Climate and adaptation Symposium, The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters - the Case for Continued Influence Effect

The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters arranged a symposium called Climate and adaptation (ecosystem effects in time and space). All but one of the presenter's used very short historical time-frame as a starting point:  ~220 years back in time. Certain words and concepts were reiterated: Anthropocene, 'we must act now', chocks, resilience, both physical and mental, 'tipping point', 'An Inconvenient Truth', and 'post-truth society'. It's always an issue to analyze complex information like this, but I use Rational Entrepreneurial Thinking (Österberg, 2021). The major down-side of the symposium was the lack of (1) a clear definition of climate, (2) mentioning of the Biogenic carbon cycle, and (3) the Global Methane Budget. Instead, all speakers based their presentations on Agenda 2030. Since the Cenozoic, Earth has been in a process of cooling. Food production in the western world has no significant impact on the climate. Our species needs to consume animal source food to sustain physical and mental health. Most things are better than ever (10 point list). Why doesn't a symposium about climate and adaptation that claims to be scientific include these facts? In his autobiography, Max Planck wrote something like “the academy evolves one funeral at the time” (Planck, 1950). That is formally called Continued influence, Confirmation Bias or Dysrationalia. One person who chose to remain anonymous, probably one of the presenters, have posted two comments. The second one to justify the very unscientific approach of being anonymous (see below). Three recent research papers support the fact that I published in this comment. 23 pages.

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).

The Finnish Society of Science arranged a symposium called Climate and adaptation, aiming at ecosystem effects in time and space. It seemed that all presenter's, with one exception, had the similar short historical time span as a starting point: ~220 years back in time. The framing (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) was based on Agenda 2030, and concepts like: Anthropocene, 'An Inconvenient Truth', anti-meat, chocks, crisis, 'post-truth society', resilience, 'tipping point', 'we must act now' was reiterated followed by the request - Listen to the science, before it's too late!

First out were two speakers who opened with a painting by Ville Kylätasku, which served as an illustration that we can't wait. The speaker then changed to a painting by Albert Edelfelt, which should illustrate that we need to act now. 

Timo Vesela, a physicist, working at both Gumtäkt and Vik, and is a member of Finland's IPCC, showed a table with increases of CO2, CH4, and N2O. The starting point was 1750. Next slide was a picture of areas in Europe which emits the most CO2. Then he moved on to describe methane (CH4), but only mentioned that it is a much more potent greenhouse gas compared to Carbon dioxide (CO2). Then Vesala jumps to solutions for the changes in the climate, with focus on human activities.

See Dr. Vesela's presentation here.

Magnus Nyström's, Stockholm Resilience Center, framing was the Anthropocene. Nyström claimed that 40% of all productive land has been converted to agriculture, and most cropland is used to grow export-crops; 70 % of available freshwater is used for food production. He then turns to the sea - the blue acceleration, and says we live in a post-truth society, and that people are questioning the current climate narrative. He repeatedly used the word chocks, which he claims interacts with the “anatomy” of the system we have built. He then mentions issues with barrier reefs, and reiterated “the tipping point”.

See Dr. Nyström's presentation here.

Johanna Tamminen, Finnish meteorological Institute, talked about greenhouse gasses and air pollution, focusing on Nitrogen dioxide (N02). Her picture showed that those emissions mainly came from China. And despite the data showing that most emissions originate from China, Tamminen then discussed emissions from Finland's capital - Helsingfors, Siberia, and Tsumeb, Namibia. The latter is from copper smelting. She also talked about carbon dioxide (CO2), but it's still mostly about the method of assessing CO2. “Still have a lot of observations'”. Again, China is the world leader of emissions.

See Dr. Tamminen's presentation here.

Mikael Fortelius, Geosciences and Geography. What is the origin of new species? Invasive and threatened species at long time scales. Fortelius' starting point was longer back in time compared to the rest of the presenters - 15 million years ago, when he claimed that the planet started to cool down. He showed a model which describes how new species emerge. He made the claim that grazing results in tooth decay to a great extent, Van Halen law, and the Red Queen hypothesis. He ends his presentation with - “Man is a super-invader” - and a picture of the five previous mass extinctions. In conclusion: Nature is robust, resilient, and adaptive.

See Dr. Fortelius' presentation here.

Anna Törnroos-Remes. marine biologist, Åbo academy. Tipping points in marine biodiversity - lessons from the Baltic and the Arctic. Again, it's mostly a presentation about the process - how they go about in their research, and acknowledgments to collaborators or sponsors!? Tipping elements and points - what are they? Big focus ice on Greenland and in the Arctic area.

