Add a Comment
Save my information
Humanity added to natural warming, but from increased water vapor, not CO2. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com Blinded by a misguided focus on the increase in CO2, ‘climate science’ has apparently failed to notice that in the period 1988-2002 water vapor molecules increased more than 5 times as fast as CO2 molecules and about twice as fast as calculated from the average global temperature increase. Since 1900 WV molecules increased approximately 3.6 times as fast as CO2 molecules. According to Spectracalc/Hitran, at zero altitude there are about 24 H2O molecules for each CO2 molecule and each H2O molecule is about 5 times as effective at absorb/emit of thermal (LWIR) radiation emitted from earth surface as a CO2 molecule.
The good news:
1. WV increase is self-limiting so no catastrophe from warming.
2. The increasing water vapor is delaying the average global temperature decline expected by many as a result of the quiet sun and declining net of ocean surface temperature cycles.
3. CO2 increase has increased plant growth (i.e. food) by at least 15%.
It is not possible to teach “climate science” in grade school. There is no curriculum for teaching heat transfer, computer modeling, atmospheric chemistry, or the many other basic sciences needed to reach conclusions over what is going on with Earth’s climate. What the left wants to do is simply present the conclusions of some climate scientists as facts, and this makes the effort indoctrination. An analogy would be presenting the results of Einsteins General Relativity before the students have the basic math and physics training to make sense it. This entire article assumes climate science is settled, that the preferred conclusions are unassailable and so any contrary position must be false and presented with malicious motive. That is far from the truth. Thousands of highly accomplished and respected climate scientists DO NOT AGREE with climate alarmists. They all have sound, scientific bases for their disagreement, grounded in decades of research. Climate science is far from settled, and the conclusions of one politically and financially motivated segment of the climate science community should not be presented in grade school classrooms as fact.
“Thousands of highly accomplished and respected climate scientists DO NOT AGREE with climate alarmists.” Who are these thousands? If you are thinking of the OISM petition of 31,000 “scientists”, you don’t actually have to be a scientist to sign it, let alone a climate scientist. Please do fact-check me: actually go and look up the documented requirements for signing it, and by all means, find out what steps OISM takes to verify that you meet the requirements (AFAIK they don’t verify.)
And when you say “alarmists”, are you referring to climate scientists who agree with well-established findings such as the ECS probably being in the range 2.0-4.5°C? (ECS or Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is the long-term global average temperature change that would eventually result from doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration.)
I suggest reviewing the paper “Consensus on Consensus”, or my review article about the various studies of the scientific consensus at https://medium.com/@qwertie/scrutinizing-the-consensus-numbers-70faf9200a0c
I earned a Ph.D. in physics. I rely on original sources of climate scientists; RealClimate.org is one. RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. Read it for up-to-date info. http://www.realclimate.org/
I am not a climatologist. So I do the next-best thing: I read original sources, including RealClimate and technical research papers by James Hansen and his colleagues. His blog is: http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/ and website: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Jane, it’s difficult to believe someone wit a PhD in any STEM field would promote “teaching” climate science to a K-12 student with no significant background in the subject. Climate Science, when practiced correctly is extremely complex, possibly one f the more complex subject in the sciences, requiring a strong background in thermo and fluid dynamics. Much of the science behind climate is considered mathematically intractable. This isn’t a subject that can be “taught” in 6th grade, or even 12th for most children.
It’s correct to consider this “indoctrination” rather than education.
True scientists require evidence-data to support their claims. Schoen from above just says this or that isn’t true with one example. First she doesn’t understand science, physics, or the need for more than one piece of evidence. Then again, these same people probably only listen and accept one source for their news, other ideas, etc.
For example, Shoen’s demonstration of water level not increase when the ice in it melts does not take into account the glaciers that are NOT in the ocean. Her argument-in fact Florida Citizens Alliance, Heartland, all of these groups, are not real arguments and are exactly what they are supposedly fighting. If you do not accept what they tell you, one are wrong. They do not provide sufficient evidence but instead expect you to just believe them. Their ignorance is arrogantly evident.
This article emphasizes the need for literacy of all citizens, science literacy, especially. Reading words is not enough, we need to read data tables, graphs, and just as important, our surroundings, read the patterns in our environment.
