiques, mainly by demonstrating some human behavior that consistently deviates from rational choice theory, see cognitive bias).
In their 1994 piece, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, Green and Shapiro argue that the empirical outputs of rational choice theory have been limited. They contend that much of the applicable literature, at least in Political Science, was done with weak methods and that when corrected many of the empirical outcomes no longer hold. When taken in this perspective, Rational Choice Theory has provided very little to the overall understanding of political interaction - and is an amount certainly disproportionately weak relative to its appearance in the literature (Green and Shapiro, 1994).
Schram and Caterino (2006) contains a fundamental methodological criticism of rational choice theory for promoting the view that the natural science model is the only appropriate methodology in social science and that political science should follow this model, with its emphasis on quantification and mathematization. Schram and Caterino argue instead for methodological pluralism. "
In other words, people don't act rationally by the definition of rational choice theory, either. Rational choice theory is weak and not predictive in the real world quite often.
In any case, the modern version of the theory is much more complex and sophisticated then that proposed by Smith--- so my statements stand.
What Smith didn't realize, is that humanity doesn't act rationally; what Darwin didn't get, is that he was just recapitulating Smith's tenet's in a world there they worked.
In any case, evolutionary standards are inappropriate for discussing economy. Except in theory- theory which doesn't work in real life.
Mista B, you're proposed superiority of selection fails in the face of human morality. Just as the dreams of eugenicists failed... and for the same reason.
Man is not bound by survival of the fittest. We can choose what is moral, what is right-- and what will survive.
I've been to Colombus' first landing site on San Salvador island, Bahamas.. Or actually, several of them. They're not exactly sure which spot it is, and so they just put up several monuments. Does it matter? No.
You still get the same feeling of wonder and amazement.
The physical place isn't the event; the event will survive changes to the place.
Written by someone who's never had to read term papers from students who don't care about the topic because it's a degree requirement for a non-major course.
This is not good, just as the author noted--- but it is the way it is.
You prefer that to mass starvation... hey dude, that's cool.
Except, the preventative cost of repairing anthropogenic global warming won't do any of the things you claimed. Estimates are about 1~2% GDP of the world for the next 50 years. Consider that during WWII the US spent ~40% GDP for 4 years on things with no practical purpose... and we know how that turned out. It's pretty clear that large projects will not ruin the economy or generate huge bills like you claim.
Of course, I don't think that AGW is going to result in mass starvation either, but if you get to make up facts, I figure I should too.
Except that this doesn't disagree with the predictions made by scientists.
Let me explain:
First, ice thickness in Antarctica isn't controlled by temperature... as long as the temperature stay below freezing, which it does. Instead, the control on thickness is the amount of precipitation.
The IPCC predicts increased precipitation in the Antarctic to the tune of 25%. Just look up the IPCC report on climate change on confirm this.
Secondly, you should understand that the predictions are that there is an increase in average temperature; but not a uniform increase in temperature everywhere. Some places will see an increase, and some places a decrease, in temperature, precipitation, and other climatic variables.
You are right that we shouldn't believe people just because they have a powerful media presence. I personally recommend my alternative: knowing the facts.
Yeah, and us humans have only been on Earth for 0.00002% of it's existence.... species come and go, mostly without humans. So why worry?
Except, there is a problem in your logic. We can understand what has caused the coming and going of many of the global glaciations over the history of the world.
For example, the glaciation that occurred in the late Devonian is linked to the spread of plants on land. Before this time, there were no trees. They captured a large amount of atmospheric CO2, triggering global cooling and glaciation. The result was one of the "big 5" mass extinctions on the planet, with about 50% loss at the genera level.
Guess what? Humans have spread all across the planet! Guess what? It's not arrogant to collect data that shows we are actively changing the system and try to make predictions based on it.
I'm not advocating any certain policy; but I am saying it is foolish to assume that we can't change the world, and that we can't understand complex systems.
No, they're not moving towards learning from home.
The point of the article is that small interpersonal interaction is a better way to learn then being talked at in a lecture hall. Small classes with the ability to ask your instructor questions and interact with them have been the model at Liberal arts colleges for years, and it's nice to see other schools catching on.
There are games that are so breathtaking that the gameplay is almost secondary.
Did you ever play Shadow of the Colossus? The game was a pleasure in every way--- and wasn't very difficult. But that didn't matter, because the game was so beautiful and majestic that it was fun just to watch it be played.
If you want a "HARD" game, you can go play nethack. But hard isn't the end all and be all of gaming. The end all is entertainment--- and it sounds like they managed to make their game more entertaining by taking parts out that aren't fun.
The "general value of something" for something like a car has a long is dicated by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of needs through things such as used markets. One of the purposes of copyright being limited to a reasonably small span was to allow artists to pay back to the community--- and to allow other access to their works to other artists, and various other reasons.