See Dr. Törnroos-Remes presentation here.

Alf Norkko, marine zoologist. Coastal Ecosystem in rapid change - how does that influence the carbon sinks? He started by using the word exceptional several times. Coastal areas are potential carbon sinks. Sea surface temperature anomaly. “carbon is the currency that links biodiversity to climate change”. He also mentioned methane (CH4) as a more potent green-house compared to carbon dioxide (CO2).

See Dr Norkkos presentation here.

Kristina Lindström, micro biologist specializing in sustainable development. Dr Lindström's framing of her talk, and the track as it seems, is the Agenda 2030. She claims that agriculture, including emissions of methane, is the real bad guy. Solution: focus on biological fertilizers and production of legumes as a preference over animal source food.

See Dr. Lindström's presentation here.

Also: read about Dr Lindström's and my encounter in the ski track and the change in entrainment, probably due to Enclothed Cognition.

On the association between Enclothed cognition and Entrainment - Rhythmic Synchronization of Behavior

John Sumelius, agricultural economist, especially Sustainable intensification, has his work assignment on Finnish agriculture, but as he says, most of his work focuses on Africa. His example is a soy field in Ghana, and he says that the people eat very little meat. They eat corn, and rice, and Sumelius argues that soybeans are a good supplement. Sumelius reiterates Dr Lindström's Agenda 2030 target and the claim about agriculture and climate. Last on his power point reads: healthy diet.

- It is important to diagnose the problem. Knowing what the problem is?

Issues are emissions, water use for irrigation and hunger, especially south of Sahara. He then switches to a global perspective to claim that ~1 out of ten people on the planet is living in poverty!?

- Why are we so invasive?

Population in Africa 1950: 200 000 million.

Population in Africa 2023: ~1.5 billion.

Most countries transformed from being food exporting colonies, food independent importers of food.

The cropland has increased from 36 to 43%.

Conclusion: the yield per hectare needs to increase.

- How can we achieve a food supply in harmony with the global goals? The aim is to reduce the negative effects and strengthen the positive ones.

Solution 1. A more plant-based diet and a more sustainable diet.

Sumelius shifts focus, again, to industrial countries, and claims that we eat an unnecessary amount of meat.

Consumption of meat in Finland: 80 kg/person.

Consumption of meat in Africa: 10 kg/person.

Note: Finland is a country and Africa is a continent, containing 54 countries.

Solution 2. More Agro-ecologically oriented sustainable production methods

Solution 3. Better use of CRISPR-Cas9 - editing genomes in plants.

Solution 4. Reduce food waste.

See Dr. Sumelius presentation here.

Mia Sell, is a scientist at Natural Resource Institute, Finland. The theme of her presentation: Healthy FoodAfrica - Global effects through local solutions - experiences from Africa.

Sell says that she is using foresight - thinking about the future - to find solutions for adaptation, resilience, and transformation.

Healthy FoodAfrica is presented in the form of a wheel: Food packaging and safety, Food chain governance, sustainable food production, Innovative food products, and healthy nutrition.

There's no result to present - Sell presents the process - to create scenarios by using forsight.

See Dr Sell's presentation here.

Juusa Joona, MSc./PhD. student: Doctoral Programme in Sustainable Use of Renewable Natural Resources, talks about carbon sinks. His introduction is what he calls an inconvenient truth: our earth is losing carbon; globally, soils have lost enormous amounts of carbon which has contributed to climate change. the less carbon the soil has the more it can sequester it back. He then mentions the Paris agreement, and his projection is that Finland can fulfill its commitment to the Paris agreement by certain agricultural management, for example, crop rotation, and by that sequest millions of tons of CO2. “In practice in carbon farming, we should maximize photosynthesis”. He then presented the Carbon Action Platform (CAP). Joona then propose that farming should be outcome oriented, so that farmers themselves can choose the ways to go about.

Note: Finland's share of global greenhouse gasses (GHG): ~0.1%.

See MSc Joona's presentation here.

Aki Sinkkonen, Microbiology and Biotechnology, Changing Living Environment and Immune Response – Correlations or Causalities?

See MSc Dr. Sinkkonen's presentation here.

Tarja Sironen, department of virology, is running a EU-project called resilient and just systems, where she works on sorts of global challenges that are challenging our health, especially diseases that come from animals and jump to people. Sironen tries to predict the next pandemic, partly by understanding the drivers.