Climate has always changed. The issue today is how much of the ongoing change has an anthropogenic origin. Clearly human activity impacts climate. I observed and measured this firsthand during assignments for NASA during two field campaigns in Brazil during that country’s burning season. The enormous coverage of smoke across that country caused significant reductions in temperature, photosynthetic radiation and UVB at my research sites near Cuiaba and Alta Floresta and the Cristalino River.
As for climate, I was an expert reviewer for the IPCC during preparation of its AR5 report. From this experience I learned that all 40 climate models used by the IPCC failed to accurately forecast temperature changes. Why? The models are reliant mainly on increasing CO2 and fail to adequately incorporate water vapor, clouds and other aerosols. These weaknesses are well known within the climate science community. Yet they continue to make definitive statements about the role of CO2 in climate change/warming without even mentioning the roles plays by clouds, smoke, dust and water vapor.
Unfortunately, the teaching of climate science has become an agenda driven by a relatively small fraction of the scientific community. The traditional role of skepticism in science has been largely abandoned by many of the key players, as some made abundantly clear in their Climategate emails. Even the National Academy of Science’s outstanding booklet “On Becoming a Scientist” has been affected, for the discussion about the vital role played by skepticism in science in editions 1 and 2 was removed in edition 3. (An editor told me they lacked space in edition 3–but I counted more than 10 pages of white space. He said they would try to return skepticism in the next edition.)
Qualification: Since 4 Feb 1990, I have measured the ozone layer, total column water vapor, the optical depth of the atmosphere and solar UVB. I have calibrated my instruments at Hawaii’s high-altitude Mauna Loa Observatory every summer since 1992. (This experience led to a NOAA assignment to write “Hawai’i’s Mauna Loa Observatory: 50 Years of Monitoring the Atmosphere.” University of Hawaii Press, 2012.) I’ve consulted for EPA, NASA, NOAA, NSTA, National Geographic Society, TERC, Concord Consortium and others. I was a senior judge for the NSTA Duracell Competition and co-PI for the GLOBE Program’s sun photometer program. I wrote some 35 electronics books and developed lab kits for Radio Shack. I’ve published many papers about my atmospheric science with more on the way.
Well, good. If there’s one thing that’s been lacking in the field of climate science, it’s skepticism. in any event, the bad angel in me is not sympathetic. If Leftists can influence history books to minimize the “dead white guys”, then this is just giving them a dose of their own medicine. Don’t like politicization of education? Sorry…that train left the station a long time ago. And guess who was driving the train?
Article starts by noting a hurricane. Clearly trying to imply that global warming led to the hurricane. When science shows that frequency of hurricanes has decreased in the last decade. Amazing way to start complaining about some ignoring science. Find a mirror dude.
Is it so unreasonable, for example, for students to look at the graph of the ensemble of climate model outputs vs. the UAH global lower-atmosphere temperature record and weather-balloon records, as presented to Congress by John Christy, and consider what it means for observations to diverge from theory? Skepticism and the possibility of falsification are what distinguishes science from religion. AGW is fast approaching the status of the latter.
Many of us engineer types do not dispute the GW part, but we are not so sure about the extent of the A.
The article is written almost in a panic mode of someone whose religious beliefs are under attack from a believer in climate change, one who will chant “the science is settled” while protesting 100 feet up a redwood.
The reality is, and even the undisputed authority, the UN IPCC admits, there is no computer model for the last 5 decades of “global cooling… global warming… climate change” that accurately models the climate… or even next week’s weather. None. Zip. Nada. Zero.
And… all the authorities doubt a successful model will be around the corner for decades.
To be blunt to the author… skepticism is absolutely key to science and the advancement of science. Questioning everything…even giants like Newton and Einstein, is how humanity advances. The people of Florida want skepticism taught in their science classes? The want to question the data of global warming… climate change … and teach their children to challenge the data in full debate? Good for them!!!
What the author wants is not a science textbook. He want a scripture to preach his climate change dogma and faith as science.