I think that video games are more aggressively priced then some things--- but it can be impossible to find some games that are not even that old for sale at any price. File sharing systems have moved in to fill that need as well.
My general point is that file sharing systems have become so prevalent because of failures of the institutions in place to regulate intellectual property, which is quite different then your claim that manufacturers should ignore people who aren't willing to "pay full price"--- these people are still part of the culture, and community, and should be considered.
If no car is worth more to someone then $2000 , that person may very well end up with a car.
Back in ye olden days, things were released to the public domain after a reasonable number of years--- effectively allowing the price to change over time.
Nowadays, with copyright extended effectively indefinitely (few things that are made within my lifetime will have copyright expire within my lifetime.... ) there is a massive problem in how our culture is disseminated. File sharing has arisen partially as an effort to fulfill that gap.
I'm sorry, are you familiar with the 18th century, when all kids were unvaccinated and breastfed? Do you know what child mortality rates from illness were like? Here's a hint: the illness rates were much higher then today.
Please don't make facts up. Especially ones that are clearly not true.
Slashdot Mirror
And all scientists know that it's not science until you get peer reviewed. I don't know why he's posting work on his private page; but I imagine it's because he knows it wouldn't withstand scrutiny from people who know about what's he's talking about.
My point stands; it's not peer-reviewed, it's not science.
The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming
Interesting hypothesis, but I'd claim that it's falsified. On the contrary, the money is in supporting AGW.
ExxonâMobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skepticsâ"less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one fiveâthousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
source: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
(via http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/climate-science-follow-the-money/ )
What? Huh?
The money is in good science; if you don't do good science, you don't get money. Hell, most people who do good science can't get money.
Those that manage to get money from NSF don't get MONEY; they get what amount to a living wage. And they get that money regardless of what conclusions they reach. And NSF pays out before conclusions are reached. So, my claim stands; there is no explicit money in supporting AGW, but fame and fortune awaits that scientist that can disprove it. Don't hold your breath.
PS- that small amount of money that Exxon gives to public science is drastically outweighed by what the spent privately on research. Exxon is currently offering around $80k/y (plus benefits) for research scientists, starting, for a person with an MS. A _PhD_ in academia will be lucky to make that after 20 years hard work. Those PhD's could leverage amazing, paradigm changing work into book deals and the public talk circuit. Except, they're generally not motivated by money; they just want to do good science.
Scotese is the only reference on that page, but unfortunately, you're talking about a very, very long document with only one reference.
Plant fossils of WV is a cool site, but its rhetorical flourishes on global temperature aren't exactly scientific gold.
The fact that things have changed over time isn't evidence that modern models and "greenhouse theory" are wrong. They mean that a system is complicated- and probably shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
The truth is that the scientists are probably right.
In the 70's, there were very, very few scientists that thought that anthropogenic effects would lead to global cooling. That "shrill proclamation" you hear is denialists taking a tiny number of papers and using them as a talking point. The scientific consensus during the 70's is the same as today; global warming due to anthropogenic causes.
Please keep in mind that the scientific consensus does not include a proscription for future action.
The Earth is warming because of CO2 is a scientific fact; but it does not dictate a course of action, any more then the fact of gravity demands that we must fight gravity.
Spending the bulk of our effort, as you say, on dealing with the warmer climate, instead of stopping it, may very well be the best plan we have! I agree! The science is firm; we can only hope that the denialists come around and realize we should talk about what should be done, not what the facts are.
Heck, it was essentially launched by a political opportunist.
First off, you're displaying your prejudices here. Nice.
What are you skeptical of? The science? The science predates said politician, and has only gotten stronger in the ensuing decade. Those who decry the science usually don't understand scientist's motivation. Any scientists that gives evidence that global warming isn't/won't happen will receive fame and fortune, just as Darwin, and Galileo, and Einstein received fame for showing the establishment to be wrong.
Are you skeptical about the calls to action? Well, sure. It would be nice to be able to have a reasonable debate about what actions should be taken, but we can't--- because one side is using denialism as their only talking point.
We should be having a debate about what we should do (and the Democrat's answer is clearly wrong)-- but instead we're mired in this debate about what's true. Very, very sad.
We're also in an incredibly cool climate today; During those periods of high CO2 you mention, the temperature has been about 15 degrees C warmer worldwide. The Earth seems to have two stable temperatures; about 10C, and about 25C. When scientists are talking about feedback loops, they're talking about the transition to a global hot-house.
Take a look here:
http://scotese.com/climate.htm
As you can see, our current climate is unusual. Global temperature was similar during the Precambrian (before any animals), at the end Ordovician and the end Carboniferous. As you can see, the global temperature stayed where in these cold zones for a relatively small time.