She mentions the environment and climate as two of these drivers.

One Health is a concept or a life-style, which seeks to improve health in humans, animals, plants, and the environment all together, and recognizes that these are intertwined.

“ - we can't have human health if we don't have environmental health”.

She says she doesn't want to talk about the Sars-Cov (2) virus, but instead climate-sensitive vector-borne diseases that are transmitted by ticks for example.

The example she uses is Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) as an example. Two charts from Finland suggest that TBE has been slightly more prevalent, but Dr. Sironen says she's not yet able to predict where it will show up.

In this context, she worries about avian flu (H5N1), even though it has been known for 30 years!?

So, how do one explain the viruses present this year? (but the other 29 years).

According to Dr. Sironen, it's climate change.

She then mention a meeting earlier this week, with a influenza expert of the world:

- we had absolutely, completely failed to prevent an influence pandemic. And there are three reasons:

1. Climate change
   
   
2. Poultry production
   
   
3. No proper surveillance of vaccine development.

Viruses arrive with migrating birds, but why did they bring the current virus (this year)?

To answer that Dr Sironen shows an opinion paper showing change of migration, which then i proposed to have caused by changes in the climate.

Then she adds, the virus is everywhere and will come back next year, and it has been building up for the past thirty years.

See Dr. Sironen's presentation here.

Eeva Furman, General of the Finnish Commission for Sustainable Development.

Dr Furman starts by sort of rejecting Dr Fortelius' paleo perspective, claiming that the human perspective is about hundreds or tens of years, but forward in time.

She then proposes a connection between climate change and planetary and societal change.

It's not only natural but concerns a broader perspective including economics, individual, and cultural.

She then shows a picture which is supposed to illustrate change between 2009-2023. It's really clear what the change is, but Furman calls it a gradual crisis!?

She then says that #the Agenda 2030 is the compass for our society, followed by a map of then seventeen goals. This is followed by the claim that every fourth year, an independent report is compiled and presented. The latest report was presented the same week as the symposium, but in New York, for, and I quote, when all the presidents, and kings, and Queens, and even some sultans were there.

“It's easy to write goals, but it's difficult to implement them”.

“So, what has been the progress till today?”

The progress has been very slow. One the positive side is digitalization and child mortality, but all the ecological ones are really lagging behind, and being worse, e.g. Covid, and wars.

She then says that she has a lot of slides, but no references, but it's this GSDR 2023 ...

Then she mentioned scenarios, for 2030, and for 2050, and two others: the middle-of the road, and the high ambition.

She then presents some systemic challenges, and claims that a small part of the population is taking responsibility for the “emissions”, climate change emissions, carbon emissions.

There are top emitters, and one can see them from a perspective of wealth; 1%  and 10 %, which means, “every single Finnish person”!?

Then she mentions flying, and injustice, investments, and ... it's all very complicated.

She then mentions Finland's success (which?); when we compare countries, Finland has been number one three times (what ranking?) so we are the best in the world. Still, we have a big impact on ecological issues, uh, impact beyond our borders, so the consumption we are having here, is very much impacting other countries. It's the ecological, and the social state.

The loser from this game comes from different days of course, the um, intergenerational question, the young ones and those who are not yet born are suffering from our behavior today. They suffer from climate change and from climate change impact. It's all fairly complicated.

From the report (see above) is production and consumption.

On the positive side, the research on sustainable development has really shooted up.

It's not about the impact (outcome) but about the policies and the action (strategies that may lead to impact). Then she followed up with a kind of abstract discourse, followed by six areas for transformation, and five How to do it?

Finland's strategy is system-based. Then again, the discourse becomes abstract, but she wants to focus on the negatives. Dr Furman then delivers a Main message that starts:

Crisis reveals vulnerabilities of systems”.

See Dr. Furman's presentation here.

Mikael Hildén, Finland's Environmental Institute (Syke). Adaptation to what? Who cares?

Dr. Hildén starts by framing the presentation to the adaptation to climate change.

The mitigation of climate change is global, but adaptation is local. Instead of references, the following statement is presented:

“There is any amount of literature that shows this idea that adaptation is something where those who experience it must of course adapt. Man's role as an invasive species has always been about adaptation. That's why we're invasive, because we've been so adept at adapting”.

The emission of greenhouse gasses is a global phenomena, it doesn't matter where the GHG is released.

Finland has done well so far, and the sea levels haven't had any significant impact, even though it likely will in the future.

But, despite Finland's average temperature increases, ... the question emerges: when will it impact us? (the warming).

