Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Only a Theory, Says School Board
BendingSpoons writes "A Seattle school board has placed a moratorium on screenings of 'An Inconvenient Truth', having found its subject matter too controversial. Echoing the language of the evolution debate, the school board found that students must be told that global warming is only a theory and presented with an opposing viewpoint. The ban was prompted by the complaints of a parent: '"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."'"
Federal Way is almost 26 miles south of Seattle, and the only thing in common both cities have is that they both share the same county. It's like saying San Jose is San Francisco, because they both have "San" in their names.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
When global warming isn't a theory anymore, it will kind of be like hell on earth. So I guess the bible is right?
- Aetheral Research -
Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
The fundamentalist Christians are out breeding the rest of us. We must catch up.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Cue 2000+ flames. Doesn't anyone get tired of this?
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
...that this nonsense is being spoken by someone who couldn't possibly be even considered sensible or correct... having anything close to a valid argument against global warming.
I just want to say sorry from all us normal Christians.
You are all a bunch of idots.
But what do other opposing sources say?
The Koran?
Hindu beliefs?
Various Native (North and South) American legends?
Buddhist Teachings?
If you are going to provide one opposing viewpoint, you better be ready to provide many others as well.
This space unintentionally left blank.
In other words ...
Washington, Gore, the whole lot. We all know that the truth about both the age of the earth and cause of global warming lies in the truth as told by His Noodleness on high.
Ramen.
><));>
I doubt that 1+2=3. Please do not teach this in math anymore unless I am allowed to present my opinion about it.
I don't understand... He does say he believes in the end the earth will burn up, right? So it has to start warming up for that to happen, right? So what is his problem?
He is just jumping ahead and spoiling "An Inconvenient Truth 2", which will deal with what will happen in the end if we don't stop global warming. Wait for the release dude, and you will see the part about the Earth burning up!
We have records that prove the climate is warming up, the debate is weather (sic) climate change is due to environmental pollution or just part of some natural cycle.
No I didn't RTFA and don't care if it was just the submitter being a dork.
"Only a theory". What arguments do they have against it? A theory is the best explanation for an observed phenomena. These quacks should get their heads out of the sand.
Yes, global warming is happening. It is something that is measured. It is something that can be verified using physical modeling. In fact, the world is warming at an alarming rate. There is not a single reputable scientist who denies it. Only in the news media do you find this "controversy".
Does Al Gore get all the facts in his movie? No, but it does not diminish his message.
"The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."
Just make the kids watch Reign of Fire afterwards. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253556/ It ironically has the same scientific merit as the view that the parent demands from the school. You're welcome Seattle School Board!
"The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD." Meeh, I saw the projected global temperature chart... that curve looked nearly vertical at the end. I think Al Gore and the Bible are pretty much aligned on this point.
In a government-controlled system it is great when your side is in control, but when the other side gains control, it can be hellish. I used to be a Libertarian (now I consider myself more of a Paleoconservative); however, I recognize the necessity of public funding for healthcare and schools; however, I still think that one should have a variety of publically-funded options available to them. If every child had a school voucher (that could only be given to an education institute that met certain basic academic qualifications), I think the education system could be improved greatly.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
I own An Inconvenient Truth (the movie not the book). And I would like to say that although some people still consider the effects that are predicted by that movie to be "a theory," they are hard to disprove. A fact is that we're sitting at carbon levels in our atmosphere above anything ever indicated by ice cores from around the world. Correlating the temperature with carbon levels could be construed as erroneous. Maybe the temperatures have a capping limit? I don't want to think up possibilities because I happen to agree heavily with that correlation.
Now, I might have sat here and ranted and raved about how I watched material in high school or grade school on physics or nature programs that could have been just as theoretical as An Inconvenient Truth but I'm not going to. Why? Well, there were two points in the movie that I didn't care for. One was the election campaign. The other was Gore's son's near death experience. These are political and emotional issues. They do not belong in science nor do they belong being taught in a classroom setting that is centered on science. Politics class? Psychology class? Maybe. But I would really wish he had stuck to the facts and used that valuable time that he had my undivided attention to counter some arguments I've heard against his movie.
I have tried to keep an open mind about this issue for both sides. Gore's movie certainly swayed me, I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that. The fact is that it's a political issue no matter how much science is involved. If parents don't want it taught to their children, that's fine. I've bought the movie twice (once for me, once for my sister), the word will get out someway somehow.
My work here is dung.
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
I'm getting disgusted with these people whose minds are so narrow that they are oblivious to the world around them. I am a Christian myself and people making comments like the ones in the article only make all of us look ridiculous.
Hard Hat Area: Sig Construction Zone
Kids are often surprisingly smart, if you just tell them the real deal. A critical missing element of public education is teaching kids to adjudicate competing claims. This topic is a wonderful opportunity to teach science, civics, critical thinking, and world religions in a single issue, without being dry.
It would be a shame for us to simply demand that the school board decide that global warming is the truth, and miss a great teaching opportunity. I hope we don't do that.
The truth is Global Warming is just a theory, just like The New Ice Age was a few decades ago and Silent Spring was before that... Unfortunately the Frosty's give creedence by way of their idiocy to people just as admant about their wacky beliefs.
This
"Frosty" Hardison?
... what?
Is that some kind of coincidence or
I could be wrong here, but it seems like the problem is not with global warming, but AlGore's movie and the theories as to what is causing global warming. I know that it is currently vogue to point out how stupid people are that disagree with the current group-think, but that's not what is going on here. Parents complained because their kids were forced to watch AlGore's movie and 100% of it was presented as fact. Man may be causing global warming, he may not. People much smarter than any of us argue both sides of that debate. It is conceited to think that just because something is happening, it must be our doing. Man didn't cause the global warming that ended the last ice-age, it's possible we have nothing or little to do with it this time around.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I can just smell it--the thread is about to turn into a big old "let's bash the religious right" flamefest. Been there, done that. Let's move on. The aptly-named global warming denier, Frosty Hardison, may be ridiculous, but that doesn't mean this isn't a great opportunity to teach kids about how science.
Consider--the school board says kids must be presented with both sides. Great--this is how science works. Global warming is probably the most controversial scientific subject today, so let's show kids the research on both sides, the rebuttals, the propaganda, etc. Turn it into the theme for an entire school year. In English, have them read and write reports on a few peer-reviewed global warming research papers or books about global warming. Analyze the rhetoric and the logic. In math, teach them how to interpret graphs using examples from those research papers. In physics, teach them about blackbody radiation, thermodynamics, and everything else you need to understand the basic principles of the greenhouse effect. In biology, cover photosynthesis and the carbon cycle.
Do everything right and the kids will not only get a much, much better picture of what's happening with global warming, they'll also understand the scientific method and learn how to spot junk science. Maybe the parents will even learn something from their kids.
Anyone that believes that has a few screws loose and should be ignored.
I dont care what your religious orientation is and your view of the 'end of the world', thats just stupid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I cringe every time I hear "global warming". It has become a political code word rather than something that conveys scientific meaning or even any meaning at all.
1) We need to distinguish between long term climate change and short term climate change.
2) We need to distinguish between human-causes and natural causes.
3) Skeptics must be heard and not shouted down and ridiculed.
It is almost as though "global warming" has been voted into existence. I feel we need more info on theories on how solar output might change over time (chaotic in some ways, but maybe predicatble in other ways). We need more info on why the mini ice age happened. We need more info on where we are in terms of coming out of the "big" ice age. We need to be careful to distinguish direct temperature measurements of the last 125 years versus indirect measurements.
Finally, we need every news story about climate, weather, geography, evolution, extinction, and health to have some shifty-eyed reference to "global warming". Predictions about "this will be the warmest..." have happened since 2002. Most wrong. Remember the hurricane predictions for 2006? Nope, even those prediction which were "linked to global warming" were dismissed due the "effects of global warming." This stuff is in the news almost every day.
I feel that there is a real possibility that in 100 years, humanity may look back at this topic as something even more group-think than the typical "tulip bulb" group-think that happened on a much smaller scale years ago. The earth is getting warmer because we are leaving both a mini and a big ice age. I learned that in freakin' catholic school in the 1970's when Time magainze heralded the coming new ice age again and again.
I am certainly an environmentalist. I practice what I preach. But, I'm so disappointed at how the "global warming" thing has been completely misappropriated. Both sides of the political spectrum need to be ashamed at how science is twisted to make their case.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Also, condoms do belong in schools. Safe sex is important, and they're having sex anyway. Anyone who thinks differently is probably an idiot. 90% of Americans have pre-maritial sex (link) seems pretty damn important.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure Al Gore was a professor at Columbia for a time (visiting I know..) and that he's smarter than the idiot who seriously believes the earth is a few thousand years old.
My rantings, only longer and with better spelling..
Using Christianity to try and get this movie banned is just cheap. While intelligent design and creationism both don't have hard proof (some would argue it does, but the fact is nothing is provable 100%), all that Gore's movie does is provide evidence. In reality, the parent would only be complaining because Al Gore is presenting it, and he ran for president against Bush.
I mean common, Al Gore didn't even collect the evidence himself, he's only repeating what other people have found. What a load of croc.
drastic than imagined. This one case of a school board deciding what is science and comparing it to fundamentalist beliefs. Please note that they are 'beliefs' not proven facts which are being compared to hard science. I'm not going to tell you whether humankind is responsible for global warming or not, but the globe is getting warmer. That's proven on many levels.
When ever, and I mean WHEN EVER we let 'beliefs' guide our views and legislation regarding what is safe for the world or community, then we are lost. To ignore science in preference of 'beliefs' is to endanger those you love... children, family, etc. and perhaps we should enact legislation against such dangerous behavior.
Sure, its fine for you to believe what you want at home, but when you start bringing it into politics... time for you to be put in jail for crimes of endangerment and encitement...
Okay, that's probably overkill, but that's what comes to mind when I hear this stuff...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
It's not unreasonable that some would argue with single viewpoints being presented to schoolchildren.
When the US President gives the State of the Union speech there is always a "contrasting" speech given by which ever major politcal party the President doesn't belong to. Actually most of the public speeches elict a response from "the other side". For split Supreme Court decisions there will be a majority and a minority opinion. For close votes the minority opinion is usually given close scrutiny. It's a given that the US goverment will speak from two different viewpoints. "Opposing Opinion" is not something new around here.
Are the teachers who are using "An Inconvenient Truth" as part of the curriculum allowing for any debate? Are they presenting any opposing points, even as part of a discussion as to why these other points might not have merit? Or, are they popping in a DVD and letting the word "Truth" in the title say it all?
The scariest line in the article was the one from the producer of the DVD "There is no opposing view to science". This implies that "science" is static, we'll never learn more and if we do learn more it will never conflict with what we know now. What a moron.
Only an idiot would declare the DVD all wrong. But only an idiot would swallow it all just because it was labled "science".
...yet despite that nonsense, a school board kowtowed to his demands. That has a powerful message: the toughest argument to fight is an invalid one, especially in front of an uneducated audience.
You used one yourself, in fact- you engaged in ad hominem. Maybe he is a hick; it doesn't affect the validity of his argument, which can be dismissed on other grounds (example: one is science, the other is a belief system.) It's no different than saying "well, that pro-evolution scientist is GAY!"
Furthermore, the article summary and TFA both help perpetuate the myth that evolution and global warming are theories. They're not. They're proven fact- and one of the reasons An Inconvenient Truth is so unpopular with those who don't "believe" in global warming is because it step-by-step, methodically destroys every argument they've used against global warming. Evolution is also proven fact based on not just a decade or two of research, but more than a century and a half of research.
Please help metamoderate.
Al Gore does serve as a powerful prophylactic.
Why in the hell did the reporter continue to listen after "...14,000 years old". If the person had started to say "...I believe I am Napoleon and therefore global warming is wrong..." they would have backed away from that nutjob and looked for a more salient point of view. What the hell does any one's silly religious superstitions have to do with showing a science based documentary in a school? Seems to me that they can't attack the science so they make it about condoms and Al Gore.
In closing, I hope this guy gets vicious, painful ass-cancer.
Setting aside all of the problems in banning something in schools because it does not conform with someones religious views, a greater crime is being committed here. In the article, the school board member who works to ban the movie says, "the beauty of our society is we allow debate." Well, we have created a public debate outside of schools. It is largely isolated from students. Banning a subject to avoid controversy only adds to the current problems with the development of critical thought in schools.
Besides, the movie presents far more facts and, IMHO, has less bias then most movies shown in schools.
we'll except maybe for the earth being just 14,000 years old ... anyway here goes
1. Global warming caused by human inhabitation is indeed a theory
2. There is a hell of a lot of opposition to that theory that needs to be heard
3. Condoms don't belong in class (there's lunch recess for that)
4. People like Al Gore should not be afforded a platform in public schools
5. This planet will indeed be vaporized when the sun switches to helium fusion
and turns into a red giant.
Other than that this is another interesting piece of propaganda trying to wake indignation
against questioning man-made global warming. Interesting because the spinmeisters used some pretty
odd ingredients like a school-board doing the right thing with a christian kook
thrown in for flavor.
Heresy! The Earth and everything else in God's universe was created 6,000 years ago.
Burn him!
It is, however, going to be included in the Director's Cut, due for release December 21, 2012.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
FUKING bible thumper, get a clue. Evolution is real, global warming is real, and the earth is millions, if not billions years old!
other "theories":
- Theory of Gravity
- Theory of Relativity
- Atomic Theory
Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
(Say it with me:)
rAmen!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
seeing as no one has stated the obvious:
, Nutter
And I hope for his kids
The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD.
I assume he's talking about this:
The first sounded, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. One third of the earth was burnt up, and one third of the trees were burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.
So, really? The temperature going up 2 degrees over a few decades is "hail and fire, mixed with blood?" Really? Dude, this apocalypse of yours doesn't really seem all that bad now.
1. Is the parent a school teacher? If not...pot? Meet kettle.
2. As far as I'm aware, grade school/high school teachers don't come up with the knowledge that is taught in classrooms...they teach it. I'm guessing virtually everything taught in school should be barred by this person's "logic".
3. What is with people wanting unscientific, religious/metaphysical subject matter being taught alongside science in schools? If somebody wants to believe Earth is 14,000 years old, well, okay; but there's no reason to subject children to that kind of nonsense.
The 10 years until the point of no return statement that he made is sort of ridiculous (only because that timeline occurred 20 years ago). Global warming would not be nearly as political of a topic if the scientists pointed out that global warming is going to occur *and* there is not a damn thing we can do about it.
My recommendation? Mine the Earth and the rest of the Solar System for their resources and then move on like the aliens in Independence Day. Alpha Centari is looking good this part of the millennium.
...and not because of global warming! It's doomed because inclination to have children is inversely proportional to intelligence -- the idiots are out-breeding us!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I live in the UK, so I may be wrong on this respect, but doesn't US law separate religion and the state? Surely a school should be under state jurisdiction. And surely, if any religion is mentioned, others should be mentioned in equal regard, so as not to shoe a bias of the state towards one religion.
Even in the UK, Christianity is one religion that school always teach in RE lessons (as far as I'm aware). Most of my lessons concentrated on Christianity, only later moving on to spending part of our time on Islam.
Even with that, recent events have caused a lot of nonsensical fear of other religions over here (mainly Islam), which cause many problems. At my old school, half the students in a class weren't allowed to go on a trip to a mosque, because parents would not sign permission slips. I'm sure the same problem wouldn't happen if it were a church.
I'm no fan of fundamentalism, especially that of Christianity, and events like these help to further cement my opinions on religions. I've got to the point where I'm not sure what I'm saying now, so I'll leave it at that.
Now I have to change the name when filling in future job applications for the high tech industry.
If you post it, they will read.
Didn't we all think we were going to freeze to death in the New Ice Age, back in the 60's and 70's? Because all the exaust from our cars absorbing heat above the surface, thus making the surface cooler?
;-)
Also... Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Just because the emission of "greenhouse" gases has increased over the same period that the mean temperature of the planet has increased does not mean that the one caused the other.
The amount of increase compared to the total volume of the atmosphere of the planet is miniscule. Comparing present amounts to past amounts doesn't seem sound to me. Now, comparing present percent composition to past percent composition seems more logical to me, though I somehow doubt that these gases will even account for 0.00001% of the composition of the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is just too big to be affected be affected by something that small, even if it does contain heat better than nitrogen and oxygen.
And besides, by the time we are all forced to ride our bikes 90 miles each way to work and school every day (yes, I live 90 miles from work), the planet will already be cooling in its natural cycle anyway, the ecologists will declare success, but too bad, the Regression Fallacy will have you in its clutches as well. Too bad.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."
I wonder if they saw the whole movie. At the end of the movie, Gore stresses that the US has made strong contribution against global warming, and can do more. He really ends it with a positive note.
This is just one example of the danger of religion. The earth being 14,000 years old reminds me of the Book of Mormon, a book replete with erroneous and contradictory information. There is enough conclusive information to state that the earth is a lot older. Any other belief is ignorance bordering on closed-mindedness.
yes, global warming is just a theory
So also are gravity, nuclear energy, escape velocity for space travel and numerous other things we deal with every day
This is how science works. Everything is a theoryu even when it is 100% backed up by proof because someone might find a proof that explains it better sometime in mankinds future.
until then the theory is the best explanation we have that can be proved to the best of our knowledge and abilities, any one who says it isnt so is merely encouraging those with the ability to strengthen the proof supporting the theory.
Of course there are always those who will believe in mysticism, mumbo jumbo or religion rather than verifiable science, but then again they are all just unprovable theories from an earlier stage of mankind's history
If you RTFA you'll notice that teachers are still free to use the movie in their classes, all they need to do is present an opposing viewpoint. That is consistent with the school's position on all controversial topics, and yes, global warming (and especially its causes) is controversial.