If I believe in cyclical glaciation due to precession, does that make me a denier? If sea levels were 200 feet lower 16,000 years ago and have essentially stable for the past 8,000, does that mean I’m anti-science? If humans can’t go totally off carbon-based energy sources for the foreseeable future, is the only hope for the planet a catastrophic decrease in humanity? Should we encourage students to think through questions like “what causes climate change” as part of their education?
Just a thought from a geology background, but not a climatologist. I can tell you what happened in the past, but unlike climatologists, we’re unable to predict the future. While intuitively, mankind should be impacting our biosphere, would love to know how much a major volcanic eruption impacts and to what degree; solar change in output and why do people build their cities at sea level on deltas and fill next to large bodies of water. Before lowering the standard of living of industrialized countries in the quest to save the planet, planetary climate scientists might want to do more work to build a consensus. I’m certainly a skeptic.
I’m a geologist and do not feel qualified to make decisions on what is or isn’t influencing the Climate. However, what
I do know is that Climatology, as a science, is off the rails and has become agenda driven. Its accepted methodology is a travesty.
Is the world warming? I don’t know. Is it warming because of human activity? I don’t know. If warming, is it a negative? I don’t know.
Beats me how the ‘science is settled’ when there is little or actual science.
I don’t deny that less than 25,000 years ago northern Illinois was covered by more than mile of glacial ice. I don’t deny that less than 12,000 years ago mammoths were flash frozen in Siberia with fresh grasses still in their stomachs. I don’t deny that about 8,000 years ago, the oceans were about 0.7 degrees C. warmer than they are today. I don’t deny that 1,000 years ago Vikings in Greenland were cropping barley so they could use the grain to make beer. I don’t deny that millions of Europeans died in the Great Famine of 1315–17, caused by cold and wet conditions. I don’t deny that the Thames River froze solid to such an extent that during 26 separate winters from 1408 until 1814, Londoners were able to hold a Frost Fair on the ice.
I don’t deny that Anasazi settled in the Mesa Verde region of the American Southwest about 1,600 years ago to practice subsistence farming. The climate in the region slowly became much more dry. By the end of the 13th century the population collapsed. I don’t deny any of this.
The truth is that the climate is always changing. There would be something wrong it it did not. The real question for us today is to what extent is human activity harming our biosphere in a material manner, so that it endangers our food and ecosystem. Up until now, advocates of “climate change” demand solutions that converge far more on socialism than on anything else. This is a means to an ideological ends having nothing at all do do with protecting the biosphere. It is intended to advance the long awaited secular Utopia. They don’t deny their goal.
The best way to silence, or reduce the noise of, critics is to go around them: Show how alternative energy is now cheaper for utilities than other sources, and is getting cheaper. Recent bids for supplying continuous, 24-hour power is now for wind plus electrical battery storage at 2.1 cents/kWh Second lowest was PV plus storage at 3.2 cents/kWh. By Comparison, if Plant Vogtle nuclear plant is finished and operational the wholesale price is over 15 cents/kWh, and it must run at that cost for 50 years to pay off.
By contrast, we put up solar PV on our rooftop three years ago, with what I calculated to have a 15-17 year payback. Before it could be installed, we got a VW e-Golf, and found out the savings took the PV system payback down to three and one-half years. The addition of the second EV has paid it all off, and now all our fuel for house power and horsepower is free, and those electrical systems do not need mechanical maintenance. We have no oil or changes, no transmission worries, no tune-ups, no emissions tests, no injector problems or need for mufflers,no need to go gas up.
If we had to pay for the power we charge with at night. the VW would cost 3 cents/mile to drive and the Tesla Model S, P 85 would cost 4 cents/mile. The scientists do not needed to convince the Deniers, we can just change the technologies.
Skepticism is the life-blood of science. Modern science as elucidated by Karl Popper, requires skepticism. It is built into the scientific method that as peer-reviewed papers are published other scientists attempt to replicate the experiment (the authors of the study in question are required to turn over their data, methodology, etc., whatever is necessary for replication). The scientists may agree or disagree with the results of the study that does not matter. It is only after the experiment has been replicated many times that it has any standing. One failed attempt to replicate the experiment kills the hypothesis.