Then, the discourse becomes a bit abstract, but it's mostly about climate oriented policies.

The final comments are that all people should think about the change, and change creates possibilities.

See Dr. Hildén's presentation here.

Panel discussion.

It's always an issue to analyze complex information like this, but I use Rational Entrepreneurial Thinking (Österberg, 2021. chapter 3 (in Swedish)), that is:

• Epistemic vigilance - be suspicious about the message and the purpose of sending the message (Sperber et al. 2010).
  
  
• Disjunctive reasoning - take all matters into account (Stanovich, 2009).
  
  
• Numeracy - the ability to understand, reason with, and to apply simple numerical concepts (Brooks and Pui, 2010).

First, its important to understand that the framing (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), despite the request to listen to the science, before it's too late!: Agenda 2030, and word and concepts like: Anthropocene, 'An Inconvenient Truth', anti-meat, chocks, crisis, 'post-truth society', resilience, 'tipping point', 'we must act now'', are not scientific but political concepts.

Second, foresight is not a scientific method, but a way of thinking that defines our species - Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Gilbert & Wilson, 2007; Kaku, 2014; Suddendorf et al. 2018; Szpunar et al. 2014).

“Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world” (Wikipedia; Heilbron, 2003; Wilson, 1999).

Here follows some science-based facts & figures about the topics used in the symposium, which can be used for future reasoning (Pinker, 2011).

Biodiversity is often mentioned in the context of extinction, and the number six, like in sixth extinction. That follows as a consequence of interpreting the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - when an asteroid - the Chicxulub impactor - struck Earth, as something bad. But the impact can also be interpreted as the starting point for mammals. The era that started after the impact is called Cenozoic - the age of mammals. It's also obvious that biodiversity has increased during the Phanerozoic (see below).

Link to source.

Poverty, which was reiterated by more than two speakers. It's true what Dr Sumelius said, that global poverty is at a level of about 8%, but it's also true that poverty has decreased significantly for the past fifty years. Here's a chart from Our World in Data.

And speaking of Africa, speakers should not use an overall perspective but be clear on the fact that Africa is a continent of 54 countries. Among these countries, poverty has a heterogeneous distribution (see below).

Since the late 1980s, Ghana has seen a remarkable improvement, from more than 70% of the people living in extreme poverty to ~25%. That a staggering 65% decrease in poverty!

Tanzania has not had an equally strong improvement, but still significant: from 80 to 40 %.

Link to source.


The take home message is to not look at the present as a starting point, but to look at the trajectory from a historical perspective forward in time.
Climate. With the exception of Fortelius, the presenters did use a very  narrow time frame, and reiterated the political concept: we need to act now! The implication of such a perspective means they excluded 99.9999999999999999999... % of Earth's climate history.

Fortelius, had a longer historiographical perspective compared to the other presenters, yet rather brief from a paleo-climatological perspective - 15 million years. Paradoxically, that excluded a staggering 99.67% Earth's climate history. Even so, during the lunch break, I had a chat with him which turned out to be interesting.

How can you make predictions of a phenomena if you use a snapshot (<0.32%) of the full time-span of climate's history?

Again, the take home message here is the time frame. Ergo. Climate is not understood from a perspective of  ~200 years before the present, but rather hundreds of millions or even billions of years before the present.

Another major down-side with the symposium was the lack of a clear definition of climate. Why didn't the presenters start with a definition of climate? And why did they use such a narrow time frame?

(Baede, Ahlonsou, Ding, D. Schimel, The Climate System: an Overview, IPCC).

Link till source.

To understand climate, we need a broader time frame, and the standard is to use the Chronostratigraphic chart (Cohen, Harper, and Gibbard, 2023) , which shows all the significant climate changes throughout Earth's existence (n~100).

Earth is ~4.54 billion years old. For most of that time (88%) there was no visible life present. This time frame is also called Precambrian, which is divided in three eons: Hadean (4.54 -4 Bya), Archean (4-2.5 Bya), and Proterozoic (2.5 Bya - 542 Mya).

Proterozoic was replaced by Phanerozoic (542 Mya -), and the marker för that change is called the Cambrian explosion, which saw the emergence of visible life. Note that there has only been visible life on planet Earth for the past 12% of its existence. Also note that we are still in Phanerozoic.

Phanerozoic is divided into three eras: Paleozoic (539 - 252 Mya), Mesozoic (252-66 Mya), and Cenozoic (~66 Mya- ).