If the theory behind global warming is so strong, then surely it will hold up under debate and scrutiny. Global warming advocates should welcome this opportunity to confront their skeptics head on.
Instead, they attempt to shout down and silence their critics (which seems to be a liberal trend). That doesn't strike me as being confident in your position.
I respect your religion -- and all religions -- but I am one of those people who loathes fundamentalism and bandies about terms like "religious nuts" and "religious fascists." It is not the "religious" side of the equation which I find loathesome, but the "nut" side of it.
Religion does not belong in politics. America fought a revolution to support the idea of brotherhood and equality between humans, and rid the world of archaic notions about some humans being more worthy than other humans, such as so-called "kings" (who, it must be remembered, were thought to derive their political power from divine power).
There is so much about Christianity (and other religions) which is patently un-American, including its references to this dude who died 2,000 years ago as some kind of currently existing "Prince" or a "Lord" or "King" to be "worshipped." Attributing divinity and specialness to certain humans but not others is a slippery path which desensitizes us to tyranny and allows for the hateful mullahs and popes and all the rest of the religious rabble who claim to speak from some special tyrannical authority from on high, instead of from persuasion and reason.
All that said, again, I respect yours or anyone's personal thoughts. If you want to bow down to a green tomato in your own house and predict that one day that green tomato will come flying through the heavens and rapturize people, so be it. But I hope you can understand that in a pluralistic world, many of us have very different faiths about how spirituality and creation and all the rest work, and the most sensible course of action seems to be to respect all faiths.
Take the Moslems and their "infidel" epithet, for example. Poll after poll consistently shows that 96% of the American people believe in God. You would think reasonable people could rejoice in the things they have in common (God) than always fighting over the minutae (whose prophet is the "right" one?)
Denying global warming because your religion makes you think, through faith instead of evidence, that the world is only 14,000 years old is like standing in front of a speeding car and daring it to hit you. The philosopher David Hume tried that with a horse, got clobbered, and realized that reality is actually, in fact, real, and it hurts! Reason is not at all incompatible with faith, but a supplantation of reason by faith is ludicrous and ultimately, evil and tyrannical, leading to concepts like, "Because I believe watching soccer on TV is un-Islamic, I'm going to kill you. Never mind what YOU believe."
It's easy enough for a non-Christian Deist like me (I love God - I hate religion) to denounce guys like this fellow in Washington State. But I really think it is incumbent on the religious who are not "nuts," as you characterize yourself, to do a better job at shouting him down. If the non-tyrannical Christians, Moslems, Jews etcetera don't start stepping up and putting the nut/fascist types of religious folk down, then all that we godly albeit non-religious folk will be able to conclude is that you stand with them, too. If the world needs anything returned or supplanted, it is the replacement of religious nuts by the "normal" religious. Is there such a thing any more, in 2006? Or are you all fascists?
If natural selection really worked, idiots like this guy would not live to breeding age, or find mates.
we will end no whine before its time
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore."
Use in the following way:
"X doesn't belong in Y, and neither does Al Gore."
Examples:
"Cheese don't belong in hot dogs, and neither does Al Gore."
"Riker doesn't belong in the captain's chair, and neither does Al Gore."
*Note that verb tense can be changed at the leisure of the poster.
Here's to hoping that this one spreads better than the "Except in Nebraska" one of Steve Ballmer fame.
Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher
No, but he leaves Steve Jobs messages on his iPhone apologising for not being at Jobs keynote. And he invented the interne...oh never mind.
The greatest proof that these people have already succeeded in derailing our educational system is the very use of the phrase "just a theory."
They show a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. What they should be saying is "it's just a hypothesis." Unlike creationism, however, theories have overwhelming evidence in their favor and little or no evidence against them. I consider global warming to be a theory; what is more of a hypothesis is if humans are responsible for it, though I also consider this to be the case.
All of this is immediately rejected by them, of course, because of the failure to realize that truth is independent of one's belief in it. This is the reason why science cures disease, increases food production, and improves our lives; religion has accomplished nothing in comparison.
Religion doesn't teach logic, it teaches anti-logic, and these well-indoctrinated fools are thus unable to follow the above arguments. More's the pity, truly.
Jesus wasn't a teacher, what makes you think *he's* correct?
And I very rarely learn anything new on these threads, since I started reading RealClimate; and even the entertaining troll posts about not wanting to go back to living in caves, and anyway it's all a scam by the Chinese to destroy American industry have died back in the last year or so.
So how's the weather back there in the States? Pretty miserable in the NE this time of year, I bet.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I just thought I'd do a teensy tiny bit of sleuthing for those slashdotters that are interested about the the school board members that are responsible for this decision...
e y.html -- "Ed Barney, a billing specialist in Kent and owner of a specialty advertising business, is the Director from District One. Ed and wife Barbara have lived in Federal Way since 1983 and have five children, three whom graduated from Decatur High School. Along with his activities in PTA and Boy Scouts, he has been an active attendee at Federal Way School Board meetings since 1985. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Public Relations from Brigham Young University and an AA in Business/Accounting. He brings a parent's perspective and experience to the board."
o n.html -- "Dave Larson moved to Federal Way in 1967, attended Mirror Lake Elementary, Sacajawea Junior High, and graduated from Federal Way High School in 1976. He went on to graduate from the University of Puget Sound in 1980 and Seattle University School of Law in 1984. He is with the law firm of Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC in Seattle where he practices in the area of complex civil litigation. He is also a mediator and arbitrator."
-- http://www.fwps.org/info/board/members/memberbarn
And a bit about the other guy...
-- http://www.fwps.org/info/board/members/memberlars
It says on Larson and Barney's pages that they both were involved in scouting organizations... hmm... insidious.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has evidence that global warming is actually caused by the shrinking number of pirates since 1800. I feel that students should be made aware of this in their science classes and encouraged to think about becoming pirates to aid the situation.
The real implication of the mandate that Hardison got is that if the video is shown, the "opposing theory" that gets presented is his a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
Hardison doesn't give a hoot about Gore's movie. He see it as a foot in the door to get his religion taught in public schools.
Hmm, sounds like a great big nuclear attack. Cept for the blood and stuff.
The bible was never meant to be taken literally. How could it be? Did God not like the earth he made in chapter 1 in 7 days, deciding to make another one instead?
Debating the issues only works after people have been taught to think critically, and the fundamental problem with these fundamentalists is that they're trying to prevent that from happening in the first place.
The problem isn't in saying that "global warming is only a theory;" the problem is elevating the words of the Bible to the same status. Whatever the Bible says is not a theory no matter how much someone might believe in it, because it's not scientific.
Let me put it this way: the whole point of science is to teach skepticism, systematic investigation, and logic. When these assholes try to tell kids that the Bible has the same status as scientific theories, they're making a direct attack on those principles. Skepticism is not faith, investigation is not dogma, and logic is not irrationality, yet these people are trying to damage the children by brainwashing them into confusing the two!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Come on .. we all knew the world was going to burn up!
We know if movie prophecy! The Planet of the apes teaches us that the world would end in a giant fireball, started by man to finally rid the world of "those filthy apes!"
If we consider evolution and human-caused global warming as "just theories" and give equal time to creationism and whatever "natural" explanation can be invented for global warming, shouldn't we give equal time for atheist viewpoints in churches as well? After all, churches are tax-exempt, so they should respect the same "equal-rights" laws as public schools.
Usually, I would dismiss crackpots like this, but... a guy named 'frosty' getting international press for speaking out against global warming. I am sorry that just screams 'divine intervention' to me.
and a pretty screwy one at that.
...the /. crowd all cry out at this horrific violation of free speech and the rising power of "the religious nutjobs".
Setting aside the multiple times that the "Inconvenient Truth" has been revealed to be Junk Science (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/), why is it so objectionable that something be presented with contrasting viewpoints?
(Setting aside my suspicions that most of these same people wouldn't see anything wrong with showing Fahrenheit 9/11 as 'factual' either...)
And yes, the fanatics will immediately reply that "oh, then you're going to have to allow Flat-Earthers to present 'contrary viewpoints' about the Earth being round and all sorts of other stupid theories!" Well, no. There is no real debate about the earth being round. And the only way that you could possibly imagine there ISN'T a debate on global warming is if you are able to wave your hand and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as simply staggeringly incompetent.
Oh wait, that's how eco-nuts DO work.
-Styopa
I love slashdot, and hate humanity.
"only a theory"...
All science ever can be is "just" theories. Some moron will always say that something is "only" a theory and expect that means its probably wrong. Yes atomic theory is "just" a theory, therefore nuclear bombs don't exist. Medical knowledge is all just "guess'" about what people see, medicine must be the hand of god otherwise it wouldn't work. No reputable scientist will back up the last 2 claims but i used to same lines of logic that lead people to believe that global warming does not exist.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Remind me to make sure the school my kids go to is short on "education". I mean, Jesus hates smart people who want to live in a healthy ecosystem and not get cancer or have their grandkids starve because of global warming and over-fishing, right?
How much do you want to bet these same idiots are the religious types who also think evolution is still a "theory", and point out that "theories" can be disproved, as if suddenly gravity will reverse or something.
Fucking Idiots. This planet is covered with fucking idiots who want their children and grandchildren to be miserable because of some ludicrous "relationship" they have with fictitious invisible men in the sky that ancient tribes used to use to justify genocide.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
If any post I've ever read on /. ever deserved a +6, this is the one.
What is wrong with controversial opinions? Controversial opinions forces people to think. By God, don't think! Follow us blindly! Do not come up with new ideas, abandon old ones or change the way things are! We don't like change, get it off! It itches!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is different, because Hardison's belief system has a bearing on his own ability to objectively evaluate the evidence concerning global warming, while your hypothetical gay scientist's sexual preference has no bearing on his ability to objectively evaluate the evidence concerning evolution.
Wrong, and your statement itself is ad hominem. Go read the definition, please. Example, from wikipedia:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") is a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."
Any time your retort's subject matter is your opponent in the debate, that is ad hominem.
Please help metamoderate.
This is taking textbook sillyness to a new level - alomst as if they were treating the bible as a literal text that was written directly by a major deity. Usually, you call thrm out on their sillyness by exploiting some contradictions (quickref) in the bible (as in the case of the first two chapters of Genesis).
I won't do a blow-by-blow, as there's more than enough cut-n-paste material available.
The person complaining about the film also makes one incorrect assertion - he assumes that religion is incompatible with Science when science can simply be used to indicate that God is more clever than what most people originally thought. (Or when a religion forcefully accepts certain sciences.)
BTW, the best way to counter Global Warming is a direct attack. Wikipedia has a page concerning the Global Warming Controversy that does not rely on a specific religion - and it doesn't result in sillyness of "Global warming is a theory - you should teach the opposing viewpoint, Global Warming."
let me just shortcut your nicely typed up blather.
see the problem isn't religion.
and the problem isn't the nutz.
the problem is people.
even if we could wipe every republican off the face of the earth. and every face fundamentalist (insert group of choice here), do you honestly think that the world would be this warm, fuzzy place?
i've got a bridge to sell you, if you believe that.
there are only a handful of truths. i think you need to start over, perhaps third grade, you might even find one or two, this time around.
Sorry, but I don't believe in CO2 contributing to Global Warming either. I'm an American, I'm educated in computer engineering (so I have more than the average understanding of chemistry, biology, physics etc than the average American), am not a Christian (so I don't believe that the world is 10,000 years old, etc, and my beliefs are driven by myself and not religion), not a Republican or Democrat (I believe neither party is any good, call me an Independent) and I believe for the most part doing things for the environment is good.
HOWEVER
I think the whole issue of CO2 contributing to global warming has gone ridiculously overboard. It's a theory, just like everything else, and it just doesn't sound right to me, hence I choose not to believe it. Not that I don't believe global warming exists, obviously it exists since the world has gone through many cycles of temperature. I, however, choose to believe that solar activity contributes more to it that CO2 emissions and not CO2 emissions because the theory of humans contributing to global warming through CO2 emissions just doesn't fit to me.
The problem with CO2 and the greenhouse effect is that the theory is far too easily digestible, so the uneducated masses throw it around to the point where it become "fact". It's not fact, it's a theory. No one "thinks" about CO2 and the greenhouse effect anymore, they just assume it's true and admonish anyone else for daring to say differently.
I for one am glad they choose not to show the film in school unless they get a counter argument against it. It's like showing a Michael Moore movie without a counter point, it's just not fair, since Michael Moore movies are so heavily biased. (If you want to know my feelings on Michael Moore, for the most part, I don't personally like how he lays so much bias in his movies, but he's essentially doing what politicians do, which is skew all arguments heavily towards themselves, so I don't see what's wrong with that. I think Bowling for Columbine opened my eyes in some respects and Farenheit 911 made me feel stupid for believing that there were WMDs in Iraq, but again, he could have accomplished those without being so heavily biased.)
So I guess other theories, like say Relativity, are also out then. But no the Bible isn't a theory its fact... yeah...
No, no, not at all. Try to look at both sides of the argument. AFTER you have seen and carefully analyzed BOTH sides of this argument you will realize that the aren't equal at all. One is the result of extensive research done by impartial scientists. The other side is a political argument artificially created by the order of a president whose family fortune happens to come from companies exploring fossil fuels.
I personally believe there is going to be a terrorist attack on 8/8/08, which coincidentally is the day upon which the Summer Olympic games begin in China.
Why do I believe this? Because I got some weird error message on my Linux computer reading "Keyboard dies 8/8/2008" and I have no idea what else it could mean.
Well we're supposed to separate government and religion but the Christian fundamentalists don't see it like that exactly. They feel that eliminating teacher led prayer in government funded schools for example is discriminating against Christians. The US Constitution provides for the free exercise of religion and restricts the government from recognizing a religion (separation of church and state). I happen to think that teachers leading a prayer is government recognizing a religion, they happen to disagree. Of course there's going to be a balancing act on this issue between protecting the free exercise of religion and not recognizing religion but they don't seem to want a balance. Which is why I can't stand them.
...anyone who dares to disagree with them or who tries to offer an alternative viewpoint.
Oh, and on the other side of the Global Warming coin, I am tired of the religious right as well.
my mod points when I need them? +1
There's the fact of evolution (species have evolved), and there's the theory of evolution (the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and where observed individuals fit on a geneology). Likewise, there's the fact of global warming (it's warmer now than at some point, x, in the past), and there's the theory of global warming (manmade, by popular account, but it could also be simply natural chaotic variation).
10,000 years ago, the spot where my house sits was covered by 1000 feet of ice. Then it got warmer, and not due to man.
400 years ago, there was a well documented "little ice age" in Europe. Then it got warmer, and not due to man.
30 years ago, climate scientists had their panties in a wad about "global cooling." Then it got warmer.
The verdict is still out on why, but it's obvious that one thing has changed. Starting in the early 1970's, hydrocarbons have become political (the rise of OPEC, the Arab oil embargo, the US "gas crisis," the "green" movement, etc.).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Isn't it about time you came and collected Your followers? It would certainly make the world more enjoyable for the rest of us. Don't you get embarrassed by them sometimes? I mean... some of the stuff that comes out of their mouths can be really ignorant.
Thanks,
Mr. Black
PS: And take Alex Jones while you're at it.
PPS: I'll have that $200 I owe you at the next poker night. I still think you're cheating though!
Also not teachers:
Parents
Students
Principals
Secretaries
Police Officers
Fire Department
Scientists
Local Business Owners
Religious Bigots
Funny how all of these things that are not teachers are often very important to learning (except the last one. As evidenced by the story this has the effect of completely destroying one's IQ). But they're not teachers! Out with them!
Any textbook that mentions gravity must now include a warning that it's just a theroy. Videos that discuss gravity must also have a warning.
Any student that does not believe in gravity must be allowed to float out of the classroom.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Here is the solution to Global Warming...
It is reasonably well known that atmospheric particulate pollution reduces the amount of the Sun's radiation which reaches the surface and is also able to reflect more radiation back into space. Such effects, called "Nuclear Winter" are theorized but there is very strong evidence that huge volcanic eruptions do chill the whole planet dispite putting out an extremely large volume of greenhouse gases.
So what can we do to reverse Global Warming?
1. Remove particle filters, especially ESD-type filters, from our coal and oil burning power stations. This will help increase the amount of fine particles in the atmosphere and will also help reduce carcenogenic dioxin output from those power stations.
2. Switch to Diesel! Our petrol/gas vehicles just don't put out enough carbon particles. Electric vehicles are ok as long as the electricity is sourced from a coal or oil burning power station which has already had its filters removed.
3. Burn waste in your back yard! Stop filling landfills and burn the junk. This reduces the amount of land wastefully used to store our waste and help put more particles in the atmosphere. Burying waste only leads to greenhouse gas emissions while they decompose.
We have unwittingly been doing well for ourselves - globally, the amount of radiation reaching the Earth's surface has been reduced by more than 10% over the last 50 years due to atmospheric particle pollution. Okay, there are a few downsides, a few impoverished nations will suffer crop failure when the global weather patterns change but we are saving the planet from becoming another Venus!
(I wonder if anyone will take this seriously? Well, there is some valid science. Look up "global dimming". LMAO)
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
It's because we've stopped teaching Latin in schools.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
The problem with Gore's movie is that it presents a conjecture (global warming) as being fact. There is a large body of evidence to support this conjecture; and some evidence that debunks it. Currently, the evidence in support of the conjecture seems to outweigh the evidence against it...however it is not settled by any means.
The advocates of the current global warming scare will look pretty stupid if it turns out that the conjecture was wrong after all. Not only that, such an outcome would tend to discredit all of science.