Most experimental work done on global warming/climate science is performed on computers using non-empirical (computer-generated) data. Non-empirical data is not allowed by the scientific method.
Finally, I am tired of hearing about concensus or that the science is settled. Science can never be settled (unless of course, you know the future). Consensus is a political term having nohjing to do with science. History is replete with examples -last year 140 years of scientific ‘certainty’ was overturned when it was discovered that a lichen not only required certain types of algae and moss, but also a particular type of yast to make the symbiotic relationship work.
It appears that Jason Otto is unfamiliar with the studies that completely debunked the “97% of all scientists agree” lie. No, 15,000 scientists never said that there is global warming and that it is manmade and reversible. The actual number is a little lower than 97%; it is 0.3%. A minor difference, to be certain, but a telling one.
Very few scientists even believe that we are in a global warming cycle; they are afraid of being found as foolish as those in the 1970s who were crying that manmade global cooling was about to initiate a new Ice Age (remember the covers of Time, Newsweek, and others back then?).
The truth is that, based upon longer and more germane cycles than those falsely touted by the IPCC, this planet of ours is very close to the end of a warming cycle, and that we are headed for our next Ice Age. This won’t happen tomorrow, but within a couple of centuries we should see some effects.
Scientists are also a little too intelligent to attempt to isolate one specific factor as the leading cause of global warming when everyone should know that there are hundreds if not thousands of contributing factors. Carbon dioxide is just one of them, and a very minor one at that. Water vapor is much more significant, but Al Gore hasn’t figured out how to become a gazillionaire by taxing water vapor.
Oh, and by the way, carbon dioxide is essential to all life on earth. Some scientists estimate that if the level of CO2 in the atmosphere were ever to approach 150 ppm, all animal life (and human life) would cease because we would be unable to feed ourselves. We came dangerously close to that level prior to the Industrial Revolution, when the level fell to 280 ppm, the lowest level ever known on earth. We should count our blessings that technology has made a contribution, albeit a tiny one, to making human life possible by increasing the amount of CO2 in the air.
Let’s say that we were foolish enough to allow the expenditures of many trillions of dollars in an experiment to reduce CO2 levels, and that we were able to enlist the firm and unwavering support of every political entity and corporation on the planet. That in itself is a complete impossibility, but let’s say that we could. We will look pretty foolish when it is finally and conclusively discovered that:
1) Reducing CO2 levels is virtually impossible even if the world’s population moves back into the Stone Age,
2) Reducing CO2 levels has no impact on global warming or climate change,
3) We have reduced crop yields and forced millions into poverty and starvation because there was no longer enough CO2 in the atmosphere to feed all of us.
As they say, when Al Gore was born there were 7,000 polar bears. Now that they are threatened by global warming/climate change, their numbers have declined to only 33,000. (That’s not a typo.)
Sorry, Al. Some truths really are inconvenient.
Even if AGW was occurring as hypothesized by the IPCC and other environmentalists, i.e. the worse case is currently happening and will continue into the future, the chance of the temps being higher on those days in 2040 is 50/50. I wouldn’t bet $10k on red on roulette. However, I’d be willing to bet that at some point between now and 2040 the 30yr trend of Global Average Temperatures in the UAH satellite record with 11yr smoothing decreases in excess of the 95% confidence internal of 0.1C, or in other words that the records show a period of global cooling between now and then.
Just because we are likely currently in a period of global warming, that doesn’t mean that it is harmful, a crisis, unprecedented, or won’t reverse on its own.
But when it gets too warm from greenhouse gases plants can’t grow and like the forests and wildfires now they start to burn giving back their carbon to the atmosphere and increasing temperatures to levels impossible to breathe in. That’s where we’re at now unless we extract some of those gases to cool us down and avoid total loss of food and extinction.
I will make a bet with anyone.
You pick three cities and three dates.
I will bet that the temperature in those three cities on those three dates (9 data points) will be higher in 2040 than in 2021.
We each put $10,000 into a trust and the money will go to the charity of your choice if the temperature is lower in 2040 than in 2021.
If the temperature is higher in 2040 then the money goes to the charity of my choice.
I will pay the legal bills to set up the trust.