So yeah, the trees will be fine if we ramped global temperature 15C, but the point is that it wouldn't be great for human civilization.
Uh huh... got anything... peer reviewed?
If this guy is for real, I hope he carries on and gets the fame and fortune he's due. But that's going to take proving his hypothesis to the real skeptics--- scientists. Best of luck to him.
In any case, yes, global temperature is a control on oceanic cycles. It also is probably a system with feedback loop. That doesn't do anything to disprove my assertions, however.
All the relevant data is in the literature. You can look it up.
There are other ways to measure climate besides direct measurement of temperature.
These methods include Ca/Mg ratios in forams and other critters, oxygen isotopes, paleobotany data, et cetera.
CO2 can either be a lagging factor (when other things force temperature) as well as leading one (when CO2 forces the temperature). It's clearly complicated, and if you're interested, you can go get a PhD in climate modeling and join the discussion. Armchair pontification isn't gonna cut it.
There are good reasons why they could be withholding the data; it's not a red flag. It is common for scientists to hold data back so they can publish on their work first. Your conclusion is pretty extreme considering that most of this data is available via NOAA and other sources.
If climate scientists wanted money, they'd go work for industry. The best way for a climate scientist to get fame and money today would be to disprove global warming--- which just goes to show you don't understand science, scientists, their motivations, or their principles.
You really don't get it.
What effect does diffusion in ice cores cause? It flattens the data-- it causes it to move to average. This means that the real signal would be stronger then that recorded if this is a problem. Which actually just makes the ice core conclusions stronger. Another check on this is using other methods and seeing if the agree; and these other methods, such as isotope ones, support the ice core evidence.
On ocean cycles: You realize that global temperature controls ocean cycles, right? So you're agreeing with me?
It's clear you don't really understand the science; both of your citations can't even be used as evidence to support your claim that there isn't data. It's also clear that assumptions are being tested and as such the conclusions that can be reached are stronger. Which is exactly what you'd expect if it's a real trend.
You're completely wrong. We have excellent data on global climate back about 850ky, good data back to 60mya, and some data back as far as bya. There is something unusual about the climate today.
The idea that there is a stable weather utopia circa 1988 is CRAZY, and you're the one bringing it up as a straw man. Current models account for solar cycles (Milankovitch and others)--- currently, the sun is currently as a period of low output, actually, based on sunspot activity. These are well understood cycles. In spite of that, we have an overall trend of global warming. When you try to account for that data, the best fit to that data is easily the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Heh.
Scroll down to the part of the wikipedia page where is says "Criticism"
"Both the assumptions and the behavioral predictions of rational choice theory have sparked criticism from various camps. Some people have developed models of bounded rationality, which hope to be more psychologically plausible without completely abandoning the idea that reason underlies decision-making processes. For a long time, a popular strain of critique was a lack of empirical basis, but experimental economics and experimental game theory have largely changed that critique (although they have added other critiques, mainly by demonstrating some human behavior that consistently deviates from rational choice theory, see cognitive bias).
In their 1994 piece, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, Green and Shapiro argue that the empirical outputs of rational choice theory have been limited. They contend that much of the applicable literature, at least in Political Science, was done with weak methods and that when corrected many of the empirical outcomes no longer hold. When taken in this perspective, Rational Choice Theory has provided very little to the overall understanding of political interaction - and is an amount certainly disproportionately weak relative to its appearance in the literature (Green and Shapiro, 1994).
Schram and Caterino (2006) contains a fundamental methodological criticism of rational choice theory for promoting the view that the natural science model is the only appropriate methodology in social science and that political science should follow this model, with its emphasis on quantification and mathematization. Schram and Caterino argue instead for methodological pluralism.
"
In other words, people don't act rationally by the definition of rational choice theory, either. Rational choice theory is weak and not predictive in the real world quite often.
In any case, the modern version of the theory is much more complex and sophisticated then that proposed by Smith--- so my statements stand.
UGH.
A catastrophic confluence of Smith and Darwin.
What Smith didn't realize, is that humanity doesn't act rationally; what Darwin didn't get, is that he was just recapitulating Smith's tenet's in a world there they worked.
In any case, evolutionary standards are inappropriate for discussing economy. Except in theory- theory which doesn't work in real life.
Mista B, you're proposed superiority of selection fails in the face of human morality. Just as the dreams of eugenicists failed... and for the same reason.
Man is not bound by survival of the fittest. We can choose what is moral, what is right-- and what will survive.
I've been to Colombus' first landing site on San Salvador island, Bahamas.. Or actually, several of them. They're not exactly sure which spot it is, and so they just put up several monuments. Does it matter? No.
You still get the same feeling of wonder and amazement.
The physical place isn't the event; the event will survive changes to the place.
