anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
jblepp
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: April 14th, 2021, 9:22 pm

anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by jblepp »

We have a major problem on our hands. Unfortunately we also have collectively decided to not use all the tools we have at our disposal for addressing the issue. To some extent, we are even unclear how to formulate the considerations to be addressed. We are not sure what role anybody is to play except to listen to one particular group - Scientists. We do not even know how we should behave once we have listened to Scientists. Somehow we are befuddled that our response has been less than optimal.


The Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis is that human activity contributes to climate change. The data which supports the hypothesis “Human activity contributes to climate change” is incomplete. There are a sundry of issues involved in the forecasting of climate, without clear and obvious resolutions (May 16, 2021; p822-823:)
Hydrologic considerations over a span of time
Changes in the composition of land surface over a span of time
Average precipitation rate both globally and for a locality
How should clouds be treated?
What is the effect of Carbon emissions over time?

The list of issues is not meant to be understood as either sufficient or complete. With there so many unresolved issues, it is difficult to establish causal agency. It is difficult to surmise even whether causal agency need be explained.

Each of the above listed issues provides a unique consideration for the development of a predictive model. Agreement on the priority of any consideration is lacking, which in turn explains why there are a multitude of different models. How to join and synthesize models so as to create a unified projection is an open question. The initial conditions for models is uncertain. The boundary conditions for models is uncertain. Uncertainty quantification with the ensemble of models is difficult (to say the least.)

In light of there being so many unknowns, the hypothesis “Human activity contributes to climate change” is underdetermined. Other explanations for climate change are, prima facie, possible. Other explanations have been offered. One such alternative has been offered by PhD scientists sponsored by the Heartland Institute (a conservative think tank.) In their document, Climate Change Reconsidered, they attempt to give the issues just raised a scandalous glow. The scientists associated with the Heartland Institute contend the evidence shows - contrary to the belief that mankind has brought about harmful climate change - that there is little evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and the changes in temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are beneficial for humans, plants and wildlife.

Here is the main question to be considered: In what way is an anthropogenic climate change explanation superior to the explanation provided by the Heartland Institute, if the true explanation is empirically underdetermined? An answer will illustrate how explanations are evaluated.

Is this purely a Science question about deciphering which explanation is superior? Should only scientists answer it? Scientists are clearly the most qualified for judging the worthiness of Scientific explanations. There are, however, difficulties in leaving it only for the Scientific community to judge worthiness. Appealing only to the authority of Scientists to decide the veracity of the hypothesis for Anthropogenic Climate Change is logically fallacious. Trusting Scientists cannot be used as evidence for the truth of Scientific hypotheses. Besides, the competing hypothesis offered by the Heartland Institute is also made by Scientists.

Is the question “In what way is a Anthropogenic Climate Change explanation superior to the explanation provided by the Heartland Institute, if the true explanation is empirically underdetermined?” a question for Philosophy? Clearly it is not a question for timid Philosophers who wish only to have their ideas serve without application beyond their own academic community. There is, however, a rich tradition of Philosophers answering questions which are of interest to the Scientific community. Hans Reichenbach addressed the direction of time. Michael Dummett argued for the possibility of backwards causation. David Hume analyzed forward causation.

Those Philosophers were embracing the role of “critics of concepts,” a concept elucidated by Mark Wilson, who was in turn developing and responding to Michael Friedman’s ideas. Reichenbach, Dummett, and other philosophers, were willing to analyze key philosophical/ scientific concepts in light of Scientific advances. WVO Quine, however, made a persuasive attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction. The nature of analysis changed.

WVO Quine looked at what true statements are “analytic.” Supposedly it would be those statements which are true by a “semantical rule,” but all that occurred was swapping one unexplained term with an unexplained phrase. Attempts at providing a formal explanation fall short according to Quine:

“Appeal to hypothetical languages of an artificially simple kind could be useful in clarifying analyticity, if mental or behavioral or cultural factors relevant to analyticity - whatever they may be - were somehow sketched into a simplified model” (p.36).

It would defeat the purpose of simplified hypothetical languages (e.g. formal symbolic logic) to capture mental, behavioral or cultural factors. The clarity provided by such languages is provided by its simplicity. The explanation of analyticity, however, is demanding more than what can be provided for in such languages.

The flip side of that attack is his attack on the idea that synthetic truths reduce to a range of possible sensory experiences. Again, like the problem encountered with explicating “analyticity,” simply equating propositions with empirical content (eg through verification) fails to capture mental, behavioral or cultural factors. Instead, the confirmation of, or the refutation of, statements by experience is dependent on an assundry of different factors. Quine says “The dogmas are, indeed, at the root identical.” The idea here is that the truth of statements does not divide cleanly into truths derived from language and truths derived from experience.