You KNOW that AGW is real. You are just hoping for the best. Your children and grandchildren will look back and think that people who didn’t accept the science of AGW in 2018 were stupid and wrong and caused massive problems for their generations.
Nothing says ‘scientific’ like the avoidance of skepticism?!! Simply unbelievable. Science is all about acceptance of current orthodoxy?!! It isn’t that people don’t trust science, they don’t trust obviously unscientific beliefs like “No Skepticism!!!”
The author has confused political conformity with science.
This is most probably how Stephen Hawking would have felt arguing with the “Indians of the headwaters of the river Humaita” – about the world being round not flat. If Pythagoras knew that some people are still arguing about it 2000 + years later he would be laughing (or crying) his ass off. Especially when we are in the age capable of sending people to space and splitting the atom.
First of all let me tell you, with out science and technology which are one and the same we would have nothing today – we would still be monkeys in the bush.
Then, let me clarify something for the cognitivaley challenged (and this is not an opinion – this is 2000 years worth of accumulated effort by the worlds leading, most intelligent, most educated thinkers ) – fact :
Climate change is a natural AND……CURRENTLY a man made / driven occurrence – duh. Slowly when occurring naturally – accelerated by the impact of mankind’s actions. END OF STORY. Same as extinction and evolution.
People seem to love scientists when they create the light bulb or developed penicillin but when it comes to making people uncomfortable or messes with business revenue streams or politicians amounts of votes, then all of a sudden scientists have no idea what they are talking about. I suppose CFC’s are great and did nothing to destroy our ozone layer? This didn’t affect our climate? Nasa made a big deal about it because of nothing and the world banned it for fun?
Funny how we got to the stage where your common shmoe on the street (who has never invented anything , discovered anything or even finished higher level education or taking it on them self to do research or anything towards self edification) knows more than scientists? 15000 well educated, well researched, people who have taken the time and done the experiments and gone through the data, leading thinkers, teachers, professors and scientists have warned us about the part we play in climate change. Why would they lie or make up stories anyway? What do they have to gain? Money – there is no money to the scientist who shows how we are stuffing up our planet by messing up the climate faster than it would have done on its own. There is no fame in it either. One last time – why would 15000 scientists lie about it -what do they have to gain?
We’re going to tell them they don’t know what they are talking about? Well if professors, teachers and scientists have no idea what they are talking about why the hell does anyone go to school. Why don’t we just scrap all education and descend into uncivilized chaos living in the bush. Repeat the roman 1000 year long DARK AGES. At least the earth will last a bit longer, provided there are no nuclear bombs left lying around (which I also suppose don’t impact climate in any way – according to these fools).
Mothers, fathers, family, teachers, thinkers, children – every one who cares about something besides ego validation and attention: do the research, educate yourself – stand up for the truth and whats better for all of us (ALL THE EARTHLINGS) and put these idiots where they belong. In a dark room, locked up from humanity, far far away.
Wake up, stop arguing to win – start arguing to know the truth.
To Richard Ellison – if the science has been sloppy until now – then you do it (make sure to follow scientific rules and procedure though – like same experiment, same result = conclusion). Also the nature of the field of science is to grow. You accept current scientific understanding and build from it, in the process you challenge current understanding and test test test. If there are any errors you fix them, because in science you cant move forward if you built on error…………………..
An example of science:
Over the course of human history, people have developed many interconnected and validated ideas about the physical, biological, psychological, and social worlds. Those ideas have enabled successive generations to achieve an increasingly comprehensive and reliable understanding of the human species and its environment. The means used to develop these ideas are particular ways of observing, thinking, experimenting, and validating. These ways represent a fundamental aspect of the nature of science and reflect how science tends to differ from other modes of knowing.
Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, most scientific knowledge is durable. The modification of ideas, rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in science, as powerful constructs tend to survive and grow more precise and to become widely accepted. For example, in formulating the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein did not discard the Newtonian laws of motion but rather showed them to be only an approximation of limited application within a more general concept. (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration uses Newtonian mechanics, for instance, in calculating satellite trajectories.) Moreover, the growing ability of scientists to make accurate predictions about natural phenomena provides convincing evidence that we really are gaining in our understanding of how the world works. Continuity and stability are as characteristic of science as change is, and confidence is as prevalent as tentativeness.