You are wrong.
With turnitin, at least, you get a specific, line-by-line list of what the matches are in relation to the submitted work.
Embarrassing: seeing a student block quote from wikipedia.org.
Incredibly hilarious: seeing a student block quote from simple.wikipedia.org.
Run of the mill stupidity: a poster on slashdot creates a transparent strawman, tears it down and gets modded insightful.
Written by someone who's never had to read term papers from students who don't care about the topic because it's a degree requirement for a non-major course.
This is not good, just as the author noted--- but it is the way it is.
You prefer that to mass starvation... hey dude, that's cool.
Except, the preventative cost of repairing anthropogenic global warming won't do any of the things you claimed. Estimates are about 1~2% GDP of the world for the next 50 years. Consider that during WWII the US spent ~40% GDP for 4 years on things with no practical purpose... and we know how that turned out. It's pretty clear that large projects will not ruin the economy or generate huge bills like you claim.
Of course, I don't think that AGW is going to result in mass starvation either, but if you get to make up facts, I figure I should too.
You're right.
But do we still have an obligation to try and make the world a good place for ourselves to live right now?
Except that this doesn't disagree with the predictions made by scientists.
Let me explain:
First, ice thickness in Antarctica isn't controlled by temperature... as long as the temperature stay below freezing, which it does. Instead, the control on thickness is the amount of precipitation.
The IPCC predicts increased precipitation in the Antarctic to the tune of 25%. Just look up the IPCC report on climate change on confirm this.
Secondly, you should understand that the predictions are that there is an increase in average temperature; but not a uniform increase in temperature everywhere. Some places will see an increase, and some places a decrease, in temperature, precipitation, and other climatic variables.
You are right that we shouldn't believe people just because they have a powerful media presence. I personally recommend my alternative: knowing the facts.
Yeah, and us humans have only been on Earth for 0.00002% of it's existence.... species come and go, mostly without humans. So why worry?
Except, there is a problem in your logic. We can understand what has caused the coming and going of many of the global glaciations over the history of the world.
For example, the glaciation that occurred in the late Devonian is linked to the spread of plants on land. Before this time, there were no trees. They captured a large amount of atmospheric CO2, triggering global cooling and glaciation. The result was one of the "big 5" mass extinctions on the planet, with about 50% loss at the genera level.
Guess what? Humans have spread all across the planet! Guess what? It's not arrogant to collect data that shows we are actively changing the system and try to make predictions based on it.
I'm not advocating any certain policy; but I am saying it is foolish to assume that we can't change the world, and that we can't understand complex systems.
No, they're not moving towards learning from home.
The point of the article is that small interpersonal interaction is a better way to learn then being talked at in a lecture hall. Small classes with the ability to ask your instructor questions and interact with them have been the model at Liberal arts colleges for years, and it's nice to see other schools catching on.
There are games that are so breathtaking that the gameplay is almost secondary.
Did you ever play Shadow of the Colossus? The game was a pleasure in every way--- and wasn't very difficult. But that didn't matter, because the game was so beautiful and majestic that it was fun just to watch it be played.
If you want a "HARD" game, you can go play nethack. But hard isn't the end all and be all of gaming. The end all is entertainment--- and it sounds like they managed to make their game more entertaining by taking parts out that aren't fun.
The person driving doesn't matter.
The ticket goes to whoever the car is registered to. Be wary about who you lend your car to if you live around these things.
The "general value of something" for something like a car has a long is dicated by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of needs through things such as used markets. One of the purposes of copyright being limited to a reasonably small span was to allow artists to pay back to the community--- and to allow other access to their works to other artists, and various other reasons.
I think that video games are more aggressively priced then some things--- but it can be impossible to find some games that are not even that old for sale at any price. File sharing systems have moved in to fill that need as well.
My general point is that file sharing systems have become so prevalent because of failures of the institutions in place to regulate intellectual property, which is quite different then your claim that manufacturers should ignore people who aren't willing to "pay full price"--- these people are still part of the culture, and community, and should be considered.
Except.... you can get a car for $2000.
If no car is worth more to someone then $2000 , that person may very well end up with a car.
Back in ye olden days, things were released to the public domain after a reasonable number of years--- effectively allowing the price to change over time.
Nowadays, with copyright extended effectively indefinitely (few things that are made within my lifetime will have copyright expire within my lifetime.... ) there is a massive problem in how our culture is disseminated. File sharing has arisen partially as an effort to fulfill that gap.
HAHHHAHHAAAHAHA.
Ha.
I'm sorry, are you familiar with the 18th century, when all kids were unvaccinated and breastfed? Do you know what child mortality rates from illness were like? Here's a hint: the illness rates were much higher then today.
Please don't make facts up. Especially ones that are clearly not true.