TS Kuhn embraced Quine’s attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Of course, without recourse to analyticity (for the examination of scientific hypotheses, theories, and paradigms) and with an inability to account for empirical content beyond the influence of mental, behavioral or cultural factors, the explanation of why a hypothesis, theory or paradigm is actually better is going to be left wanting. It is (given the acceptance of Kuhn’s position and Quine’s position) unclear if reason can be supplied beyond “That’s how most Scientists feel.”

The effect is that Philosophers have turned wimpy about answering questions that are important to the community beyond their academic specialty. There is no consensus among Philosophers how to answer Quine’s challenge to the analytic/synthetic distinction. The tools to evaluate the concepts of science have been hampered. Without the tools of analysis and verification, the means to judge the empirical worthiness of hypotheses and theories will remain lacking. Furthermore the worthiness of Scientific theories will be simply a matter of whim without ontological grounding but, without a means to judge empirical content, there is not any means to see whether anything is more or less the case.

So here we are. We have two competing scientific hypotheses. One hypothesis demands drastic change. The other hypothesis does not demand anything from us, but, if it is false, it surely means our demise.
Hence we are here having to decide whether we face an existential threat.

We can use all the tools at our disposal to analyze whether we face a threat to our existence, but (it should be acknowledged) our ability to use the analytic/synthetic distinction has been hampered. Adding to the list of problems, Philosophers’ status as “Critics of Concepts” has been diminished. Although our status has been diminished and our tools have been hampered, we have questions which need to be asked and insights we can still provide. We just have to be brave enough to ask the questions and use the tools we still have. No guts, no glory.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by LuckyR »

Why does a conservative think tank sponsor their own climate scientists? Uummm... for the same reason that Pharmaceutical companies have their own scientists. You get what you pay for.

Climate change could be solved if the solution was simple and cost neutral (like the ozone layer threat years ago). Alas it is neither, therefore it will not be solved through cooperation.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Steve3007 »

jblepp wrote:Is this purely a Science question about deciphering which explanation is superior?
Sadly, no, because unfortunately the question of which explanation is superior divides roughly along the same line which divides the most significant two positions in modern global political history: left versus right; big versus small government; collective action versus individual liberties. Action on climate change requires large, coordinated efforts, and that takes big governments and such things as targeted taxation policies. So people generally have strong pre-existing interests in supporting one side or the other which depend on their personal political views. Hence, in a politically polarized country like the US, for example, Republicans tend to be of the "it's all a socialist myth designed as an excuse for governments to meddle in our lives" view, whereas Democrats are more likely to be of the "there's a climate crisis and we must act for the sake of future generations" view.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Pattern-chaser »

jblepp wrote: April 14th, 2021, 9:31 pm We have a major problem on our hands. Unfortunately we also have collectively decided to not use all the tools we have at our disposal for addressing the issue. To some extent, we are even unclear how to formulate the considerations to be addressed. We are not sure what role anybody is to play except to listen to one particular group - Scientists. We do not even know how we should behave once we have listened to Scientists. Somehow we are befuddled that our response has been less than optimal.

The immediate problem is that most just don't want to admit the problem even exists, as it is obvious to all of us that the required solution to the problem involves giving up a lot of stuff we can't imagine giving up. So most ignore it. Those who accept that environmental resources are coming to an end don't stop consuming, though. On the contrary, when they see that stuff is running out, they urgently run to extract what's left before some other human can get it. Greed.

Once we have got past the issues that I just described, then we can start on the ones you have described. But what's the point? Our greed, and attachment to our unsustainable luxuries, is such that we cannot give them up, like addicts. We are headed for extinction, and - by our own choice - are accelerating toward the end, faster and faster. There is no braking, nor will there be. I'm just sorry for the mess we will leave behind. It could take our Earth a billion years to recover, if it ever does.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Robert66 »

jblepp wrote: April 14th, 2021, 9:31 pm
In light of there being so many unknowns, the hypothesis “Human activity contributes to climate change” is underdetermined. Other explanations for climate change are, prima facie, possible. Other explanations have been offered. One such alternative has been offered by PhD scientists sponsored by the Heartland Institute (a conservative think tank.) In their document, Climate Change Reconsidered, they attempt to give the issues just raised a scandalous glow. The scientists associated with the Heartland Institute contend the evidence shows - contrary to the belief that mankind has brought about harmful climate change - that there is little evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and the changes in temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are beneficial for humans, plants and wildlife.

Here is the main question to be considered: In what way is an anthropogenic climate change explanation superior to the explanation provided by the Heartland Institute, if the true explanation is empirically underdetermined? An answer will illustrate how explanations are evaluated.