“As per American Association for the Advancement of Science – Scientific Knowledge Is Durable”
“Scientific Knowledge Is Durable” But what if what you imagine, but cannot test, is not science at all?
No. “Scientific Knowledge is testable” if it is anything useful. And Al Gore’s team lied and withheld data from people. They fudged figures, and no-one else has been able to make the data do the same thing. Are you a knowledgeable scientist with the ability to review this highly complex, multi-discipline field?
Do you really believe in the data? Then demonstrate why all the models failed to predict no increase in global average temperatures for the last 19 years. This was despite the fact that all models said temperatures would rise with the CO2 increase, which has been +100 ppm since records began. This is a rise of 0.03% o 0.04% CO2. Gosh. And you are so sure this miniscule rise of CO2 is going to make the planet uninhabitable? Lunacy. Read what Mr Mill has written and do some real science. Grow up and stop ranting please.
I have two questions for proponents of AGW:
1. What’s the temperature going to be at 4th and Main at noon one month from today? They purport to be able to accurately predict the temperature, to within tenths of a degree, 20 years from now yet can’t tell us what it’s going to be a month from now.
2. What’s the temperature right now? I live near Orlando, Florida. Earlier this evening I heard the nice weather lady say (pp.) “Currently it’s 83 degrees downtown, 82 at the airport and 84 at the attractions.” How does that go into the records?
1. No, they do not “purport to be able to accurately predict the temperature … 20 years from now.” Climate models do not predict the weather. The supercomputer models are essentially low-resolution weather simulations that are run many times, which collectively characterize the climate. The word “climate” refers to the range of weather patterns, such as minimum/average/maximum precipitation/temperature. Put “climate spaghetti plot” in Google images to see this in action. You can see that the simulations collectively calculate a range of possible temperatures, not a single temperature.
2. “How does that go into the records?” It depends what country you live in. The U.S. has the USHCN but I’m not well-versed in its practices.
If the Heartland Institute is more credible on the history of climate change than the bubbly headed CO2 AGW proponents that over influence the IPCC, perhaps they should be acknowledged.
The IPCC models have not been accurate in predicting the future as the actual temperatures which occurred indicated. The reports admitted that factors responsible for past climate change were not used in many instances.
The students need a basic understanding of climate and the factors (periodical oceanic/atmospheric oscillations, Solar sunspot cycles, Milankovitch orbital cycles, geological events, etc.) that have contributed to climate change in the past going back to the Pleistocene era and beyond. They should know that there was no North Polar ice cap until 2.6 mya or that, since the end of the Pleistocene, glaciers several mile thick in New York latitudes melted and sea levels have rose 400 feet since then. They should be aware of CO2 levels then and now. Optimal levels of CO2 in green house farms are 1000 ppm. Are current CO2 levels of 400+ ppm a problem as the AGW proponents insist.
The AGW proponents have misappropriated ‘climate change’ to malign those who advocate that the historical factors responsible for past climate change challenge the AGW theory’s conclusions. The opponents of AGW are not deniers but realists.
Perhaps, when Florida is mostly underwater, they might start to think differently. Well, probably not, since they don’t seem to understand what science is or how it works.
Take two pennies. Lay one flat on a table top. Next take another penny and lay it flat upon the first. The height of the two pennies is approximately 3mm, the average annual rise of sea level. Now take one penny away because the seas have been rising 1.5mm per year for centuries. One can reasonably say that the height of the remaining penny, 1.5mm is man’s contribution to sea level rise.
Eventually, that may cause Florida to be inundated – but not for a very, very, very long time.
What is more concerning is that Florida is sinking, due to a number of factors: pumping ground water, glacial rebound, etc.
It is called science – a subject the Miami Herald rarely covers. They prefer narrative and sensationalism – but so much for the media, at least let’s keep it out of the schools.