The transition from Mesozoic to Cenozoic, the current era, was marked by the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - when an asteroid - the Chicxulub impactor - struck Earth. There's two ways to describe or frame this event, the fifth extension or the starting point of the age of mammals. When the dinosaurs were gone, mammals could thrive and grow in size.

Cenozoic is divided into three systems/periods: the Paleogene (66 - 23.03 Mya), the Neogene (23.03 - 2.58 Mya), and the Quaternary (2.58 Mya -). These three periods are divided into seven epochs: Paleocen (66 -56 Mya), Eocene (56 - 33.0 Mya), Oligocene (33.9 -23.03 Mya),  Miocene (23.03 - 5.33 Mya), Pliocen (5.33-2.58 Mya), Pleistocene (2.58 Mya - 11 600 thousand years before the present (BP)), and Holocene (11 600 BP -). The transition between all eons, eras, systems, and epochs are markers of changes in the climate (n~100).

For example, Eocene marks a peak in warming, and the ending of the Miocene, during which the transition between two ages called Tortonian (11.63 - 7.25 Mya) and Messinian (7.25-5.33) marks the starting point for the our so called lineage (Pickford, 2006). And during the transition between two other ages, Zanclean (5.33- 3.6 Mya) and Piacenzian (3.6  - 2.58 Mya), our ancestors - Lucy - started to consume bone marrow (McPherron et al. 2010; Thompson et al. 2019).

The CO2 and temperature changes during the Phanerozoic  is presented in this chart:

Link to source.

During the transition from Proterozoic to Phanerozoic, the share of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 5000 - 7000 ppm, the Oxygen level was 4-10 %, and it was 50 % warmer compared to today. Since then, 95 % of CO2 has moved from the atmosphere to the bedrock, forests, and the oceans, the Oxygen level in the atmosphere has doubled, and it has only gotten colder. We see a peak in warming during the early Cenozoic, but after that, cooling has continued.

Another topic that was treated in a peculiar way was Methane. The presenters only mentioned that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide, which is true. But they didn't mention the Biogenic carbon Cycle?

The Biogenic carbon cycle describes how methane, for example emitted from burping cows, is transformed into CO2 by a process called hydroxyl oxidation. A similar amount of CO2 is consumed by plants through photosynthesis.

Politicians are keen on attributing changes in the climate to food production, especially animal source food. But the Biogenic carbon cycle demonstrates that emissions and sinks from agriculture (in the western world) are in balance.

Link to source.

Methane is also emitted from other sources, and therefore, its important to address the global impact. As shown in the chart below, there's also a balance between emissions and sinks.

Link to source.

The themes in the symposium for for Climate and Adaptation followed a pattern that has been traded at the University of Helsingfors for several years, that animal source food is bad for health and that agriculture is the main impactor on the climate.

For example, Toumisto (2019) claimed:

Humanity is facing the twin challenge of producing sufficient and nutritious food for a growing and increasingly affluent population while reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. Livestock in particular is a major environmental stressor 1 as it produces an estimated 15% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 2, which is more than the whole transportation sector.

This claim was then reiterated by the management at the faculty of Agriculture, thought the X/Twitter- account.

When criticized for her claim - Livestock in particular is a major environmental stressor 1 as it produces an estimated 15% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 2, which is more than the whole transportation sector - Toumisto chose to write the following letter to the journal:

“Comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of livestock with the transportation sector was formally misleading”.

The year after, then professor of economy and chair of Finland's IPCC, Markku Ollikainen, together with other scholars, wrote the following is.

“Of all agricultural direct non-CO2 emissions, 80% are from livestock, with ruminants accounting for more than 80% of the total livestock emissions”.

According to the editor of the journal, Ollikainen chose to block a letter to the editor which contained criticism about his claim.

Österberg (2020). Pre-print. Letter to editor. Is livestock in agriculture an issue for climate? The case for disjunctive reasoning.

This culture coincide with what Bäckgren (2023, Helsingin Sanomat) calls a collapse after the University of Helsingfors has fallen in research ranking from place 56 (2017) to >110 (2023).

Conclusion. Many people working at the university of Helsingfors have gathered around the non-scientific but political idea of 'climate emergency', that Finland's CO2 (0.1% of global GHG) and methane (which is eradicated by the Biogenic Carbon cycle) emissions has a significant impact on the climate, and that those emissions should mainly be attributed on production of animal source food. To support this view, these political concepts are reiterated: Anthropocene, 'An Inconvenient Truth', anti-meat, chocks, crisis, 'post-truth society', resilience, 'tipping point', 'we must act now'' and the request - Listen to the science, before it's too late!