This is different from the evolution debate. Evolution is a fact; the only "theory" about evolution is in how it happens.
Science and science education does not benefit from evolution and global warming being lumped together. Re-read what I wrote above about the outcome if global warming ultimately turns out to be wrong.
A prudent, scientific, approach to the debate over global warming is to acknowledge that there is evidence of global warming and credible reason to believe that it is human-caused; but as yet no proof of either. Furthermore, it may not necessarily be a bad thing. However, because we do not understand what its consequences may be, it is prudent to take reasonable measures to ameliorate any human contribution to global warming.
"Reasonable" does not mean "abandon a first-world lifestyle because the earth can not afford it." On the other hand, putting fewer pollutants into the atmosphere is generally a good idea anyway. Instead of coal, we should be burning oil and natural gas (preferably mined domestically rather than bought from skanky third-world ratholes); and instead of burning oil and natural gas, we should be using nuclear power. Currently, energy policy in the US is almost the reverse.
Ideas such as wind or solar have a place too, but they will never supply more than a small portion of our energy needs. Then there are the ridiculous notions, such as biodiesel, which actually consume more fossil fuels than they save even as they allow our treehuggers to think they are being good boys and girls.
There is a middle ground between "the sky is falling" and "god takes care of everything". Sadly, one of the tactics of fanatics is to accuse those in the middle of being dupes of the other side.
Again, this is quite different from the evolution debate. In fact, it would be a good tactic of the religious right to inflame the global warming debate as much as possible, in the expectation that it turns out to be bogus and thus makes good ammunition to use against evolution. If they succeed, it won't be the first time.
Perhaps it might be more instructive to first teach children what a good theory is (and is not). If 'Frosty' had been taught this small but essential piece of information, he might have developed some critical analysis skills instead of being a fundamentalist zombie.
bang goes my karma... again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_Bj-av3g0&eurl=. What else is there to say.
Interesting.
I am always open to new ideas my mind has previously been too closed to perceive.
You seem to believe the "answer" is readily perceptible, and is reducible to a handful of truths.
If so, why not simply list that handful here? Yes, I'm sure that if you are correct that these are in fact "truths" then a mere list will constitute merely the pinprick of the point of a pin on the top of an iceberg of weighty profundity, so perhaps you think neither I nor others would benefit from your list.
But why not try? Merely state the list, and let us take it from there, contemplating therefrom.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And a theory is fact until proven false such as in Cell Theory, it's still a theory, but generally accepted as fact, it will no longer be a theory if we prove that something else is the building blocks of life. Therefore, global warming is happening until we can prove otherwise. Humans are the product of evolution (along with all the other organisms we see in this world today) until we prove otherwise. So "Just a theory" is not a valid argument. Global Warming is NOT a hypothesis which is a tentative conjecture, that's why we call it the "Global Warming THEORY" not the "Global Warming Hypothesis" and why we call it the "THEORY of evolution" not the "Hypothesis of Evolution" the word theory has different definitions in science than plain english.
e.g.
http://www.quiverfull.com/
Deleted
So you are saying that there is no global warming because the sun is causing the earth to warm up?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Only fact should be taught. All the religous and scientific bullshit theories should be saved for college.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore..."
Point one: Al Gore is not a condom.
"The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up..."
Point two: The Bible says the Earth will be destroyed with an earthquake.
-JB
"I love deadlines. I love the "whooshing" sound they make as they pass by." - Douglas Adams.
Intellectuals are known to be the easiest people to hypnotise. A hypnotists greatest asset is an authoritarian manner because people are conditioned to suspend their own critical factors and take suggestions from authority figures. Wide spread belief in anthropogenic global warming is a good example of hypnosis among educated people. An uneducated farmer would not be fooled by Al Gore (who is obviously demented) but a lot of egg heads will be. Ice ages have ended have they not? Was there pollution at the time? It's clear we have been in a warming trend in some areas. To think people created it and can reverse it is ego psychosis.
... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
With reagrds to the article, it's plain to see the author wanted to portray all the dissenters as rubes and a lot of people here fell into it as if that was the whole story.
Bill Gray has things right in this paragraph:
"The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change.
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
Snap out of it!
Yay then we can see awesome sites like rivers catching fire and rain eating through the paint on our brand spanking new hummers.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
So a junk-science, fraudulent, propaganda film gets booted out of the public school system by an in-duh-vidual who is motivated by his silly, primitive, superstitious, religious beliefs. I approve of this outcome, but I wish it done for legitimate reasons. Whatever happened to objectivity?
Lowest educated people tend to have more children. This guy has 7 children. He could be among the less educated.
www.timecube.com teaches that you are educated stupid. SO maybe having more education is a bad thing.
I enjoy watching the young earthers having to reevalute Earth's age. I thought the earth was still 8000 years old. I guess tring rings became too wholesome for them to contest.
Give me a break! Some parents are terrible at sexual education, some parents even don't give sexual education. Shouldn't at least schools fight out the whole social and health problems that unprotected sex causes?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Hypothesis: Something that is testable
Theory: Well formed educated explanation of observations
Theorem: Something that has been proven.
So if you notice a billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere and it's hot out, like all the time, it's a reasonable HYPOTHESIS that they could be related. You'd need to isolate the cause [or at least reject plausible alternatives] before you could frame a theory. Once you prove it you can state a theorem.
Science 101.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Can you name the scientists? Also do you have link to a study from respected peer review science journal(nature etc) that the sun is getting hotter?
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
You haven't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth" have you?
Watch it. Then decide.
-JB
"I love deadlines. I love the "whooshing" sound they make as they pass by." - Douglas Adams.
Here is a dogmatic closed-minded view quoted from the article that you all seemed to miss, somehow:
"I am shocked that a school district would come to this decision," David said in a prepared statement. "There is no opposing view to science, which is fact, and the facts are clear that global warming is here, now."
Fred Allen said every time this country rattles, anything loose rolls into California. Must be full, and it's creeping up the coast.
So school policy is now being dictated by a guy named "Frosty"?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
"LA, LA, LA, I'm not listening! LA, LA, LA." School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view." The kooks have won. This movie cannot be shown because clearly there is no credible, legitimate opposing view at all, so none can be presented. This constant need to provide an opposing viewpoint as a counter balance is idiotic. Science is not a democracy. If a model does not fit the data then the model is wrong. A 14,000 year old earth does not fit the data without a massive fudge factor called divine intervention. It is wrong. If you insist on it because its in your bible then you force me to say your bible is wrong. The theory that human activity is not affecting the environment does not fit the data, unless you choose to be like Gayle Hardison and ignore it. As for Gayle, the good ole US of A has 5% of the worlds population and produces 25% of the worlds greenhouse gases. You can ignore it all but the remaining 95% of the world is quite happy to point fingers.
I also do not know what condoms in school have to do with global warming and why those two ideas need to be expressed in the same sentence.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
I personally tend towards GW being solar or stellar in origin (because we have GW on other planets in the solar system) but this is just stupid.
Gore's piece has evidence to be considered, debated, and questioned.
Anti-science sucks.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Many people believe they are being religious when they are only deluding themselves. Many people in the U.S. feel a lot of stress, and they fantasize about the "end time", and hope that it will come soon, since they don't know how to deal with the conflicts in their lives. Most of those people are "one issue" voters, who don't pay much attention to managerial ability when they vote. Most of them voted for George W. Bush; they believe that George W. Bush is Christian and they believe he cares about them.
A Bush administration insider, David Kuo, wrote a book titled Tempting Faith in which he tells of the dishonesty of the Bush Administration. Crazily, he says he still believes that George W. Bush is a Christian, even though people at the top of the Bush administration, he says, call people like him &%^#$ evangelicals.
Karl Rove wrote scripts for George W. Bush to read that would manipulate evangelicals to think that G.W.B. is a Christian. If that deception had not worked, the average person in the U.S. would have a lot more money, the U.S. would be a more peaceful place, the U.S. would still be respected by other countries, we wouldn't have to watch so many stories about violence every day on the news, and we wouldn't have to watch comedians joke that the President of the United States is an idiot.
If you don't educate yourself about this, you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Here's my effort to do something more than just vote: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy. Here's another Slashdot reader's effort: Letter to Congress regarding Iraq. What is yours?
As stupid and irrational as Frosty is, his biggest fault is that he isn't even correct.
I am watching An Inconvenient Truth right now and Al Gore just referred to 2004-2005's weather patterns as being like "a nature hike through Revelations."
Maybe it was just a figure of speech, but the point was still addressed.
...anyone who dares to disagree with them or who tries to offer an alternative viewpoint.
Oh, and on the other side of the Global Warming coin, I am tired of the godless left as well.
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
From the article... 'that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented,"'
Talking about a pocket banning... Is there such a thing as a credible, legitimate opposing view that has been peer reviewed in a scientific journal?
If some churches don't want to comply with this, OK, just let them pay the same taxes as other corporations do.
Quote from the parent comment: "My recommendation? Mine the Earth and the rest of the Solar System for their resources and then move on like the aliens in Independence Day. Alpha Centari is looking good this part of the millennium."
Wow, an Anonymous Coward who has begun believing that fantasy is reality. The lesson: Don't play video games when you need to educate yourself about the real world.
Here's what I have learned after efforts to educate myself: Not religion, delusion. Read David Kuo's book.
So your response to his rebuttal of a particular viewpoint, is to tell him to go listen to the viewpoint again? Because this time he'll have an epiphany and realize how foolish he is?
Maybe you ought to learn to argue your own point, instead of, like an ignorant sheep, passing off your own ability to judge for yourself to a movie.
Was that at the same time that all the glaciers around the world had expanded miles in just a few years?
We are all just people.
Since I know this man I would like testify that he is a complete idiot. He claims that he can hear or sense earthquakes and has trained his children and wife to do so. I swear working with this man was painful. He use to sit around and suddenly he would make a weird expression and proclaim an earthquake just happened somewhere in the world and make a prediction on location and size. Trust me I couldn't make this stuff up. No way.
Think I'll start a Paypal collection to ship Frosty and his brood to Kansas....
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
Good point. So is there a term or scale or something to quickly convey the soundness of a particular theory?
For example... how would one communicate to the maturity and support for two theories say giant impact theory which suggests that the moon was formed by a large body colliding with earth while it was still relatively young and the theory of gravity (which I hope we're all familiar with). Even theories about the causes of global warming are less proven and tested then the theory of gravity... and of course there are many theories that have been proven wrong or are still very immature and generally untested.
should go fucking kill themselves.
Um...I don't think Al Gore's political film should be shown in schools, either. Regardless of what you think causes global warming or the "science" in Al Gore's film, the fact is that the film is mostly about him going around the country giving his presentations and criticizing the Bush administration. It's a political film.
Of course it shouldn't be shown. Surely there is some sort of objective documentary about global warming they can show instead?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Now this is an iffy theory at best. Instead of an extended argument, I'll just suggest one example - Venus. It has a very dense cloud cover that reflects most of the sunlight (tire smoke will absorb a lot more), yet the surface of the plane is insanely hot and chemically reactive. How it got to be this way is not clear, but this certainly shows that a reflective atmosphere doesn't always result in cooler conditions.
I've seen nothing to suggest Al has got anything up on Frosty in the brains Department.
They both sound like dogmatic average intellects.
If you look at the various species of life, you'll find that the stupider they are, the faster they breed. That's because their stupidity causes them to die a lot. They have to breed a lot in order to make up for it. Consider:
Think where the Fundamentalists must go in this list. Then think why they are so offended by Darwin.
His wife 'Gayla' was (thankfully) brutally beaten in the election for City Council. She's also got something to hide, as she can't fill out a simple questionaire. Sadly, Frosty should talk to his wife more, as she's for 'common sense decisions' (Warning: Picture of Gayla at bottom)
Board Member Dave Larson (who's a lawyer, btw) was the one who made the decision to 'ban' the movie, though Frosty's been squeaking his wheel on other topics at school board meetings for awhile. You can email Dave here!
Give Frosty a call and tell him you find his ideas intriguing and ask to subscribe to his newsletter! Frosty Hardison - Federal Way, WA - (253) 528-0343
Or just buy him something from this sad Amazon wishlist. After all, "The more citizen comment you have the better off we are."
According to a quick glance at the wikipedia entry on solar variation (no, I won't link it. Got to wikipedia and type in "solar variation". It's not hard) the variance in solar radiation is about 0.1%. Also, to the best of my knowledge the "new ice age" panic was entirely media driven.
I was going to bitch and moan about the idiots that modded up the parent's eruption of unsupported flamebait, but I see that in the time it took me to check Wikipedia, he's been sent all the way down to -1. Mods, I salute you!
.evom ton seod gis eht
As a Christian, I see your point about how some of our "religious practices" seem anti-American. But Christianity should be viewed as a personal relationship with Jesus, and not the rule-following, ritual-practicing religions around the world. Christianity is the only religion where it's not about the religion, it's about love for Jesus. That may seem silly if you don't believe that he is the savior of the world (!) but it's the core of Christianity. All of the hullabaloo about worshiping the "King" as you called him is funny because that's what the Jews wanted, but didn't get. Jesus is king of our HEARTS, he's not a literal king by any means.
Anyways, bringing it back to topic... I don't care what scientific discoveries are made; it's not going to change my beliefs by any stretch. I attend a Christian college (Grove City College in W. PA) and I took a course in astronomy a couple semesters ago. The course was taught from a scientific point of view and detailed the scientific evidence we have that supports the earth being billions of years old. Obviously many Christians in the class were up in arms about this. The way he explained it was that no matter what science tells us, he still believes God had a hand in it. Whether
a) God designed the earth to look 5 billion years old (or however old it is, I've forgotten what I learned in the class =D )
b) It took God 5 billion years to make the earth (i.e. 7 days God time ~= 5 billion years earth time)
c) Science is wrong and the earth really is only 14000 years old,
I will still put my trust in Jesus.
So with global warming, you need to understand that these Christians are only saying what should be said; that science is not perfect, and this should be presented as a theory without enough data taken yet to prove it actually exists. 'If' global warming is true, then it would take many many more years to realize the resulting temperature trend. The earth is not an entirely stable object. Nothing is really. Temperature will fluctuate from time to time, and we could just be on the uprise of a wave of heat. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 years from now we start to hear about some sort of new "ice age" and our impending global doom as eskimos.
Maybe not. Time will tell.
Global Warming is not a theory. Global Warming is a measured fact, the average temperture on the planet has raisen over the past 100 years. The Green House Effect is only a theory, in the same way that evolution is only a theory. But currently it's the best theory we have to explain Global Warming.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
An Inconvenient Truth is politically charged propaganda. There are much more straightforward, less politically charged videos that use better science and fewer dishonest tactics. Teachers ought to be showing something like "Global Warming: What you need to know" with Tom Brokaw, which gets the point across without being deceptive, plus it spends a lot more time talking about practical solutions than Gore's movie. Additionally, Gore's movie is politically charged, so right wing students are going to ignore it just because of the (unnecessary) politics Gore put into the movie, and some left wing students are going to take it for gospel regardless of the science behind it. Brokaw's special is straightforward, unpolitical, and talks about a solution.
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Doesn't this seem awfuly contradictory to you? If we're not causing "global warming" you're suggesting that we should attempt to change the natural process of the earth. What about all that jazz about humans fucking up the environment? If we're not causing global warming then we should try to cause global cooling? That seems like it would have a lot of unintended consequences.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
just fast forward a couple billion years...
God or no god,
by then we better have warp.
to stick you head in, when you want to ignore the facts. Your own cite says "Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent" and gives the quote "By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near"." Ain't revisionist history fun to use when your worldview is upset?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher"
Little-known fact: he lectured for several years in a small rural schoolhouse named Columbia University, which is located in the quaint, rustic town of Manhattan.
Is An Inconvenient Truth the best most objective piece of educational material we have on Global Warming? I don't disagree that evidence is that the Earth is warming up either... but I've seen several scientific cases made here and elsewhere that at least raise serious questions about whether there could be other non-man made causes. Shouldn't that scientific evidence be presented alongside this scientific evidence?
I agree that we need to be better at pointing out that fundamentalists are still at the crude basics of the faith and often completely misunderstand important things. Having them as the figureheads of their religions is like having a kindergardener setup your college curriculum.
We are all just people.
i'm sure this will be a stupid and pointless flame war, but i just wanted to drop in and say: if your reading this vlad, then fuck you you worthless piece of shit!! you make people FUCKING PUKE
thank you
So now the truth is just a "perspective"?
You know, I'd be shocked (SHOCKED!) to find out that the person who said that also complains that secularism is flawed due to "moral relativism".
http://outcampaign.org/
It's just easier to dismiss that message when it comes from crackpot fundamentalists.
If a respected member of the scientific community made such a statement, I doubt it would make Slashdot, and for obvious reasons too.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
...
The fundamentalist Christians
The article's constant harping on the other beliefs of the person who filed the initial complaint is an attempt to use an ad-hominem to discredit all opposition to Gore's controversial position. That is a transparent piece of propaganda, and it saddens me to see so many Slashdot posters echoing it.
Though the first one to complain may have other beliefs with which you disagree, those beliefs are apparently not what drove the school board's decision.
Regardless of your opinion of the veracity of the several claims made in the film, it is clear that the film itself is a propaganda piece promoting one side of a partisan political argument - the side taken by the Democratic party and its spoksman on the issue: the losing candidate in a national election where the country was almost exactly split.
Hardison's complaint was that showing such a partisan piece in a public school (where attendance is mandatory), with no voice from any of the opposing views, constitutes propaganda and indoctrination. It gives the children who view it the impression that all the claims are settled fact - and he presents his own child's experience as evidence of this. Thus he claims it is not proper to present this in such a stand-alone manner in the public schools.