Is this purely a Science question about deciphering which explanation is superior? Should only scientists answer it? Scientists are clearly the most qualified for judging the worthiness of Scientific explanations. There are, however, difficulties in leaving it only for the Scientific community to judge worthiness. Appealing only to the authority of Scientists to decide the veracity of the hypothesis for Anthropogenic Climate Change is logically fallacious. Trusting Scientists cannot be used as evidence for the truth of Scientific hypotheses. Besides, the competing hypothesis offered by the Heartland Institute is also made by Scientists.
Boiled down, it appears to be a question of trusting scientists. The near-unanimity of scientists qualified to speak authoritatively on this subject, and the strictures within which they operate (transparency, collaboration, peer review, regulation, using taxpayer money) give the public good and sufficient reason to trust their findings, however 'undetermined' they might be. Scientists owned by the Heartland Institute could be trusted about as much as L'Oreal or Revlon scientists claiming "anti-aging" properties for their skin creams.

A scientist, or philosopher, might have a problem with the public framing of the issue - eg: "We've already waited too long to deal with this climate crisis and we can't wait any longer. We see it with our own eyes, we feel it, we know it in our bones and it's time to act." (US President Joe Biden) - as it appears as a kind of gut-response or faith-based statement, un-scientific and therefore open to criticism that he is part of some leftist climate "crusade", however if he stood there for two hours setting forth what we know and reasonably hypothesise about climate change, he would have about zero impact on getting people to consider, and act, on the problem.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Tegularius »

Biden was right on in his statement but almost certainly too late in avoiding future climate catastrophes even if we stopped right now pumping any greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We know the cause and who caused it. Billions of metric tons are emitted each year for many years. We know what green gases do (don't have to depend on a faith-based on that) and we know who's doing it. Even if the culprit comes up with a miracle in reversing the process the damage already done remains done and possibly continue on its merry way getting progressively worse without any further input from us. The future looks burnt-out.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Robert66 »

Tegularius wrote: April 19th, 2021, 5:33 pm Biden was right on in his statement but almost certainly too late in avoiding future climate catastrophes even if we stopped right now pumping any greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We know the cause and who caused it. Billions of metric tons are emitted each year for many years. We know what green gases do (don't have to depend on a faith-based on that) and we know who's doing it. Even if the culprit comes up with a miracle in reversing the process the damage already done remains done and possibly continue on its merry way getting progressively worse without any further input from us. The future looks burnt-out.
Or ... to be optimistic (which is better for your mental health) you could explore the many technologies and solutions which exist or have been invented, and which merely require sufficient implementation, and be glad that a positive first step has been taken - the replacement of Trump with Biden.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Tegularius »

Robert66 wrote: April 19th, 2021, 5:44 pm
Tegularius wrote: April 19th, 2021, 5:33 pm Biden was right on in his statement but almost certainly too late in avoiding future climate catastrophes even if we stopped right now pumping any greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We know the cause and who caused it. Billions of metric tons are emitted each year for many years. We know what green gases do (don't have to depend on a faith-based on that) and we know who's doing it. Even if the culprit comes up with a miracle in reversing the process the damage already done remains done and possibly continue on its merry way getting progressively worse without any further input from us. The future looks burnt-out.
Or ... to be optimistic (which is better for your mental health) you could explore the many technologies and solutions which exist or have been invented, and which merely require sufficient implementation, and be glad that a positive first step has been taken - the replacement of Trump with Biden.
That's all very nice but we haven't got all day to save the future. Also, I don't know what technologies merely require sufficient implementation. I know technologies are being studied but don't know of any ready to be implemented that can successfully neutralize the carbon effect. In the meantime the most powerful means nature itself has to control it are the world's forests which continue to be eroded. How long can the Amazon still remain independent with its own climate until it can no-longer sustain itself and literally turn into desert. As long as there are those like Bolsonaro at the helm (who should be starved and worked to death in a concentration camp) we're only heading in one direction.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Robert66 »

Direct air-carbon capture.
Carbon dioxide conversion, via enzymes, into biocarbonate for use in construction material.
Genetic engineering of carbon-storing phytoplankton.
Atmospheric water harvesting - harvested water used to turn desert to forest.
Nuclear fusion energy which emits only helium as exhaust.
Lab grown meat.
Achievable improvements in transport efficiency (a long sub-list).

What do these all have in common? They all require the political will which could enable them. Which requires people to be active. They could start by voting for the right politicians, and they could insist their representatives do the right thing.
Tegularius
Posts: 711
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Tegularius »

The problems is none of these are ready for prime time and if one were to be implemented shortly it wouldn't on its own stop the green-house effect from gaining momentum. There would have to be a number of different technologies enabled on a global basis to stop the process...not to mention the fact that all further green-house emissions must cease. Even then we can't be sure whether instead of coming to a standstill it won't continue at a slower rate.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Robert66 »

Tegularius wrote: April 20th, 2021, 3:44 am The problems is none of these are ready for prime time and if one were to be implemented shortly it wouldn't on its own stop the green-house effect from gaining momentum. There would have to be a number of different technologies enabled on a global basis to stop the process...not to mention the fact that all further green-house emissions must cease. Even then we can't be sure whether instead of coming to a standstill it won't continue at a slower rate.
They are all happening now, which is why I listed them.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Steve3007 »