Science, paradoxically, shows a different picture:

The planet is cooler than ever.

Modern agriculture does not explain changes in the climate. In the western part of the World, contrary to former professor Ollikainen's proposals, production of animal source food has no significant impact on the climate (White and Hall, 2017). And producing dairy has an even smaller impact on the climate (Liebe, Hall and White, 2020).

We humans need to consume meat/fish, eggs, and whole dairy to sustain physical and mental health (Adesogan et al. 2020; Balehegn et al. 2019; Deghan et al. 2017, 2018; Dobersek et al. 2021, 2023; Ede, 2019; Itkonen et al. 2021; Tong et al. 2020; Ylilauri et al. 2019; Zheng et al. 2023).

Adding to that is my list of good stuff which a presented already in early 2020 and in June 2021:

• Global Poverty is on a record low – every 24 hours for the past 30 years, 120 000 fellow sapiens get out of extreme poverty.
  
  
• More children than ever celebrate their 5th birthday.
  
  
• Democracy is more prevalent than ever.
  
  
• The Earth is greener than 20 years ago (Nace, 2019).
  
  
• Deforestation in Amazonas is on record low since 2003.
  
  
• Bushfires in Australia are decreasing (trend).
  
  
• Polar bears are prevalent on a record scale
  
  
• Emissions from Chinese power plants has decreased by 60-70 % since 2014
  
  
• GHG-emissions from the Nordic countries 0.5% of global ditto.

Why doesn't a symposium about climate and adaptation include these facts?

In his autobiography, Max Planck wrote something like “the academy evolves one funeral at the time” (Planck, 1950). What he meant was that new ideas are blocked by professors who aren't that keen to adapt to current discoveries or discourses.

These phenomena are very psychological and are formally called Continued influence Effect (CIE) - Misinformation continues to influence memory and reasoning about an event, despite the misinformation having been corrected (Cacciatore, 2021).

Continued influence Effect is related to three other mental fallacies:

• Confirmation Bias (CB) - people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs (Britannica).
  
  
• Dysrationalia - is defined as the inability to think and behave rationally despite adequate intelligence (Stanovich, 1993, 2009).
  
  
• Tribalism, In his 2019, Gifford lecture, Dr Mark Pagel talked about tribalism, a culture that sustain traditions, for example by moral shaming. Two examples were mentioned: Papua New Guinea, and Finland. Finland has two official languages, since the viking era - Swedish-Finnish, and after Russia's invasion 1808, Uralic-Finnish. Whereas Swedish-Finnish still is the trading language around the Baltic Sea and related to other European languages, Uralic-Finnish isn't any of that. But for some reason, Finland has kept this odd language, even after it's independence (1917) from the country which imposed it - Russia. And at the University of Helsingfors, Uralic-Finnish is the first language!? The management ask foreign research-leaders and researcher to learn the language. It's kind of obvious that theories that is abandoned in the rest of the world, like the diet-heart hypothesis, can be sustained in Finland by applying Uralic-Finnish. No one from the outside understand, and therefore no one can debate any viewpoint traded in Uralic-Finnish. Paradoxically, people within this tribe are convinced that their viewpoint is true, because their Uralic-Finnish-speaking colleagues conforms to the same conviction.

One person, who chose the very non-academic approach to remain anonymous, probably one of the presenters, has written two comments. But the comments are not in the form of academic reasoning (Pinker, 2011) where attention is focused on the attitude object.

Instead, the anonymous commenter is questioning the references by asking for references which were not mentioned in the discourse, but which he/she favors.

The second comment seems to be a way to justify the approach - the unscientific approach of being anonymous and changing the topic.

Both comments show signs of defensive argumentation, a phenomenon that is typical when one has realized that one is a victim of continued influence Effect, Confirmation Bias, or Dysrationalia.

Worth to note. Three recent research papers support the fact that I published in this comment (Era of 'Unquestioned unchallenged Climate Change' Claims Is Over).

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).

More about my expertise:

Executive coaching for CEOs/managers and workshops to facilitate Organizational Performance, Learning, and Creativity for Problem Solving | Lectures: Nutrition for physical and mental health |  Course/lecture: children's emotional and social adjustment and cognitive development  | Language training - Swedish  |  Academy Competency | CV | Teaching skills and experience | Summary of research project | Instagram | Linkedin | YouTube-channel | TikTok | Twitter