This issue, not his other beliefs, is what he presented, and what the school board ruled on.
Bringing up his other beliefs - and by implication attributing them to ALL who disagree with any of the films claims or its presentation in this manner - is itself another piece of partisan propaganda.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I don't take you seriously, but if they want a credible opposing view, I'd suggest that we might already be past a tipping point with the rate of increase of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere going like time to the power of time rather than like gross world product.
Al Gore might be wrong that emissions reductions would be enough to halt global warming.
Ideas a little like yours are circulating now. Reducing the solar input in some way, say with aerosols in the upper atmosphere have been proposed. If the increase in CO2 concentrations is now beyond our control, then such desperate measures might be needed.
Frosty is quite the activist.
This guy has beaten every troll on slashdot by redefining Frosty piss.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Um... sure it could mean that we can't change it. I mean if it's the sun that's doing all of this... I'm not sure there's much we can do about the sun. I hear getting a replacement sun takes like several million years or something crazy like that.
Religion, ruining the world, one idiot at a time.
The word you are looking for is Hypothesis. That's when it's well reasoned but not thoroughly analyzed. Lower than that you have hunches and guesses. Where it just seems like it could make sense but you haven't worked out the details yet. Above Ordinary theories are "Natural Laws". Those are the theories that have been analyzed to death and tested extensively and still hold up. Newton's Law of Gravity is such a theory.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Don't forget Gravity. Until you know how it happens, it is just a theory. Nobody has seen a graviton yet.
"The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."
Yes, it will. In billions of years when the Sun becomes a red giant and envelops the Earth. Then there will be nothing left of us but a cinder block.
Seriously, WTF is it with things that have been proven (as far as science ever definitively proves anything; due to the way it works everything IS still a "theory", but a scientific "theory" is not the same thing as a layman's "theory") being left out of schools?
No wonder education is so shitty in the US. We leave out things that are vital to the future of our very society, and then we think standardized testing will solve everything. Try actually properly teaching children!
My father is a college chemistry professor and my mother was a grade school and special-ed (home-bound students) teacher. They're nothing less than shocked and ashamed at how sad the state of US education is today.
My kids, when I have them, will be home-schooled unless the public schools in the area are damn good; I refuse to be extorted out of too much cash for private schools, nor will I send my kids to be exposed to religious FUD.
i am a soviet space shuttle
This school board is absolutely ... correct. This is controversial, but the concern over climate change is misplaced. There's nothing wrong with burning gas, or oil, as such. However, there are consequences to burning a lot of petroleum, namely the climate changes and a lot of people die. The global poplulation is in serious overshoot, and the controversy should be whether we can rationally reduce the population or just let the normal beliefs of whatever faith lead us to war, starvation and epidemics. If we drag this out by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing renewable energy supplies and renewable fertilizer and water supplies and by not reducing the population then those surviving species will have to live on a devastated planet. This school board may help the planet by reducing the population and the global civilization sooner rather than later. Thanks, I needed the rant.
Let's do these folks on the school board a favor and let them know they're idiots by listening to this crack pot.
From FWPS Board of Education Website."Flee at once, all is discovered."
The fact that the parent is modded "Funny" gives me kind of an uneasy feeling, as it is closer to the truth than you'd think. For example, in some countries (I know Sweden is one) kids are given comprehensive sex education, unlike the US. They receive much less biased and much more complete information on things like condoms, STDs, and all the other info young adults need in order to make informed, safe choices about sex. They also start sex ed much earlier, I believe at 7 or 8 years old.
Since most Slashdotters are US'ian, compare this with the mandatory public-school "sex" "education" classes you took. Then compare statistics like "teen pregnancy" and "age that kids start having sex". In countries with comprehensive sex education, there is less teen pregnancy, and kids start having sex later[1].
[1] "The Naked Truth About Sex", Dr. Roger W. Libby (2006)
The minutiae is not about whose prohet is the "right" one, it's about subjugation and dominance. Christians and Jews are people of the Book, and because of the lip service that the Judeo-Christian God is the same as Allah, they are allowed to keep their faith, unlike the pagans who must be eradicated. However, Jews and Christians cannot be equals to Muslims. They must live as a third class citizens known as dhimmis and pay tribute called jizyah to muslims. This is Islam in the time of Mohammad and true Muslims must follow this. Fortunately, a lot of Muslims are nominal Muslims whose humanity trumps the call of oppression or who are ignorant of it. Unfortunately, the West does not recognize it and chalks this up as perversion of the "Religion of Peace".
Is it a supplantation of reason by faith? Or Islam itself is very rigid? Mohammad ordered poetess Asma bint Marwan to be killed for writing a piece that offended him. Music and portrait paintings were forbidden by Mohammad and thus, un-Islamic. When the prophet was unforgiving and didn't recognize artistic expressions, it it a surprise that the followers mimic that? Is it a surprise that cartoons caused billion dollars in damages and many deaths?
I own An Inconvenient Truth (the movie not the book). And I would like to say that although some people still consider the effects that are predicted by that movie to be "a theory," they are hard to disprove. A fact is that we're sitting at carbon levels in our atmosphere above anything ever indicated by ice cores from around the world.
Getting caught up in the word "theory" will go nowhere. It should be looked at as a matter of probability. The existing evidence puts a fairly high probability on global warming.
If the weather service says there is a 60% percent chance of a giant hurricane coming your way, are you gonna just sit there and say, "60%? That's only a $#@% theory!". Knowing some zealots, that is probably what they would do if a preacher told them to. Isn't it the Jahova Witnesses who don't take sick kids to the doctor? Some are doing the same thing with the environment.
Table-ized A.I.
Exactly.
At a hospital you ask for a doctor not a janitor. Your teeth get pulled by a certified dentist not a car mechanic. Space Shuttle gets programmed by educated computer scientists, programmers, physicists, and electrical engineers.
Then why would you abrogate your decision-making to a fundie redneck when it comes to evaluating scientific theories of Evolution and Climate Change?
On the other hand (to address GP's post), it is also valid to question the judgement of GAY people who are pro-evolution:
1)Pro-evolution usually means does not believe in God
2)Most fundamental religions are anti- (practicing) gays
3)By promoting evolution GAYS can make themselves morally and socially acceptable
Same goes for PAEDOPHILES who are pro-GAY MARRIAGE. Or POLYGAMISTS who are Global Warming awareness advocates, etc.
About 40 years ago populist science was predicting a coming ice age. People see things within the scope of their experience, which in the grand scheme is pretty limited without applying reason. Just ask a tree.
I respect your religion -- and all religions -- but I am one of those people who loathes fundamentalism
You mean to say that you "respect" other people's beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves and only act on beliefs that are in agreement with your own.
America was formed by some people who were very devout Christians.
But I hope you can understand that in a pluralistic world, many of us have very different faiths about how spirituality and creation and all the rest work, and the most sensible course of action seems to be to respect all faiths.
I mean... I respect your personal thoughts on the subject and all... but it's a pluralistic world, would you please just keep those opinions to yourself. You respect me and and ask me to shut up. I'm respectfully asking you to do the same. Please do not act in any way that may be offensive to me. Thanks.
See that's silly... you should respect people, not ideas. Ideas aren't worth respecting if they aren't true... in fact... if they are not true they should be logically dismantled. People though, do believe different things, and do act on their beliefs. The challenge is to try and work things out the best we can when our beliefs are in direct opposition. It's not easy... but there is no other option for free people.
Reason is not at all incompatible with faith, but a supplantation of reason by faith is ludicrous and ultimately, evil and tyrannical, leading to concepts like,
I agree that reason and faith most definitely should coexist and people should have some reason for their beliefs. That said... can you give me a certain explanation for how the universe came to be... one that doesn't have any sort of assumptions that you take on faith? At some point, those who have really thought about what they believe have a series of assumptions they've reasoned, but can't prove. Those assumptions guide them in other areas they are uncertain about... Christians will assume God in many situations, naturalists will assume natural processes.
If anything... the guy cited in the story suffered from very poor argumentation. Now the question to ask is... was he REALLY the best example of those in opposition to the showing of this movie or was he the example the author of the story wanted to cite because his argument is extremely weak?
Hi Everyone, I suggest we all e-mail the school board (schoolboard at fwps.org) arguing against their decision.
fuck the global warming comments, the comment that condoms don't belong in schools that caught my eye. does she still think her daughter is a virgin? would she be shocked to learn she is 100% likely to be masturbating? my jesus freak detector just blew a fuse.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Now THAT'S a cock-eyed view!
I've never been greatly for or against Al Gore
It is ironic though that nobody is challenging the part about Al Gore not belonging in the schools. IIRC he was very supportive of work by Smart Valley Inc. to wire schools with fiber.
This is another good site: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/. They post a lot of abstracts and links to papers.
The main question put forth right now is what is the dominate forcing for global warming. Initially CO2 was the sole blame, but there could be more to it. What role does the Sun play? What role has cleaning up particulates (from burning coal, wood, and cars) changed global temp? What about water? Land use (e.g. megacities -- Los Angeles, etc)?
With some models, significantly decreasing man-made CO2 levels will only change the outcome fractions of a degree over a 50 year period.
Yeah, but it seems like even with the realm of theories there is a more granular scale needed. A model may exist for climate change for example... in fact here could be several different tested theories for why the climate is changing. But they may not all be equal. One theory may have as its basis a limited # of tests and other evidence supporting it and may have several other observations that raise doubts about its validity. While another theory may have a massive amount of supporting data and has been tested by multiple scientists in multiple scenarios and has proven to be reliable (yet maybe not quite enough to be called a natural law).
David Larson (proposed the moratorium): Dave-Larson@fwps.org Ed Barney (School Board President): ed-barney@fwps.org General School Board email: schoolboard@fwps.org Frosty Hardison: (253) 528-0343
Global warming is a lot weaker than the examples you cited though, because we have can't repeat a lab experiment that involves earth, there's no controlled environment, no control group. Models are made based on historic data that may or may not be representative for future data. There's been plenty examples of formulas that have closely followed a system for a shorter time, but turns out to be spurious, or limited in some way.
One of the key questions should be whether we're actually damaging the planet - or if we're just temporarily throwing the curve a little of, mostly creating problems for ourselves. I mean, we know there's been ice ages and warm periods before, are we just doing in a century what'd normally take a few thousand years or are we fundamentally screwing with Earth's ecosystem and risk breaking the whole thing?
Take a look at the 500mio year perspective
Then the closer picture 65mio year perspective
Then the closer picture 5mio year perspective
Then the closer picture 450k year perspective
Then the closer picture 12k year perspective
Then the closer picture 2000 year perspective
Then the closer picture 150 year perspective
Yes, if you look at the last graph it looks like it's going up, up and away. In fact, as far back as the last ice age it'll seem that way. Then you start looking at the big picture - earth has been getting colder on the 450k graph, the 5mio graph, the 65mio graph and the 500mio graph. Earth was much warmer than it's likely to be even with global warming about 120000 years ago. And historicly, earth has been a much warmer place than that again. Yes, I'm sure we'll create a big fuzz over global warming, but I don't see it showing up as more than a blip in the ecosystem.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Unfortunately, the West does not recognize it and chalks this up as perversion of the "Religion of Peace".
...and transform (or recover) their religion.
Actually, a lot of us do realize the situation, and we're focusing on the lot of Muslims are nominal Muslims whose humanity trumps the call of oppression.
By appealing to what is noble in their religion, rather than what is not, (which our enemies are doing,) we hope to give those Muslims a way out of the choices they are being presented with by our opposition.
That is, they can say, "Are we not the religion of Peace?"
That's the plan.
Christianity liberalized and modernized, so can Islam. The alternatives are very nasty.
But Christianity should be viewed as a personal relationship with Jesus
BZZZT, WRONG! Very few brands of Christianity have this as part of their belief system. Trying to claim this view as the standard is not only wrong, it is disingenuous and revisionist. Please take your propaganda elsewhere, kthx.
How we got here is now scientific fact? Great. Where's the documentation for recreating the experiment that results in humans?
Frankly, I find it irritating when people water down the term "science fact". In order to be scientific fact you must be able to document the experiment so that someone else can recreate it. That's why the phrase "science fact" carries so much weight. It's verifiable.
Since we cannot recreate the experiment that resulted in humans, we have to go for historical proof combined with scientific testing of evidence. If you find a jawbone of a dinosaur you can carbon date it and give the date of the jawbone as scientific fact (because I can reproduce your experiment in testing the age of the bone).
However, you cannot scientifically prove that George Washington existed. You cannot recreate the experiment that resulted in George Washington. You can historically prove that he existed. You can run scientific tests on his dentures. You can point out his writings. But ultimately, it's is a historical proof - not scientific. At best, George Washington is a historical fact with scientific evidence.
How humans got here is a historical event. We have scientific theories - theories backed up by scientific tests and physical evidence that we can apply scientific tests to - but ultimately we cannot recreate the experiment that generated the human race. Evolution is a historical fact and a scientific theory, but it is not a scientific fact.
"There is so much about Christianity (and other religions) which is patently un-American" -- That's an extremely amazing thing to say. Do you feel that, for instance, you could walk into the Continental Congress and have them agree with that?
I understand some of the forefathers were deists, and I understand they were not as religious as we are, but the Christian concept of free will and the reformationist concept of an indvidual's choice in religion, combined with the Enlightenment and backlash from the 30 years war led to what we have today. And all of that, my friend, is Christianity, for good or bad. Most of the great thinkers of the age, Locke, Hume, etc, were Christians.
Learn some. Labeling Christianity based on the actions of a few low IQ people makes you look like a bigot. A intellectually lazy bigot.
"Remember the hurricane predictions for 2006? Nope"
That's why it's called global. Catagory 4 and 5 storms were numerous in 06, just not in the Atantic. Hurricane prediction is hard, but the statistics of powerful storms is beginning to look a little bit persuasive. It is not understood why they're getting stonger, models don't predict this. But, there is more available energy as the oceans warm, and they are getting warmer.
What really concerns me is that schools AVOID controversy. Think about that. The place we send our children to in order to become knowledgeable enough to integrate with society and contribute to our pool of knowledge (Or at least, this is the supposed ideal. The execution and goals of specific individuals within may vary). And they do what they can to AVOID subjects kids may have disagree with?
Am I the only one here who thinks this is a good thing for kids to see, whether or not you AGREE with Mr. Gore? How about watching it... and then forming an opinion? Or is that a skill we're no longer supposed to possess?
How about dissecting the movie? Taking classes to identify facts, identify opinion, where people may be just guessing, where people are just trying to sway your opinion, and so on?
Personally, on Global Warming, I'm rather neutral. I don't feel that I know enough to form a truly educated opinion. However, I do think that pouring poisonous chemicals non-stop into the atmosphere we breathe isn't very likely to have many "beneficial" side-effects, regardless of whether or not it's contributing/contributing a lot to global warming.
Sorry if this sounded inflammatory, but I'm just rather irritated that the U.S. (from my experience) is doing the best it can to avoid hearing conflicting opinions. "Freedom from offensive or disagreeing speech" is not a Constitutional Right, and I'm sick of people having their lawyers on speed dial for every instance someone decides to bring up unpopular/unorthodox/taboo ideas.
'"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
C'mon, this has to be a put-on. One man's life can't be this unintentionally funny.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
It does not have a 100% chance of coming true as presented by Al Gore et al (in my opinion, the probability is 95%). Therefore it is not fact, but a theory. So, if you had a 95% chance of dying from a poison you drank, wouldn't you refrain from the trouble of going to the hospital on the basis of the 5% chance that you'd be ok?
Be reasonable, people.
Liberals cant catch up; they're too busy aborting themselves.
Sorry it says Anonymous Coward. just didnt want an account.
America fought a revolution to support the idea of brotherhood and equality between humans, and rid the world of archaic notions about some humans being more worthy than other humans, such as so-called "kings" (who, it must be remembered, were thought to derive their political power from divine power).
Um, what? I'm pretty sure this was the point of Jesus' teachings.
There is so much about Christianity (and other religions) which is patently un-American, including its references to this dude who died 2,000 years ago as some kind of currently existing "Prince" or a "Lord" or "King" to be "worshipped."
I don't think you understand the symbolism here. The reason Christians say Jesus still "exists" is because even though he was killed, his message of love, equality and all that lives on. That whole "Son of God" name refers to someone who lived out this message.
Quote from the parent comment: "Name the last time Fundamentalist Christians flew planes into building killing innocents, or used truck bombs to blow up apartment buildings or office buildings or naval ships."
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and Bush, enthusiastically supported by those who call themselves "evangelical Christians", have killed more people than Saddam Hussein. If Saddam was convicted because he killed Iraqis, should Bush administration officials and "Christians" be convicted too?
Saddam killed to maintain political control. Bush administration officials killed for money: oil and weapons and spy hardware profits.
"You shall not kill." Except when you really, really want to?
What rational means do you propose? Lottery?
Newton's Law of Gravity
Funny you should mention that one, as it was eventually proven to be incorrect. That's was Einstein's claim to fame.
In other words, even the most rigously tested theories are still just theories.
Cheers.
Reference: Bush has killed more people than Saddam Hussein: 654,965 people.
I'm not a christian, but (at least for the sake of argument) it seems there's a peculiar sort of logic to 'seven days'... since 'days' are a meaningful measurement of time only relative to the rotation of the Earth, well... who knows how long the first six 'days' were: before She started spinning the Earth?
http://maquah.net/
On the subject of climate change we are in a different level of argument. You see the Earth's temperature is anything but stable. History suggests that in recent times our planet has been much colder than it is now and at other times much warmer.