For quite a while now the government has been claiming to be committed to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions in quite a short period of time. But that period of time, though short, is longer than the political cycle. So until quite recently I've been cynical about this and assumed it to be mostly a politically cheap bit of rhetoric that's easy to say and doesn't require much immediate action. But I'm gradually changing my mind. For example, the transition from the internal combustion engine to electric cars, with enough charging points to make them genuinely viable replacements for petrol and diesel cars, powered by sustainable energy sources, is starting to look like a reality. I'm more convinced now that my kids (currently in their teens) will be the last generation to learn to drive in fossil fuel driven cars.

But of course, as when there's any major new change in technology, we haven't settled on universal standards yet. We're at the Betamax versus VHS stage in VCRs, or the AC versus DC stage in the early development of the electricity grid, but on a much bigger scale!
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:It could take our Earth a billion years to recover, if it ever does.
I think this is over the top. A billion years is an almost inconceivably long period of time in comparison to the whole of human history. It's twice as long as the time from the Cambrian Explosion. Even a million years is many times longer than all of human history and stone-age pre-history. No matter what effects we have on the environment, how much mass extinction we cause and how much plastic and other toxic residues of our technology we lay down with the fossil record, if we and/or our technological descendants were to die out within the next million years I think all traces of our influence would be utterly gone well within a billion. Plate tectonics, if nothing else, would see to that.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote:It could take our Earth a billion years to recover, if it ever does.
Steve3007 wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:28 am I think this is over the top. A billion years is an almost inconceivably long period of time in comparison to the whole of human history.

Hmmm. Well, we have refined and concentrated radioactive materials with half-lives approaching that sort of timescale. But that's one of many details.

As the Earth changed throughout its history, it took a very long time - billions of years - before the Earth was survivable for humans. The creation of an oxygenated atmosphere took quite a while, and that was only one of many precursors.

Our doings have left the world polluted - i.e. poisoned - and some of the pollutants are not the sort of thing that can be removed or made safe easily. That might even have to wait until creatures had evolved that would be able to do the job, which could take quite a while.

The fragments of micro-plastic spread throughout the air, water and earth await the emergence of something that could get rid of them.

Pretty much all of the fossil fuels are exhausted, so (if we assume future life might require them???) we would have to wait many millions of years for them to regenerate. ... And that assumes that what we leave behind is capable of supporting the trees and plants to be fossilised.

Then there are the ores, and similar mineral resources, that we have consumed, leaving them changed or combined in such a way that simple extraction is not possible.

I could carry on in this vein for much longer.

...

And I did say "could", not "will". 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: anthropogenic climate change (opening salvo)

Post by Robert66 »

Steve3007 wrote: April 20th, 2021, 5:04 am For quite a while now the government has been claiming to be committed to a massive reduction in CO2 emissions in quite a short period of time. But that period of time, though short, is longer than the political cycle. So until quite recently I've been cynical about this and assumed it to be mostly a politically cheap bit of rhetoric that's easy to say and doesn't require much immediate action. But I'm gradually changing my mind. For example, the transition from the internal combustion engine to electric cars, with enough charging points to make them genuinely viable replacements for petrol and diesel cars, powered by sustainable energy sources, is starting to look like a reality. I'm more convinced now that my kids (currently in their teens) will be the last generation to learn to drive in fossil fuel driven cars.

But of course, as when there's any major new change in technology, we haven't settled on universal standards yet. We're at the Betamax versus VHS stage in VCRs, or the AC versus DC stage in the early development of the electricity grid, but on a much bigger scale!
All of this resonates with me, Steve. I will probably never overcome my distrust of most politicians, however the advances are being made, and rapidly, without their "help", or in spite of their backward interventions. So like you my mind has been changing. I am becoming more of a techno-optimist. For example I used to sit in the camp (which still exists) of people who argue that Australia has reached, or gone beyond, its carrying capacity, and that the human population here needs to be limited. Indeed they have good evidence for their argument, if we look backwards. What I am referring to is perhaps best described in Michael Cathcart's book The Water Dreamers, which sets out the sad history of European settlers attempting but failing to live beyond the areas with regular rainfall. About 90% of us live on the very fringe of a vast island continent.

There are however vast swathes of arid Australia with good soils. And using existing technology it is possible that these arid lands could be transformed. Stand-alone, solar and/or wind powered atmospheric water harvesters could supply the necessary water for this transformation. Of course it is a long way from "could" to "will", and I haven't completely shed my pessimistic skin (Tegularius' words resonate with me too), but if an enterprising billionaire, even a forward-thinking politician, wanted to they could get this transformation to happen.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021