In that vein, I believe every obituary should at least begin in the following manner:
“Modern Humans, which arose some 3oo,000 years ago, are subjected to a repeated cycle and continuous cycle of life followed and death. The small segment of the cycle we are currently concerned with (John Doe) began 57 years ago and ended last Tuesday when John Doe was killed by a massive heart attack. Given the long history of life and death, it should be clear that the broader historical cycle of life and death was little influenced by John as an individual’s: overconsumption of food and alcohol, his internet argument induced hypertension, his choice to live entirely in a sauna the temperature of which he increased a fraction of a degree every week, or what 98 percent of the medical experts interviewed called a “pathological need” to deny the impacts his lifestyle was having on his health. It should be clear that with or without John the cycle of life and death will continue. John would want us to close with his favorite red-herring argument, noting that a full accounting of the historical causes of life and death for the entirety of human history hasn’t been completed fully-100-percent-totally-completed, so his behavior today (well at least until last Tuesday at 7:07 PM) should also be discussed outside the context of modern medical knowledge about the results of over-consumption in a closed system (his cherished sauna).”
If you think this is scary… read: The Shadow President, a description of how Pence believes he is destined by God to become the next president and create a theocracy in this country. This FL group is right up his alley. Dangerous because their “science” is based on Bible stories not on science. The book was a REAL wake up call! Undark has the right idea! Expand your education, learn, learn, learn.
Science should be taught with heavy skepticism not as an indoctrination. If everyone is taught to accept current science there will be no new discoveries. Many scientists are skeptical of the current climate change theories. The only people that appear certain in their beliefs are those that have a financial (grants, etc) and those without a science background. Much of the work done to this point is pretty sloppy science.
I read this with great interest this morning since next week, in the college psychology survey course I teach, climate change is coming up as part of the unit on stress and health. I try to teach my students to be critical readers, healthily skeptical of how psychology studies, presents research, and practices. What I don’t want is for them to throw out the baby with the bath water: I want them to understand and accept the science on climate change, to look at its psychological implications, and to be empowered to take their knowledge out into the world and act on it. But most of all, I don’t want my science teaching to be dismissed, attacked, and possibly silenced as political. This should not be a political issue! So I found myself wishing, as I read, for organizations like the ones being developed for environmental science teachers that would support social science instructors like myself in learning more about climate change and how to teach it; in identifying flaws in climate-skepticism articles, papers, and videos; and in finding and giving (in an organized way) mutual peer support out here in the trenches.
Every article and textbook on climate change should be required to start with the following:
“The Pleistocene epoch, which started some 2.6 million years ago, has been characterized by repeated periods of glaciation, followed by inter-glacial periods. The most recent inter-glacial period started approximately 12,000 years ago when the ice sheets that covered much of North America and Europe began retreating. It should be clear that historical human activity had no impact on this cycle of glacial and inter-glacial periods and the drivers of this climate change are still unclear.”
“the drivers of this climate change are still unclear”
Mainstream climate scientists are pretty much in agreement about how this works. Here’s how it works: the 100,000-year cycle we’ve seen for the past 800,000 years is driven by orbital forcing (Milankovich cycles), and that this orbital forcing causes small temperature changes which change the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, which in turn change the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which increases or decreases global temperatures, which further alters the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, and so forth until the orbital cycle changes phase.
You presented no data. The story you outlined may be fine, but where are the data?
M. Mann and Al Gore’s work was deception, and the data was fiddled. This is plain for anyone to see. But you would deny this.
Are you going to listen or review with me the details in the real science, and can you do mathematics to the level required to analyse the data with proper confidence limits, understanding the impacts of the assumptions?
-And the report on the 2015 Senate hearing is long but sufficiently detailed so that the lay-person can get the principle points. I highly recommend it for a balance of truth from both sides. Frank and full presentations:
DATA OR DOGMA? PROMOTING OPEN INQUIRY IN THE DEBATE OVER THE MAGNITUDE OF HUMAN IMPACT ON EARTH’S CLIMATE
At a Will Steiger climate science workshop in Minnesota, Eugenia Scott of the National Center for Science Education spoke on the issue of climate change education. It was August of 2012 and she predicted that climate science would be the next evolution challenge in our science curriculums. In fact it already was. This is an excellent article. As a retired biology teacher I was very involved in evolution education and the promotion/development of sound evoluttion based biology curriculum. It is an ongoing challenge.