Ever wondered why the icecaps are littered with Mammoth and Sabertooth corpses but not a single dinosaur? The formed long after those creatures were extinct.
What is in dispute however is:
1. Is the Earth warming up too fast. I.e. Will this trigger an effect outside the normal cycle.
2. What effect is that? Will we go into a Greenhouse spiral and become a humid furnace like Venus? or breakup the icecaps so that when they reform the planet plunges into a freeze cycle and becomes a virtual snowball with no summer.
3. Is the current warming cycle being hurried along by humans?
BTW: Ever notice how really ancient cities are mostly inland while recent constructions are mostly on the coast?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
So, he's against teaching kids about safe sex, and quite obviously doesn't use it himself. He's also obviously some kind of literalist Christian. I mean, no self-respecting science journal would EVER claim the Earth was 14,000 years old. We Humans have been around a lot longer than that (despite being no more than a mere blip on the time line of the Earth), and we have skeletal remains, carbon dating, sedimentary layers, etc. etc. etc. to back it up. Unless just about every form of archeology is ridiculously wrong in every conceivable way (or you go with that "God put that there to trick us" logic, which is a whole other can of worms), there is no way in Hell that can be right.
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
I believe Salman Rushdie in an op/ed piece said something similar about how moderate Muslims need to be more vocal than the fringe minority that are extremists that get all the press. He challenged the silent main stream Muslims to voice their support for their belief of coexistence with other fellow religions.
on the planet.....I never believed it for a second. I really do believe we are one of the dumbest animals on the planet. Only dumb animals would let the planet fall apart like it is and not doing anything to save it.
"Posted by FHardison at 1/11/07 9:20 p.m. Hello, this is Frosty E Hardison. This is typical. All you can see is a snapshot of a persons life and you can make these comments? As with any interview, an entire 45 minute conversation is boiled down to a three sentence of sound bites or a blurb that only exerpts the most abject sensationalistic thing the interviewee has to say - to sell a newspapaer. If you would REALLY be interested in what was said in the interview - I took better notes on the subject." Sourced at Seattle P-I - comment #112698
Frosty's notes don't paint him in much brighter colors than the 3 sentences posted by the original reporter I'm afraid...
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
was a prickly old pol
With cause to whack
an out of joint nose
and a love of burning coal.
> Yes, I'm sure we'll create a big fuzz over global warming, but I don't see it showing up as more than a blip in the ecosystem
but then so are we as a species. so maybe it's in our best interest to keep what you're calling the blip in a stable equilibrium unless you want us all to go extinct and wait till the next ice age to roll around for it to then get just warm enough for our survival to be possible again. i'm all for stabilizing the environment, if possible, regardless of weather or not it's part of some grand design that make the earth go through hot-flashes and chills cycle as if it were menopausal.
how about you?
Global Warming is a Theory. And the planet takes care of it's self. It's called BALANCE people.
Of course, Evolution is a Theory. And everyone believe it is a fact. People assume to much.
\
Falsifiability is the measure of a sound theory.
But this probably needs to be looked at in the right context.
The point of a theory is to allow you to predict future results, based first on the current state of the universe, and future actions.
Falsifiability is what makes a sound theory; what this means is that you can predict something using it, and then measure the results of an experiment based on that prediction, and decide categorically, based on the outcome of the experiment, whether the theory is true or false. If it's false, then it's no longer a theory, and we throw it away -- or, if it still gives useful approximations, like Newtonian mechanisc, then we keep it around, but constrain the circumstances in which it should be used as a tool.
Any theory that's not falsifiable is not a theory - it's a hypothesis at best, and at worst, it's a conjecture.
So, for example, creationism isn't a sound theory, and it's not even a reasonable hypothesis, since it's not falsifiable. To falsify it, you would have to be able to come up with a repeatable laboratory experiment that could prove, one way or the other, whether or not there is a creator. Since the conjecture that there's a creator is a tautology, it's impossible to do this. So the next best thing is Occam's Razor, which, to paraphrase into plain English, states that "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one".
-
Global warming, at this point, is a theory (based on observation, without contradiction), but it's not a very good one. It's falsifiable, but not in our lifetimes, and not under laboratory conditions.
Human activity being the root cause of the currently observed global warming is, at this point, a hypothesis.
And the movies idea of what will happen if human activity continues in the current direction is merely conjecture.
-
So to get back to your question: the more ways, and the easier, and the more controlled the conditions under which you can falsify a theory, the higher the quality of the theory.
As to soundness of a particular thory, the more ways that can (and have been attempted to) falsify it, and failed to do so, the more sound the theory.
-- Terry
Your logic appears to be "Some scientists were wrong once, therefore all scientists are always wrong about everything - especially global warming."
But actually, it's a myth that scientists in the 1970s predicted an ice age
Therefore, his chosen belief system does have a bearing "on his own ability to objectively evaluate the evidence concerning global warming," as the OP said, since that evidence is science-based as well.
However, the argument that he presented to the school board, and on which it ruled, had NOTHING to do with HIS evaluation of the theories of global warming.
His argument was that:
- the film was a partisan propaganda piece, presenting one political party's positions on a number of controversial assertions as objective fact,
- presenting it without opposing views to school children causes them to believe that the issues are settled, and
- so presenting it in this way (and thus indoctrinating schoolchildren with one political party's position on a controversial issue) is not a proper activity for public schools.
This is what the school board ruled on, and it agreed with him.
Bringing his other opinions into the argument is an obvious ad-hominem, attempting to discredit not just him, but also to project his beliefs on, and discredit, the school board and all others who question any of the claims made in Gore's film.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The scientific facts are actually a bit more complex than presented in the film. Or to be more precise, they're nothing like what was presented in the film, because the film gave merely one particular, agenda-driven interpretation of the facts, and not a balanced examination.
Science is not that simple: it delivers measurements, and all interpretations that are consistent with those facts are scientifically valid. The fact that there is currently a fad favouring a global warming crisis doesn't invalidate the interpretations that say that it's normal variation, because both ranges overlap. Honest scientists either don't worry about intrepretation or else keep all possible interpretations in mind simultaneously.
Just in case the film sent you far into the "It's all the fault of manmade CO2" camp, let me burst your bubble.
Current discussions often talk about the danger of CO2 levels reaching twice their current amount. Yet, in Earth's distant past, we had levels of CO2 many *HUNDREDS* of times greater than at present, and yet the planet was frequently an utterly frigid ball of ice under those conditions. So, treat a politician's words with an extremely large pinch of salt.
Anthropogenic global warming is happening. But Gore's slant on it is not scientific. It's more complex than that.
Excellent. Now the question is why these so called educators feel that a hypothesis isn't worth discussing on its own. If the opposing "theory" or "hypothesis" is creationism and they want equal time for it, then maybe they should move their kids to a private (religious) school. I can't think of any objective observations made by any scientists that would support creationism as a possible theory or hypothesis explaining the world as we know it.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
is: Some nuts(yes believing in invisible people means your nuts) think it isn't happening and that the earth is much younger then scientific evidence proves.
The moment people bring up a religious reason for something to be in, or out, of public school they should be shown the exit.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Memo to Frosty, ironic name I'd say, Fuck you. Better yet stop fucking the wife since you already have 7 braindead rapture ready spawns. Please do the world a favor and get yourself, your wife and these kids sterilized while the rest of the world tries to advance beyond some pre-dark ages thinking that has kept humans from advancing for the past 2000 years.
It really isn't his beliefs that concern me. If someone wants to believe the moon is made of swiss cheese, their welcome to it. My concern is that, as far as I can tell, one person complained. One crackpot raises his hand and the course of an entire school district changes.
if we're going to act all high and mighty about science let's at least be familure with the terms.
if the FACT that global warming is a theory bothers you than don't act like you have any respect for science.
you can just about go fuck yourself for further misleading the public.
However, it will not save you from yourself. Neither will Jesus or a love for Jesus. You have to care about 'other people' to realize what's going on here. We are here and now. People experience and test the world in a lot of ways and share that information. Information, not faith, is what I put my trust in. Doesn't mean I accept everything I see and hear whether from a film or a book translated and written without first hand information.
I am curious to how you can trust "Jesus". Because you read a book? I saw Al Gores Film, should I not trust him? Should Al Gore lie to me? How the bible lie to me? How do I know? Faith I guess. Believing in something without fact.
[J]
Here we go again.
Most folks seem to graduate high school and forget everything in the search for the all mighty dollar.
Then they start believing in their own fantasies.
Science is always just theory.
There is no such thing as science fact.
Evidence for global warming is over whelming.
Why people want to find blame is a whole other subject.
Proofs offer examples that backup scientific theory.
Cassini is a great example of what is possible when those proofs where used to put a satellite around Saturn.
Work based on a proof like this is usually called work based on well established scientific theory.
You know like math.
That thing you use that makes your head hurt when you try to figure out just how much debt you're in.
The earth is well over 14,000 years old.
There are plenty of proofs for that.
Whether you accept them or not, is always your choice.
The earth was flat at one time too.
Don't forget the sinful spyglass.
Earth is at the center of the universe... don't you know?
Tolerance equals advocacy (whoa what a load of BS!)
My question:
Does E.T. know who Jesus is?
Or will it just be the focus of the next intergalactic crusades?
There is Proof that George W. Bush is an idiot.
Folks liked him so much they voted for him TWICE.
Proof that people will believe anything they want.
350 Billion And counting. That's a fact.
Who's got their hands in your pocket?
My theory:
We are still living in the dark ages.
With all of our flashy silicon and pyramids of glass and steel we are still only crawling up out of the soup of our ignorance.
Sin is purporting to know the mind of God.
Where is the humility of the Christian people?
It seems gone, buried in pride and shored up with hateful ignorant rhetoric.
Generating more heat than light.
Mr. Frosty Hardison is a pedophile who has the most unfortunate name since Senator Gaydolf Shitler. I think my theory holds more water than the theory that the earth is 14,000 years old, and should be given equal time.
... and then they built the supercollider.
""Condoms don't belong in school(.)" said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven"
According to him, they apparently don't belong anywhere.
Theories aren't things that have overwhelming evidence. In fact, there are theories that have essentially no evidence. A theory is just a testable explination or model for explaining observed phenomena. A hypothesis would be when you have an idea for a relation between observed phenomena, but only that there's a relation, not a way to test it. When you come up with ways to falsify it, it becomes a theory. The more ways it can be falsified, teh better the theory. Then you test it by tyring to falsify it. The more tests that fail to prove it false, the more sure you are it's true.
So you are right that "Just a theory," doesn't mean it's wrong. As Feynman pointed out that a brick has an inside is a theory as well, but not one likely to be debated. However you are incorrect if you think "theory" equals "proof". It doesn't, it only means there is the ability to be tested.
1st) Genises is a Jewish myth. 7 days has nothing to do with Christianity. At All.
2nd) If you read genises(most christian can't answer even the most simple question about it) the last think you shuld walk away from it is that the world was created is seven 'days'. Talk to a rabii about it.
Thoise people have no idea what the fuck a theory IS! They use it in the same context as 'they have a theory who will win the next superbowl'.
Gravity is a theory.
All the prediction by the scientific community made 30 years ago is happening, but at a faster rate.
If I said an invisible guy named earl follows me around and tell me what to do, I would be locked up(justifiable).
This is NOT A FLUCTUATION, it is a TREND.
Only ignorant ass American christians seem to think there is a contraversy here.
Your post makes it clear that you haven't studied global warming at all. Sadly, it is also clear that you don't understand they very book you are talking about.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If they are Rubes (you know the writer wanted them seen that way) then they are at least correct the charade. Here is artcile from 1075 Newsweek calling for politicians "to act" before its too late.
"Here is the text of Newsweek's 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here ( http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf )
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras - and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years
I can't think of any objective observations made by any scientists that would support creationism as a possible theory or hypothesis explaining the world as we know it.
I can't think of any scientific theories that explain why there is something and not nothing... science is limited in the scope of what it can test and prove. Philosophy takes over the rest.
That said... the discussion is about global warming, and the ridiculed man from the article makes a valid point that opposing evidence should be presented, particularly for controversial issues that have weak/young theories where there is contradicting scientific evidence and/or theories. His recommendation to present evidence from the Bible in this case isn't a good one, the theological issues alone would question whether prophecies about the end of the world should be applied to this subject... and there is plenty of scientific evidence worth discussing anyway, no need to try and integrate to different disciplines on this one.
Isn't the trick to this getting the particulate matter into the UPPER atmosphere (as volcanoes do)? Is so, then your proposed solutions would be much more damaging then helpful.
No, but I had some lovely gravioli for dinner yesterday.
Seriously though, stuff like this really pisses me off. If they have a counter-theory, I'm sure they're more than welcome to present it! (From what I've heard, freedom of speech still exists in the US.) The problem is, that they don't --- at least not a scientific one --- so instead of being presented arguments both for and/or against, the kids will hear nothing, which is probably even worse than only hearing one side of a story.
Anyways, just my 2 cents...
"Live free or don't."
Due to the volume of interest in this matter I am using auto-reply to get
you the quickest reply possible because your concerns about what we did
are important. I write this intending to express my own views and not the
views of other board members. I will not be replying to your replies.
Some of the media has not reported this matter accurately and I wanted to
make sure the issues and our decision were clear to you. Feel free to
share this with others who are concerned.
1. We did not make the decision based upon Mr. Hardison's religious or
other beliefs. The decision was made because a teacher was going to show
the movie and it did not appear she was following policy. It turned out
that she was not following policy. There was also an offer last week by
the proponents of the movie to give 50,000 copies to teachers across the
country to use as curriculum, which would have increased the chance that
the movie would be used. There was more than one complaint/concern
expressed about this issue based upon that alone.
2. We did not ban or censor the movie and have no intent to do so.
Teachers can use it as they see fit if they follow policy on movies and
controversial issues, but because there was some misunderstanding on the
policy we asked that the Superintendent be involved in making sure policy
was being followed. One of our high schools has already used the movie.
The students were asked to take a side, research the issues, and then
debate the issues from that standpoint. What they did goes above and
beyond the policy in my opinion.
3. We are not banning the teaching of global warming.
4. The debate on global warming is crucial to society and limiting the
debate to only one side's view of the facts and science would not be good
for anyone even if they believe the debate is over.
5. Our policies are designed to make sure that the door is open for more
debate on issues, not less, but it does not mean as some allege that any
wacko theory can be taught in our schools.
6. The decision was made upon existing policy. It was not based on
anyone's direct belief regarding politics, science, religion, or when the
earth was formed or when it will end.
7. Policy 2331 and 2331P is intended to prevent one-sided views of
controversial issues.
8. There was more than one complaint/concern expressed about this issue.
9. The policy should be equally enforced regardless of what side of the
spectrum any controversial issue falls upon. This protects the integrity
of the education process. We would have made the same decision if the
movie was about the Iraq war or some other issue and was narrated by
George W. Bush or some other partisan, even if the proponents felt the
debate was over on the topic they were presenting.
10. Using a partisan to present issues affecting contested public policy
matters makes it controversial per se. The media attention to our
decision is also evidence of the controversial nature of this film.
11. Science and politics have been merged on this issue by persons beyond
our control. The political aspect of this is what makes it the most
controversial, especially when a political partisan makes the
presentation. With that in mind, there are many other ways to teach
global warming instead of using a feature film by a political partisan
(see links below from NOAA and NASA that have references to skeptics), but
despite that we did not vote to "ban" the movie even though we could have.
We also had the power to compel specific sources be used instead of the
movie and did not do that either. Some have raised the issue of us not
watching the movie first, but we did not ban the movie or that would have
been crucial. We did feel it was controversial based upon the above
reasons which is all we needed to know based upon our policy.
12. On the issue of how final the debate is, Galileo and other out of the
box thinkers com
"I love deadlines. I love the "whooshing" sound they make as they pass by." - Douglas Adams.
Why do they have to impose their views upon others? Can't they just sit there and laugh at us nonbelievers, smirking 'cause they know we'll all go to hell in a handbasket when their long anticipated final day comes and God (or Allah, Jehova, ... pick your saviour) comes down to take them with him to paradise (or whatever)?
No, instead they go out of their way to twist and turn science around to match their believes, other go on a killing spree and start a "holy war". Is that what religion is about? Telling others how to live their life? I can't remember the line in the Bible where Jesus said "Go forth and go on everyone's nerves".
I doubt that anything like that can be found in the Quran either.
And why is it important for them to push their faith into science? What purpose does that serve? Are they so shaken in their faith that they need "scientific" sanctioning of whatever is writtin in their holy books? Is it not enough that God tells them so, why is it important for them that mere man gives his blessing to the teaches of their God?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is no easy way to determine if a theory is sound or not. That goal is the entire point of all of science. The only way to decide about a theory is with informed debate using hard facts and logic.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
People don't seem to realise that An Inconvenient Truth is actually an elaborate commercial for Apple's Keynote. I mean, seriously, did you see the resolution of that big screen!!?
Obviously I'm joking but I was impressed.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
This is Insightful. It deserves a few mod points.
I just googled our aptly-named Frosty to discuss a few of his perceptions. After (quickly) finding his home phone number, I called but was disappointed to find out his home phone like was in use by his internet. Dial-up internet. Seven kids. The earth is only 14,000 years old. This doesn't sound like a guy near Seattle -- would anybody care to bet he spent at least a part of his life in or around Arkansas?
Look, Global Warming IS A THEORY. The only way the theory will be proven to be a fact is time. History will determine if the theory is correct or not. The problem is that the religious idiots are ruining the whole argument. Ya know, life isn't for everyone. If there was ever a species that deserved to become extinct it's the religious fanatics. At least they provide a good source of humor for the rest of us when they're not muckin' things up.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
A Seattle school board has placed a moratorium on screenings of 'An Inconvenient Truth
Actually, a moratorium on screenings of any movies in school might be a good way to make education better, overall. Maybe they should be schooling instead of watching movies?
I still can't figure out why we watched "Ferngully: the Last Rainforest" in Spanish. I kind of understood why we watched "The Alamo," but I wasn't happy about the way the teacher raked me over the coals when she asked if I'd've wanted the chance to defend freedom at the Alamo and I said no because I was a pacifist. Same teacher who disliked my church, too, and made it known. As a result, I stopped with two years of Spanish instead of the three I wanted.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Sure, get back to us when you've come up with a global weather control system.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Ahhhh.... better.
Zealots: Please disprove.
Waiting.....
It would seem though that as a theory was tested over and over again it would be considered to be more reliable... a scoring system indicating the reliability of a theory, based on the amount of research and testing and contradictory evidence that existed for that theory would be extremely helpful in communicating scientific information to lay people.
Even if the weather is abnormally stable for the past centuries, it's not very clever to play with the curve before understanding the system more thoroughly.
We can always look at Venus to get reminded how a runaway greenhouse effect ends.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
No scientist was predicting "freezing to death", nor were any peer-reviewed journals publishing articles to this effect. The "1970's prediction of an iceage" myth is based on two media articles by National Geographic and Newsweek where the journalists got their science wrong (more so in Newsweek.)
a better explination is here
This is myth is keept alive by the likes of George Will (a fairly respectable conservative on most other topics) and that "expert" Michael Crichton. The only thing close was the discovery in the 1970's of teperature variations with a periodicity of 20000 years. Well below the time scale of anthropogenic warming (on order of decades to 100s of years.)
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
All of this ignores the bigger issue. The real issue is that parents are upset that students will mindlessly believe in global warming because they heard about it at school.
Why is it at all acceptable for students to mindlessly believe anything they're taught in school?
If some math teacher accidentally (or intentionally) says 2+2=5, do you want students to just write it down and memorize it? The problem here isn't global warming; that's just a symptom of a fundamentally broken education system. Let's treat the problem, not the symptoms.
Who else is unsurprised that a guy named "Frosty" is against the teaching of Global Warming?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
If you had a scoring system you would need to decide how many "point" a certain stufy would give. Who then decides what study is sound and what is not. Also how many MORE points do you give to studies that are done better than smaller scale and less effective studies. These are the type of things that statistics is for. Yes theoretically we could grade studies and theories but it would be rediculously inaccurate. We cant get scientists to agree on most new theories anyway so we would never get them to agree on what constitutes a good theory and bad theory.
There is no easy way around it unfortunatly. The reason why scientists' opinions are held highly is becuase they spend their life int he goal of being able to understand theories and decide which are good and which are not. Nobody yet has perfected it and so no system could ever be invented that does it perfect either.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Why should we view Christianity this way? All the evidence points to the opposite - that it's a massively organized big business based largely on telling people how they should act. Just because it's a personal relationship for you, doesn't change the reality of what Christianity is today.
In fact, rather then keeping the Jesus relationship personal and private, you came here to tell us how we should think about Christianity. Doesn't that directly contradict what you said about it being a personal relationship? Why would you care what we think of Christianity if it's such a personal thing?
... and then they built the supercollider.
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one"
And the problem with Occam's Razor is that it is seriously misinterpreted. "All things being equal" being key. His original words were "Thou shalt not pluralize needlessly." This is of course the extremely bastardized english translation. When "All things being equal" comes into play, it means that all information is in hand. Which in almost every circumstance Occam's Razor is used in, is not the case.
Take for instance, our lack of data previous the 19th century. BIG problem. We don't know whether we've seen similar temperature differentiations in the past because the technology did not exist to measure regional temperature averages, let alone global ones. When we sit here and argue about mankind's affectual nature, temperature is often at the basis of the argument. Being as how we didn't even have remotely reliable thermometers until the early 1900's; man's way of thinking that we are at fault for the minimal raise in temperature in remote areas not nearly to be construed by any analytical mind to be on global scale is very vain. The average temperature of the earth hasn't seen an increase in years, yet because of the increase in isolated areas due to easily defined variables not related to emittance of vehicles we have a global crisis on our hands.
Let's take my case for example. I'm sitting in -2F weather..........a temperature we haven't seen since the early 90's. This is in Colorado, we've been getting hit by precipitous weather non-stop for almost a month now in a manner unheard of for more than a decade. This change in weather I believe is not an artifact of our "pollutants" but a matter of natural phenomenae. Anybody remember the "global cooling" crisis? I'm not even old enough to have been alive during the period, but let's suffice it to say that the "Cold War" was aptly named. I remember Al Nino, I remember certain hurricanes resulting in myself and family members getting sucked out 10 feet into the surf after hurricanes near the east coast, I even remember the Berlin wall. I can say with empirical certainty that such weather is a normal occurance over the course of time; but people insist on being paranoid.
Which brings us back to my point.
"All things being equal"
When this is said, it means all information available being measured against the applicable results. We have results, but scant amounts of data. Terrestrial weather patterns have been patently cyclical since man has existed (which is more than 14,000 years, thank you very FUCKING MUCH); and have been observed since modern measuring equipment and variants thereof have been in production; yet we fail to take that into account and cannot take that into account until we have at least 2 weather cycle's worth of data to compare to. We're phasing into cycle two.
Before using a man's words, at least do him the favor of using them as they were meant to be used. To do otherwise is to piss, shit and throw any manner of excrement on his name. I do hope to god any wise words I have to share with the world would not be used for such half-assed, imbecilic retardation as Occam's Razor has been used for in the past years. Occam by all technical accounts is a many centuries old shit-fucker. I'm talking about getting a hard on for the stinkiest, unhealthiest corn-filled feces on the planet.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
The question isn't "Why is he trying?"
The question is "Why is he being allowed to succeed?"
Albuquerque PC
So let's say we're talking to The Federal Way School Board. It's a group of people who don't really understand the scientific method, and are making a ruling on behalf of a lot of religious people. As far as I see it, they're CLOSING A SCHOOL DISTRICT of 22,395 children, and OPENING A CHURCH DISTRICT. It's NOT just another religious nut, it's one less region of educated children.
/., just talk, or also some of that walk-walking, but can we not do something about this? There are a couple posts here that I think respond fantastically to the issue. Shall we engage a letter-writing campaign? "Science in a nuthsell" style? I particularly liked tbo's idea of turning it into an opportunity to invite the kids to think critically and decide for themselves.
m l Contact individual Schools within the district. Take a moment on monday to give the district a call or write a letter. I'm testing a HYPOTHESIS that we can fix this. (Yeah I know you love that one.)
Now I'm not too familiar with how you do it down here at
Check it out:
Federal Way Public Schools
Administration offices: 31405 - 18th Ave. S., Federal Way, WA, 98003
Phone: (253)-945-2000
or http://www.fwps.org/info/schools/contact/index.ht
Oh come on, that study is total bullshit. It extrapolates data from a set few locations and groups who have been harboring exceptional violence and projects it on the whole iraq. This becomes all the more obvious since those 650k people are about 2% (!) of the whole population of iraq.
Doesn't anyone here question information that is served to them anymore?
These _________IST(S) that think the planet Earth is only 14K years old need to have a small discussion with Richard Dawkins! Don't forget that Bush is the same fundamentalist as they are, and look how he has run our country into the ground. People being scared of the facts, not mature enough to know that we are more evolved but still are related to other animals from our native environment. Childish, stubborn people need to learn to search for facts and prove what is real, not make the velveteen bunny out to be real.
Relativity is "just a theory" as well, but your GPS system would fail totally if both the special and general theories of relativity were not taken into account. Too many laymen think that "theory" means "tentative hypothesis" when in fact many theories are about as well established as any claim about the physical world could possibly be.
Alas... you're probably right. I guess us lay people will need to leave all of the divining up to the shamans after all :)
:)
Yes that's a troll/flamebait statement... which as a pretty asshole thing to do after you've been patient and convinced me that you're right.
Thanks!
- ingolfke
Truth is, spaghetti is just a friendly name for "superstrings", and the Big Bang was just a big "spaghetti" well, ..., "monster" right ?
so.... wanna match evidence ????
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Is that an ad-hominem? Could there be, perhaps, very firm reasons to dismiss and even ridicule Hardison while taking Gore seriously?
Reasons like dozens of climate models and as close to unanimity as you ever get from scientists (especially when some are paid to say otherwise)?
It is a "political argument" in the same way that "condoms prevent unwanted pregnancy and STD's", "abortion does not cause breast cancer", "HIV causes AIDS" and "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory" are political arguments.
That last one is particularly appropriate, because it's been forced on science and scientists in opposition to the same anti-science, go-back-to-before-the-enlightenment crowd behind the "GW is a political controversy" position.
"Global warming and oil depletion mean we should abandon technological civilization and go back to dirt farming with animals" is a political argument. Politics is about policy. When people take the position that a statement of fact is a political position when it can be proven right or wrong, they are stretching the definition of "political" beyond its breaking point. They are doing exactly what the Roman Church did when it demanded that Galileo recant his position that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Someone as intelligent as you - and believe me, unless you've taken a blow to the head recently (or taken up heavy drinking, you teetotaler you) I know what that is - also knows that science education at the K-12 level is drastically simplified. It has to be; HS biology doesn't have time to deal with matters like introns and RNA interference and all the non-trivial elements of genetics, to list just one thing in one class. Given the enormous complexity of the body of knowledge and the slow pace of education in public schools, it can hardly be otherwise.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is a scientifically relevant presentation on matters of current interest. I would hardly say that a science class wouldn't be complete without it, but it is not out of place in K-12. In an AP-level class, it would ideally be used as an introduction to one-dimensional atmospheric modelling, perhaps with a tie-in to integral calculus.
His other beliefs are quite relevant, as they have been tied politically to denial of anthropogenic global warming. Anti-science views in general are strongly associated with religious fundamentalism, and it cannot be wrong to say so unless Hardison has dissociated himself from same.
Geez. Of all the people I'd expect to adopt a relativist position on matters of science, you are the last I'd think of. Has moving to the Bay Area finally affected your mind, or is it just reaction to all the fruitcakes around you?
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Do you feel that Christians in the time of the Continental Congress were concerned with the same issues that Christianity is concerned with today?
Do you think the founding fathers just forgot to pass a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
Everybody knows that God created the earth 6000 years ago! The Bible says so!
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
/. thread seems to me to be one of the most biased and certainly uses subtle ad hominem to undermine the argument that An Inconvenient Truth is not the unbiased truth it claims to be... having a discussion about "end times" and Revelation isn't really the right solution either... but there are certainly better materials available that are not so polarizing and that present the facts and opposing facts (scientific facts).
You know... a more interesting question I think is why is it that everyone here has bought into this story as if this guy is the best case that was put before the school board?
Also... why was this particular article used when there are other articles available? I surveyed a couple other articles and the one cited in this
Funny you should mention that one, as it was eventually proven to be incorrect. That's was Einstein's claim to fame.
well, it's still pretty valid when you're not dealing with significant fractions of the speed of light.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Because if humans aren't the primary (I wouldn't say "sole") cause of the current warming trend, you have to explain things like the atmospheric CO2 level heading towards 30% greater than any time in the last million years, plus the levels of all the other sometimes-natural (N2O, CH4) and unnatural (CF4, SF6) greenhouse gases we're seeing.
You also have to explain the concurrent warming of the troposphere and poles while the stratosphere is cooling.
I really do want to read your take on this. It ought to be good.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
I watched a movie recently called "Idiocracy" It was a wonderful documentary sent back from the future.
A theory is the best explanation for an observed phenomena.
No. A theory is A explanation for an observed phenomena.
If you would help you to remove your head from the sand and realize the question that is actually really being seriously contested is whether or not the cause of global warming is man.
Yeah, he's wrong about the age of the Earth too, everyone knows it's 6010 years old.
The thing I find funny about Ussher is that he worked out the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC. Talk about quoting results with too much precision.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Ahhhh.... better.
Zealots: Please disprove.
Isn't it funny how, when you boil everything else away, the real fear people have is about maybe, possibly, having to take responsibility for something?
I think we need to learn from things and then get over it. There are bigger things to think about than whether or not we are personally to blame for dreaming the Star Trek dream. --We might instead ponder such things as getting flash frozen when the gulf stream quits out on us. (Though that almost sounds better than starving while all the crops rot in the cold, cold mud.)
-FL
Then maybe you want to fast-forward twenty years, until the science is accepted without manufactured controversy and the classroom treatment has had time to develop.
It isn't that soon yet, but we can't wait that long to act.
I have a suggestion for doing so. It is subject to revision, but so is every element of science and every engineering proposal. No, I have no financial stakes in any of this - yet.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
The great disconnect that you are failing to mention is why an Islamic person (or a person of any religion) feels compelled to impose his beliefs on others. You don't like a cartoon that you saw? Then, don't look at it. And don't draw cartoons like that. And go ahead and voice your disagreement with it, and use reason to explain why you think such cartoons are offensive. And commisserate with buddies who share your world view. There's nothing wrong or disagreeable with any of that.
But recognize this -- this is such an incredibly pluralistic world, that there are people in this world who are just as devout as you are in THEIR beliefs which are just about the exact opposite of your beliefs. That is true on just about any of these inflammatory issues, including the cartoons. There are religious people who would actually find the ABSENCE of such cartoons disgustingly offensive, who hold very moral, principled positions that the very notion of a "prophet," some kind of super-human, is blasphemous to God, and thus the whole idea of "prophets" must be lampooned and all such false idols (in their religious opinion) must be mocked, if one is to be faithful to God.
Perhaps there are even people who think Moslems should pay THEM a tithe, permitted only to live out a third class existence in relation to THEM. I wouldn't be surprised - it's a big world, filled with lots of thoughts. The point is, how can people with such opposite beliefs ever live in peace and harmony without always trying to kill each other? The only way is by rejoicing in their similarities ("We both believe in God and trying to be a good person - yipee!") and by doing their best to respect their differences and respect the fact that the other person holds different ideas ("Yes, in retrospect, you're right, I was angry when I said that thing which you found incredibly offensive, I will try harder to see if I can sometimes see things from your point of view (if you'll do the same for me), but hey, you've got to understand, we DO think differently and there are probably going to be some times when I testily speak out in anger and say that terrible thing to you, for example, that time when I was a jerk and called you an infidel - I'm sorry I offended you."
There is no other alternative except mutual annihilation, and I doubt any but the most crazy of us really wants that.
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Practically, we can't. Short of cataclysmic events like global nuclear war, humanity cannot affect the entire planet in any reliably predictable way - primarily because the timescales are simply too big but also because there are simply too many variables to account for.
Attempting to deliberately change climate on a global scale is the epitomy of "chasing the dials".
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher,"
i siting_professor
Yes, he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore%2C_Jr.#V
Um, actually Newton's Law does NOT hold up, which is why we now have the theory of General Relativity (and even that doesn't cover everything). All it takes is one counterexample to prove a theory wrong.
If you have an explanation for that, I really want to know what it is.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
oh, wait...
We all know this person obviously has some interesting viewpoints, but a valid point would be this...
After Al Gore lost the presidential election, he started teaching part time for Yale and some elite high schools. So, technically, he IS a schoolteacher...
I will bet that you would find that... inconvenient for your personal religious position.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Wellllll not to sound like someone with that was per say blessed with an ... not 1+2=fish..
....
innate ability to think for himself, but the question stands that how, with the available physical evidence
at hand...
on Earth or any other planet with a rich and plentiful fossil
record as us claim the planet is only 14,000yrs old..
and what does that have to do with a school forum..
schools are there to teach art and literature as well as scientifically established fact by the scientific method by reasons of common sense.
(i know theres more to it than that).
i didnt believe the american school systems were created to perpetuate myths and legends as Truths written in stone.. 1+1=2
note: this has nothing to do with the fact that we cannot technically disprove
the existence of a non corporeal supernatural entity blessing us
and all of the animal planet life into existance over the course of 7 days..
and let us not forget being made into its image...
((note extreme sarcasm))
my head hurts that there is actually a living being (not sure if that being is human)
exists on this planet..
especially that mentally handicapped(and isn't in an institution)
that hasn't been picked off yet..
I don't know it it's related, but perhaps that's why the birds are falling from the sky.
Another is not even a theory; it's that as the world heats up, more precipitation falls over the poles, which would explain the substantially thicker ice noted by satellites. Nobody seems to be talking about this little item.
The way it works is that things heat up, the ice melts fast around the edge and the snow falls at the poles making for more ice. --Along with all the methane released, (which speeds up the process), we have all this fresh water entering the oceans which changes the salinity levels in key spots. --Salinity plays a large role in how the Gulf Stream works, particularly at the point the hot water sinks when it reaches the end of its run in the North to begin its return trip back into the tropics. A big conveyor belt. However, as the water gets less salty, with lots of fresh water dumping into the ocean at the end of the Gulf Stream's run where the icebergs live, then the theory states that the hot water might stop sinking and that the world's heat conveyor would sputter and get all weird.
And what does 'weird' mean? I don't know exactly; I don't think anybody does, but I pause when I consider those endless fields of flash frozen mastodon in the Alaskan North. --And that flash frozen mastodon with undigested buttercups still in its mouth.
Still, nobody can predict the weather. I'm remain a bit more fascinated by all these rocks falling from the sky. Interesting times, no doubt!
It has been said that Bush and the people directing him are simply trying to prepare the world for disaster by putting into place the conditioning and systems required to manage billions of starving people. Harvest time is coming.
-FL
Gravity is a theory, too. So is the theory of evolution. Yet, both are seen as true by almost every modern scientist. The word theory has a certain meaning when used in science.
[sig]
Im not a shaman either but I understand the need for them.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Well, where is there more money? The best I could come up with is http://www.bea.gov/bea/industry/gpotables/gpo_acti on.cfm?anon=77&table_id=18893&format_type=0 which is next to useless for evaluating your question.
Does anyone have the google-fu to provide even a rudimentary guess as to "where the money is?"
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Geez. Of all the people I'd expect to adopt a relativist position on matters of science, you are the last I'd think of. Has moving to the Bay Area finally affected your mind, or is it just reaction to all the fruitcakes around you?
That's because you misunderstand my point.
I'm not taking a relativist position on matters of science. (Nor was the original complainant, nor was the school board.)
I'm pointing out that the issue was the suppresion of one side of a political debate in a government-funded, mandatory-attendance, school.
I'm pointing out that, as such, the particular opinions of the complainant, no matter how ill-grounded they may be, DON'T MATTER.
And I'm pointing out that the reportage of his opinions is ITSELF propaganda directed against those who don't believe that public schools should be government-run political indoctrination mills.
To the extent that I'm taking a position of my own on this, it's against mandatory government indoctrination of youth in politically correct thinking and against propaganda in the press disguised as unbiased reporting.
Does that fit better with your opinion of my thinking based on my other postings? B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually the global cooling theory was a valid concern. The argument was that all the particulates that we were pumping into the atmosphere would reflect enough sunlight to cause global cooling. Thing is we cut way back on pumping particulates into the atmosphere and solved that problem.
Back in the '70s it was just not quite as obvious which would win out, CO2 raising the temperture or particulates lowering the temperture and both were argued.
I have also heard that up to 30% of global warming might be caused by solar variation. Which of course still leaves 70+% being man made but shows the rate of increase may vary depending on solar output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Of course this guy doesn't believe in global warming: the greater Seattle area got a couple inches of snow this week and the city shut down like a BSOD. I'm sure tomorrow he's going to go out and buy a 20kW generator just in case the seventh seal is opened over the weekend.
(In case you don't live in Seattle and/or don't get the joke: one inch of snow, and temperatures of 20 degrees Fahrenheit should not cause this much chaos. We get snow every year, for crying out loud.)
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
The groundedness of the opinions of the complainer DO MATTER if the subject is science.
Further, the claim that any popular political opinion should be presented in a science class is equivalent to a belief that public schools should be government-run political indoctrination mills.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
First of all, it's not ad hominem to examine the beliefs of someone who is claiming authority in a subject. For example, it would be perfectly legitmate to put in a story "Dr. J. Smith, who believes in the healing powers of crystals and smoked banana peels, etc."
Second, the only ad hominem argument being made here is yours. You are dismissing all arguments and evidence in "An Inconvenient Truth" because it is narrated by Al Gore. This in itself is enough, in your mind, to label the entire movie "partisan", though you neglect to include any examples of partisanship. It's been my experience that the word "partisan" is the last refuge of those who really, desperately want to ignore an argument for which they can not form a counter.
Science isn't Democratic or Republican. Thinking so is dangerous and foolish. The current climate in American reminds me of German authorities earlier in the century rejecting "Jewish science" in favour of "Aryan science". That worked out really well, didn't it?
Think of the snowmen.
(One snowman to the other: "Do you smell carrots?")
Iraq Body Count says about 55,000 people have died because of DIRECT violence caused by the U.S. government. However, that does not count the people who died because of indirect causes. Iraq Body Count is defending itself against criticism that it is undercounting the deaths due to U.S. government violence; you can read the discussions on the site.
An estimated 150,000 Iraqis died because of the first U.S. government-Iraq war. So, the Bush family has killed about 205,000 Iraqis, even using estimates that are low because they count only direct violence.
The total number of people killed in the 24 countries that the U.S. government has invaded since the 2nd world war is, sensibly, I think, estimated at 11,000,000. This counts the number of people who died because of the violence that violence causes.
The U.S. government has started a civil war in Iraq, as well as starting its own war. The people who die in the civil war must be considered to have died because of Cheney - Rumsfeld - G.W. Bush violence. The U.S. government violence did not create a peaceful democracy. It created an even more unstable country; that's exactly to be expected; violence breeds violence.
> BTW: Ever notice how really ancient cities are mostly inland
> while recent constructions are mostly on the coast?
London has been around for more than 2 thousand years, and is built on the tidal part of the Thames river.
How does that fit into your framework of "really ancient cities" and coastal construction?
The "Pascal" op has a far deeper true than any other post here.
There's little doubt that data shows the earth is heating up. There's also data on (geologic time scale) recent increases in CO2 above ice core measurements. While there is evidence for CO2 - warming linkage, there is also other explanations for past variations (solar output, movement of solar system through galaxy, distribution of landmasses over geologic time, etc.) and past geologic phases where CO2 concentrations were much higher than today and the earth wasn't that hot at the time and past transitions between ice ages and warming weren't all that linear. Todays climate models can accurately explain what's happening _today_ but have much uncertainty on what will happen in the future.
Given all this uncertainty of what _will_ happen in the future given the uncertain models, faith is interjected. All of the well, we all better buy that Prius because it "may" help in mitigating global warming, but we don't really know, but what if it's true doesn't show a scientific view of the world, it shows a view based on faith. And then these same people deride Christians because of their faith based beliefs. They've just substituted a faith based in science instead of Christianity. I'm not declaring one's right and one's wrong here, but you cannot say you're 100% deciding on purely scientific principal, can you? Or can you say hypocrisy? I knew you could...
Preface: I am a person who believes that our greedy consuption of resources without taking into account the fact there WILL be consequences is wrong. So don't mix me up with those "I have the right to drive my hummer, I'm an American" idiots. I do NOT agree with the posters conclusions, but he is basing it on REAL experiences.
To all you naysayers out there. I was one of the MANY people that was taught about global cooling in school in the 70's, I was taught it as Science, and it was taught as a fact. So go ahead, claim this is a myth and should be discounted, or the parent is not worthy of his mod points, I was there and I know it IS truth.
What? you say that this was not the common scientific thought? I'm not so sure, I did not see the outcry in the scientific community about it. Trust me, if they do disagree with something being taught in school they go balistic (see creation science, or do they have a double standard?).
P.S. Do I seem bitter about the crap I was taught in school. Maybe. Once the subjects strayed outside pure maths, the info was really sketchy. The stuff we were taught as Evolutionary fact was pure B.S. Most of it had been proven false decades before, but don't let that stop the science teacher... We wouldn't want him to have to upgrade his skills, or change his message from "this IS what happened" to "this is our best ideas on what happened". (And it is funny, as much as the textbook publishers like to churn text books and profit, it seems to take FOREVER to get this stuff out of them)
You are half right.
The difference between the IBC's 55,000 figure and the Lancet's 650,000 is partly due to the fact that the IBC excludes indirectly caused deaths (for which Bush is liable under international law), but mostly due to the fact that the IBC is an estimate of the deaths reported in English-language media, whereas the Lancet is an estimate of all deaths.
Since reporters in war zones generally have the ability to report no more than 10% of the casualties that occur, the two figures do not conflict significantly.
"The solution is not to ban books and films - but to teach students critical thinking, and media analysis skills."
Oh, sure, like fundies (and the government) want people to learn that THAT!
No sig today...
No, Newton's law is quite correct in its own domain: non-relativistic speeds and not very massive objects. Einstein determined boundary conditions for Newton's laws.
I intend Newton no disrespect -- for nearly all practial purposes his theory of gravity gives accurate enough predictions. It's just important to remember that the hallmark of science is that all theories are open to be disproved. Once any theory is accepted as dogma it's not science. That's why science is not a religion.
:)
That said, I tend to live my life as if most scientific theories are fact. No point questioning things every day unless somebody has evidence
Cheers.
For those without the background. The parent is funny because the role of Jesus was as a teacher, even being called "Good teacher" and "teacher" by peers (I believe they called them Pharasies).
that 30 years of additional data is a sufficient basis to support diametrically opposed claims of millenia-scale, global climate change? HAW! HAW!
Quote: "While a few scientists expressed concern, most admitted they didn't have enough data, at the time, to make any real predictions." An honest scientist would say that they don't have enough data, NOW, to make any real predictions or claims of causality. After all, everyone knows that global warming is actually caused by a lack of pirates.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"Global Warming" isn't a debate...the fact that sending money to Washington will stop it, is. But isn't Mars also showing a climactic change?
Exactly how many BTU will an airconditioner require to change this back?
See what happens when you think "Look outside your window in Chicago, and you can see the Himilayans" (EarthSource.org)....the planet is _huge_. We are _small_. In a single volcano blast (that we can't control) more CO2 can get in the air that over the last 100 years.
This is a long line of such Chicken Little ploys.
1970-ish: "The population explosion". We must stop having babies; relying on Washington to decide who lives and dies. [We've learned industrial nations throttle well, when contraceptives are available. However, it makes paying for Socialist Security hard to do.]
1975, "The coming Ice Age" We'll be ok if we send money to Washington, and stop going to work. [Never happened, and neither did "Acid rain that will keep our children from playing outside for the rest of their lives".]
1980-something: "The Ozone hole" We'll be ok, if we shut down all our factories and change from Freon to the "New Freon" (which sends money to Washington.) [The hole was learned to be a natural phenomenon, which was in the process of shrinking, anyway.]
Guys, enough of this. Turn off the TV; that's where the programming is coming from. Read a book...test a theory. Think for yourselves!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Everyone should learn to take things they teach you in school as something that is not necessarily true. I was taught that Centrifugal Forces DO exist. My biology teacher always underlined the word theory at least twice when talking about Evolution. I was taught that Nuclear Fusion ONLY occurs between deuterium and tritium. And now they try saying that I should not worry, cause Global Warming is very natural. The question is: "Still, even if it's natural and we have absolutely nothing to do with it. Will it kill us?" I keep wondering - why these kind of people say that everyone is wrong without researching the subject? If Earth is 14,000 years old, how can you explain carbon dating and other half-life or big-bang trace based evidence? How is that different from "The Earth is flat because I never saw people walk upside-down to me. They should teach THAT in school."
There are two kinds of people - those who are radioactive and those who have already decayed..
wants to spread the disinformation that "global warming" isn't for real... ExxonMobil. Everyone else siding with ExxonMobil is simply regurgitating their PR bullshit, either knowingly or because their ability to stay on payroll (including the PR outfits paying astroturfers) depends on it.
Even the rest of the oil industry has bugged out on ExxonMobil... the ones investing in alternative energy.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Human Intelligence Only a Theory, Says Global Warming"
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Isn't this usually called consensus science? Hence peer-review, etc. etc? Last I checked the overwhelming majority, no wait, the entire scientific community is in agreement on "global warming". Read this as 2,500+ scientists from over 130 countries agreeing over the basis of the IPCC. Note that the opposition is comprised of a lot of the same crack team of "scientists" that defended the tobacco industry in the '70s. Their integrity notwithstanding, their arguments are still just about as transparent as their lives.
So what does the IPCC say? Let's paraphrase it: CO2 is related to warming of the temperatures, humans are causing this, and that we ought to do something about it because we can. Oh, and btw, warming is Not a Good Thing(tm), especially at the rate with which we're inducing it.
On a more philosophical note, I think you struck a cord with me on the shaman quib. I've recently been interested in Richard Dawkins and his arguments on religion. In my travels I found that his philosophy and reasoning fairly sound, but that something was possibly lacking in what he suggested we ought to do: if religion isn't responsible for what we believe, who or what is? Surely someone will say, "Science! Duh..." It sounds good, but is wrong because science isn't about belief (Or is it?). Or perhaps someone will suggest that each person be his own judge for truth. This is closer to a good answer, but rather impractical. How exactly should everyone be informed of everything such that they can always make the correct judgments on truth? If I tried to discern all truth on my own with no help or instruction of what others think or how they did it, I wouldn't get much done in a day. Nor would I ever learn much.
We are limited information processing machines, hence the convenience and necessity of "beliefs". This leads me back to the beginning: how do we know what to believe in when we're ignorant? Consensus science. Sure, it's failed a couple times here and there (Galileo, Copernicus, etc.), but for the vast majority progress within science the consensus works just fine. And that is why I believe the understated findings of the IPCC.
Look, there's no need to defend Newton... his theories are still applicable to nearly all physics situations. But the fact that Einstein found previously unknown boundaries is proof that the original theory was wrong. It was incomplete, like all scientific theories, because they are models of the world, not the world itself. That doesn't diminish their importance at all. In fact, it is the acceptance that all scientific theories are incomplete that separates science from religion. True science has no dogma. And that honesty of its own limitations is why I can trust it.
Cheers.
There is an alternative explanation as to why ancient civilizations were not necessarily on the coast.
Ancient civilizations relied on efficient farming practices which required plenty of fresh (not salt water) to be readily available (either close by or through irrigation). As a result, most ancient civilizations were somewhat close to a source of fresh water. For example:
- The Indus valley civilization was located around the Indus and Ghagger-Hakra river valleys.
- Mesopotamia was situated near the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers
- Ancient Egypt of course, was situated near the Nile river.
- Ancient China, was situated near the Yellow River.
As civilization evolved, however, the importance of trade increased and the dependence on large local fresh water supplies for farming had also decreased (due to trade and improved farming techniques). Therefore, one reason why many modern cities tend to be formed on coastlines is that their access to the sea is condusive to trade. There are other reasons such as military defence, imperialism, access to the ocean for fishing purposes, etc.
Most large, modern cities today which are located on the coast are, or at one time were, major ports. For example, Vancouver, Montreal, Los Angeles, Puerto Vallarta, New York, Antwerp, London, Cape Town, Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, etc.
Agreed.
I'm fascinated when I read headline stories about GW.
"2006 was the warmest year in 1000 years".
Either (1) They stopped looking after 1000 years, which is bad science in a billion-year cyclic environment, or (2) 1000 years ago, it was hotter.
We find other screwups, as well. A few months ago, there was a front page story about GW. The Big Scientist being quoted mentioned several things in it, but appears to have not considered what he was saying. For example, he mentions coldness, and how there was a "mini ice age" from about 1400AD to 1700AD. Eight paragraphs later, he says we've now got the hottest weather seen in 400 years.
Math 101: 2000 - 400 = 1600. The dead peak of that mini ice age. Either they knowingly compared the temperatures to exactly a *very short* period *they* say was a "cold spell", stopped looking, and were *astonished* to find a heat increase. Or, in the peak of that self-termed "mini ice age", it was hotter.
Huh?
Finally, noone seems to really pay attention to the impact of ocean currents on atmospheric heat... they all seem to think that atmosphere is the only factor. 700 calories per gram comes out of the ocean when it evaporates, and 700 calories per gram goes into the atmosphere when it condenses.
Hot equatorial water flows along the surface to the north pole, and evaporates along the way. Cold water at the pole is displaced by the warm current, sinks, and returns to the equator as an undercurrent.
As the hot water travels north - when it evaporates, that heat came from the equator. When it condenses, that heat is absorbed by the atmosphere - it effectively "carries" equatorial heat northward.
But, the polar ice caps melt. Ice caps are freshwater. Freshwater floats on salt water. Fresh water at the poles... pushes south, forcing the warm equatorial water under. With the warm water buried, it doesn't evaporate; the cold water is what's exposed. The evaporation rate goes down as a result. The fresh water layer will mix with the seawater, but it'll still be less dense... and be cold, and float. Atmospheric temperature gets fewer grams of evaporation, obviously. I don't recall the specific capacity of the impact, but a temperature drop of "20 degrees F" sticks in my head, as was demanded in the 60s by some guy who was studying beetles, as was dictated by the dominant types of beetles he found at various depths. (The beetle guy was a facinating story - the color of the dominant beetle's shell can often tell you the temperature of a given year, to within 2 degrees?!) He released his findings, back then, as was pretty much laughed out of a job.
His story stayed buried for 30 years, until some oceanographer chanced upon it while working... go figure... on currents at the equator. He'd also recently seen something about a polar core sample, taken above canada, that indicated severe temperature drops over short terms. He contacted the beetle guy, and the ice core guy, and compared their details. The dates of the ice-core guy and the beetle guy were pretty much the same for all of the extreme temperature shifts. He focused on the biggest shift they found, which was (as I recall) about 20 degrees F.
So, he dug deeper. He found out about some giant freshwater lake that existed at the pole some zillion years ago, and how it had supposedly melted its way into the ocean in a giant flood of freshwater. The date was the same as the temperature drop.
And he applied this lake idea to what he was studying, and it made sense - there's a big "heat conveyor" in the Atlantic. Freshwater floats on seawater. Freshwater at the pole would head south. Freshwater would displace the warm seawater underneath, and effectively push the northern end-point of the conveyor southward. Points that are north of the conveyor no longer get heat from it, to the tune of up to a 20 degree F drop... in literally a couple of years. It can likewise increase that much, just as fast.
So, if the beetle guy's study has any merit (and it do
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Just to point this out: 10+ years ago, our dear scientist created models that predicted a correspondence between CO_2 and the temperature. In the meanwhile, the CO_2 has been steadily increasing, and the temperature likewise. The temperature has been evolving like the models said it would given the evolution in the earths atmosphere --- not just the trend, but the exact temperatures. That is a pretty good test of the theory validity. I has me convinced at least. If I had any money, I'd invest in companies doing ditches and dams :/
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
People who talk about the "big picture" over thousands of years (including pre-human periods). What does this have to do with us? Do you have no survival instinct? Global warming is fine if it kills off the human race but the cockroaches live?
The goal here for some of us is avoid the total destruction and/or collapse of the global civilization that we have now and to prevent our sons/daughters/nieces/nephews from having to live agonizing, suffering-laden, possibly abbreviated lives on a planet undergoing a massive change toward not supporting our species at its current population level.
It seems to me such a moot point whether the earth was hotter XX thousand years ago before modern humans existed. So fucking what? We are modern humans and and I fail to see how it's rational to include in any human-framed definition of "normal Earth" an Earth in which humans can no longer survive. It just blows my mind whenever I see people talking as if the goal is anything other than to avoid pain and suffering for ourselves.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Yes, I have heard the "11-year solar warming cycle" line before. In fact, I heard it over 15 years ago.
Can anyone tell me when exactly this 11 year warming cycle began and will end?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
The trouble with school vouchers ... is then you start to argue over what constitutes a school. If public money is paying for it, can it go to a madrassa? Or a Catholic school? Or Joe's School and Lube? Or Russ's "We teach computers ... and only computers" school for nerds? And then there's health and safety mandates. Don't want kids to play on monkey bars!!! They'll all die like we did when we played on them!! Don't want kids to eat trans-fats for Gosh's sake! Remember, catsup is a vegetable.
There are *multiple* tarpits here that can't be avoided because of the very nature of public funding.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
1. Global warming is happening.
2. Man may be causing it, or may not be causing it.
3. Therefore, we should tell students that man is causing it, and then tell them that man is not causing it.
4. ???
5. Progress
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
lovely, yes..
We are indeed all hypocrites, if you ignore the fact that pascal's horrible ad Baculum was entirely a priori, whereas this is not quite.
still, feel free to throw the 'irony of it all' in our face
Some orrents
Also when will I be welcomed to explain in sunday school why atheists are better people and why robbing banks is a good thing. I can even read to them the parts where is is written in *my* holy book: The Stainless Steel Rat.
I once explained it to a couple of Mormons who spoke to me on the street and they looked extremely confused when I explaine why atheists where better people. The reason obviously is that a atheist knows that this is the only life somebody will have, so it will be much more precious. A believer thinks there is another chance, so if you get killed, it isn't THAT bad.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
But HUMANS are only a fucking blip. Don't you get this - we're NOT concerned that the Earth will melt or end or explode, we're concerned that rapid climate change will pose extreme difficulties for HUMAN CIVILISATION. Surely it's not that hard to understand. The Earth WAS much warmer millions of years ago, but there weren't any humans extant during those conditions.
A simple search of white pages dot come reveals frosty's home phone number should anyone want to let him know how you feel. i wont post it, but you're free to go find it yourself. Frosty & Gayla Hardison of federal way WA. @ whitepages.com the supression of science for commercial gains is nothing new. whats new is that it's their money for our kids' world.
The graphs you refference are boring and in no way interesting and in no way relevant to global warming.
o 2_concentration_in_the_atmosphere_over_the_past_40 0_000_years
The graphs only contain "temperatures" and no associated CO2 levels or any other greenhouse gas.
Interesting are graphs like this one: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature_and_c
Your argumentation makes no sense either. 500 Million years ago, the human population was exactly zero, so who cares if it was warmer or not? Today we have a population of 6.3 billion. If you mess up with the local climat of indonesia, china, india, do you really think the people there stay where they are and die? I guess they move elsewhere, where they consider it better, that might be your place or mine.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But I have a happy image of this Frosty Hardison guy beaten to a pulp with a hardback edition of Origin of Species.
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
But to suggest that philosophy "takes over" the rest implies that anything useful could ever come of it, and this is so far from the case that it's ridiculous. I would argue that there is no possible answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing - what kind of answer could possibly satisfy us? Any answer would necessarily be of the form "Something exists rather than nothing because of X," which presupposes that X exists and that the truthhood of the chain of logic leading to X exists, thus begging the question. God is no way out, either, and when people claim that their philosophy or religion allows them to investigate things which science "is not able to," they are being disingenuous since they can do no better. The best you can do in that direction is to assert that we exist because of God (or a higher power, or whatever you want to call it), and God exists because of Himself. That's all well and good, and trivially consistent, but it doesn't tell us anything useful. It's like suggesting the insertion of an axiom into a system purported to represent reality that says "This axiom is true" (maybe a closer analogy to religion would be "This axiom is true because this axiom is true") - it might be true, and it might be false, but either way it's neither falsifiable or very enlightening, and certainly not worthy of more than an amused chuckle, let alone a massive investigation on the scale of modern scientific research.
Back on point, though: a question that by virtue of its content can have no meaningful answer is a bad question, end of story. And it is true, science cannot answer bad questions that don't have answers. But this is not a limitation; rather, it is an indication that scientists are not stupid enough to get bogged down thinking about things that will never amount to anything useful. To me, that is what makes science great, not what leaves it lacking...the philosophers are more than welcome to hole up with these bad questions and argue over them until they are blue in the face. But I can tell you for sure that whatever they "discover," it just won't be all that interesting.
So yeah, we need to summon the power of the Mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster once again.
:(){
Newton's Law of Gravity is still correct but, as with all mathematical models, we have to know under which conditions and which intervals and values it still holds. For your information, Einstein's general relativity theory is nothing more than a generalization of Newton's Law of Gravity, which expands the model's conditions and working intervals. That means that one theory doesn't go against another and both complement themselves. To put it in simpler terms in order for you to understand, the particular form of Newton's Law of Gravity that P = m.g, being m an object's mass and g the constant gravity acceleration vector which it's magnitude is equivalent to the earth's gravity pull on the ocean level (approx. 9.8m.s^-1) is still a valid, general purpose mathematical model of gravity. Yet, it only remains valid under certain conditions. Nonetheless, it is extensively used in science and engineering, returning extremely accurate results.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Why do they have to impose their views upon others? Can't they just sit there and laugh at us agnostics, smirking 'cause they know we'll all go to the school board in a handbasket when their long anticipated final day comes and AlGore (or Newdow , Michael Moore, ... pick your saviour) comes down to take them with him to the White House (or whatever)?
No, instead they go out of their way to twist and turn science around to match their believes, other go on a publicity spree and start a "press war". Is that what atheism is about? Telling others how to live their life? I can't remember the line in the Constitution where Jefferson said "Go forth and go on everyone's nerves".
I doubt that anything like that can be found in the Communist Manifesto either.
And why is it important for them to push their faith into science? What purpose does that serve? Are they so shaken in their faith that they need "scientific" sanctioning of whatever is written in their books? Is it not enough that Alf tells them so, why is it important for them that mere man gives his blessing to the teachings of their Candidate?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Even Britany Spears did it twice...
FRA: STFU GTFO
I posted in reply to the other defenders of Newton, but to say again: I get it. It's an extremely applicable theory. However, it had to be adjusted because it was an incomplete description. All theories (i.e. models of the world) probably are, including Einstein's. And that's okay. In fact it is my favorite facet of science, that there need be no dogma; we have our best current understanding and we adapt as new evidence comes to light. This is what separates science from religion, though not, unfortunately, for everyone.
Cheers.
So this guy is a nut,maybe so,maybe no,he's got his own reasons and it needn't be part of the article to convey the event(pure spin,journalism,not news) I'm no fundamentalist,but I can think of several reasons not to show Gore to schoolchildren.
1.This is a THEORY,others have their theories too,teach them alongside this with equal time and relevance.
2.This is just another Demowack indoctrination film.Uncle Al spreading his wizdumb,personally trying to make his legislated lowflow toilets not seem like one of the hugest mistakes of the 20th century.Trying to legitimize it with more theory presented as fact.If this is shown,we might as well show Christian "left behind" films along side it to present "frosties" side.
3.This is just more waste of tax dollars by the lefty teachers union.Just more "look a bird!"to take up the time they could have been teaching johnny to spell.(But then they don't teach spelling anymore,it might make johnny feel insignificant compared to other more talented students.)
4.Focus on fundamentals like reading,writing and arithmetic,rather than activism,need be the focus of schools.Johnny needs to learn to read actual science books and understand scientific notation to make well informed choices rather than worrying about something out of his hands,presented by scare tactics.
Sure frosty may have some springs missing,but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Lets not let what passes for "journalistic integrity" get in the way of what the real story is here.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I don't think this conveyor/stream effect is ignored. I read about it in the past.
:-D)
This is the reason why eg. British Isles are expected to cool down in response to the climate change caused by global warming.
Global warming as a term can be rather misleading too.
It doesn't mean every single point on Earth will have a temperature increase. It may mean that places get colder some others get hotter but the final effect will be an overall temperature increase.
Do note that this in itself is nothing dramatic. The problem is that it may reshuffle our agricultural landscape and methods.
Meaning that some places where food production was already insufficient may plunge into long famines/draughts/cold spells/host spells whatever.
Most crops we produce need a rather narrow range of temperature/rainfall/sunshine and a specific time distribution of these.
For example your usual wheat needs a cold period for it to produce seeds. Otherwise it just grows leaves. (I wish I knew the English name of the process
So the loss of winter cold would have rather high significance on our farming practices where people eat mostly wheat.
I don't think there is a question of humanity surviving such a change. On the other hand I am not sure I want to tackle a famine driven migration of let's say 2 billion people from Asia.
Oh so dumb.
Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
I rememeber another Dude named Frosty that even had problems with seasonal warming. (Although he did predict a future Christ-like resurrection as he died, if memory serves.)
Seriously, you can't make up names like that. A guy whose name starts with "Frosty Hard" taking a strong stance on global warming? You're almost waiting or the punbch line.
(Reminds me of a lawyer in this province who was big into advocating women's righs, and often represented oppressed women; her name was Sookie Beavers. I might have the spelling wrong. Again, you can't make this stuff up. I believe her name was related to her Native heritage. Unfortunately, I found her comedic appropriateness of her name, distracted from the rather serious issues she dealt with.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
I say if the religious nuts dont think science is real then lets fucking boycott them, no more computers, no more tools, no more medical aid... let them go fucking wander around in the fucking streets until they either die out or wise up
Well, yes and no. Settlements have appeared and disappeared in the area we call London during that time, but it hasn't really been consistently "there" in the same way as somewhere like Rome, and it certainly wasn't anything like as big for most of that time.
How the fuck is this not modded off-topic? Talk about mod abuse. Typical lefties, politicizing everything from Paul Wellstone's funeral to math classes. Fuck off you lefty assholes. You can only win through illegitimate means, the courts, lying, cheating, and this mod abuse is a perfect example.
It is just a theory, no matter how often that theory is reported as fact by the mass media, it is still, in the end, just a theory. Or, have we decided that facts and data do not matter any more, and that we need to follow our feelings on the matter?
I, for one, am DE-lighted that, at least for this incident, all the annoying coastal types won't be able to bash THE MIDWEST. Will they say anything at all? :)
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national/national. php?story=190762
He's also pro PowerPoint, except when Al Gore uses it.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
so full of themselves as to have 7 kids in this day and age
:)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I have 5 kids and I can certainly say that if nothing else, having five kids makes me a LOT less selfish and self-absorbed. When I had no kids, it was easy for it all to be "about me." Our kids learn it's not all about THEM, too.
Do you have kids?
BTW - my wife says our view is consistent with Pro-Choice, (we choose to have babies) it's all natural, and it's survival of the fittest.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I think noone can dispute that the globe is warming....however what we can't determine is that it's humans who are causing it. There's not enough data on that. The warming trend started at the end of the last ice age.
Gorkman
This "general backlash against science" is not because of a rejection of truth. From my perspective, there are good and bad scientists. Some of the scientists are motivated by religious views to try to manipulate science to "say" what they want to convey. This behavior is BAD, whether the scientists are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist.
Science has become the new "TRUTH" engine. "Recent studies show" "Science now says" "research shows" these are all arbiters of truth - people have come to trust in the results from science to "prove" things about their lives. When people manipulate data or cherry pick information to bolster their point of view, it's wrong, and the public is manipulated.
The backlash is against the manipulation of people who don't know any better by those in the powerful office of scientist. Power tends to corrupt, you know.
I'm a fundamentalist Christian who is ALL FOR science. GOOD science, that is. Many of history's greatest scientists were followers of Christ. Christianity and good science are not in opposition, although it's my opinion that when science (which is continually proven wrong as understanding is refined and scientific knowledge increases) and the Bible are in contradiction, science must be wrong.
That having been said, while I recognize that the Bible is not a science textbook, I reject evolution as origin of species. It is clearly observable and repeatable as a mechanism for variation based on genetic preservation of favorable characteristics. I think that the leap is too big to say that all creatures came through this process.
I believe that science is not equipped to address the origin of the universe, because it was not observed, and cannot be repeated. People calling themselves scientists can speculate about origins, but those speculations cannot be tested by the scientific method, and cannot be disproven. This makes those ideas similar to my creationist view of the origin of the universe - because my view cannot be tested or disproven, either.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I was willing to listen, right up to 'I reject evolution as origin of species'. That marks you as exactly the kind of person I blame for this kind of crap.
And while we're at it, apply 'because it was not observed, and cannot be repeated' to Noah's flood.....
So if the natural warming would have occurred over 10,000 years, humans accellerating it to 100 is somehow okay? Clarify that, if you would.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
It's been so cold here we could use some global warming. I've lived in Seattle for 8 years and this is the coldest winter we have ever had since I've lived there bar none. It usually doesn't even snow..
g _doesnt_matter
I like how people say Global Warming is a fact, when they themselves have no better proof then what someone told them. I at least am smart enough to realize that I don't know if its real or not.. it might be but this issue can not be decided fairly as there is too much political pressure on it, too much money, and it has another problem, even if it is true.. the method of enforcement is also wrong. See here http://www.writingup.com/jaydee/why_global_warmin
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Either (1) They stopped looking after 1000 years, which is bad science in a billion-year cyclic environment, or (2) 1000 years ago, it was hotter. That's a simplistic assessment. First, due to fluctuations in temperature, there can be years which are unusually hot, but what is more important is what the climate trend is doing. Second, of course there are periods of time in the Earth's past that were hotter than it is today — try the Cretaceous. But it didn't get that way all of a sudden — that's why it's more relevant to compare the climate today to what the climate was doing relatively recently, not to what it was doing at some random time in the past. The issue with global warming is that there is a unprecedentedly sudden and high rate of warming which coincides in both timing and magnitude with industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. That warming is not because some billion-year cycle just happened to be due right now, and in fact the paleoclimate record does not imply that we are in for natural climate change that looks anything like what's happening now. Finally, noone seems to really pay attention to the impact of ocean currents on atmospheric heat... they all seem to think that atmosphere is the only factor. You are joking, right? There is a huge industry of oceanic climatologists. Ever hear of an "atmosphere-ocean general circulation model" (AOGCM)? Namely... the impact of the Atlantic Conveyor on atmospheric heat, and the impact of freshwater on the Atlantic Conveyor. Uh... that is a huge industry in climatology too. See the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation. A shutdown of the Atlantic Conveyor is thought to be responsible for the last ice age (the Younger Dryas. You may also recall a (greatly exaggerated) movie on the topic a few years back: "The Day After Tomorrow".
This kind of 'Bible says' opinions would be a minority (and we would be living in a better world) if it was not the people who have them who always have many children...
And that's exactly to be attributed to Bible's self-preservation, which wisely states 'Thou shalt not use condoms'!
Hello, is that the Thought Police? Yes, please come right away, we've just found a live one.
I'm sorry, please continue...
Why dismiss me at this point? Is your religious fervor about evolution blocking you from having an open mind about alternatives?
I'd argue that we have some evidence from those who observed the flood - in the book of Genesis. Additionally there is evidence of a worldwide flood. Ever heard of the cambrian explosion? If there was a worldwide upheaval of water and land, it makes sense that lots of living things were covered with mud and that formed the bulk of fossils we see today. It's all about interpretation of the evidence, no?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
These fundamentalist Christians won't stop at anything until we are all living in a Christian Iran. Maybe one day we will be fortunate enough where Christian mythology is presented in Sunday school and science is presented in public school.
>Debating the issues only works after people have been taught to think critically
Which is a vital skill for a healthy society and indispensable for a democracy. To some extent it's teachable.
Who benefits and who loses if the population sees through propaganda? Who has more influence over school curricula, the potential winners or the potential losers?
I don't really understand this perspective. I don't have the maths for general relativity, but let's try special relativity.
:-P.)
:-D.
Let's say you're traveling at 5 m/s. Gamma = (1 - 5^2/299792458^2)^(-1/2) = 1.0000000000000001390812570067023. So the theory that predicts that your mass remains constant (which is the assumption in F = ma) is invalid by 0.00000000000001390812570067023 %. Completely insignificant, yes: but it's still wrong. It is fundamentally incorrect to say that your mass remains constant, even if it does to an extremely good approximation.
(Now some smartass is going to come along and use some quantum argument to tell me mass cannot vary by such a small amount, or some such
That's how I see it, though. It's fine to use things like Newton's Laws or the kinetic theory of gases or whatever, as long as you realize they don't reflect the underlying reality in an essentially true fashion. Of course I guess we'll need a Theory of Everything before we can really say that we're not using approximations, but that's why I'm a theoretical physics student!
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
You attack the scientist for making nonsensical statements, but the problem is the dumbing down of news -- most mainstream news outlets like to provide predigested news, and often they screw it up or leave out important details. When you're reading an article on msnbc.com about a scientific report and you read something that doesn't make sense, don't assume it's the scientific report's fault; often it's the middleman.
Take a look at the official press release about the report regarding the "400 years" comment. The full title of the press release is very clear, and the first paragraph elaborates on the part you're questioning (emphasis mine):
Dude, that's just a perception because the _really_ ancient cities are all drowned and covered up by sediment and haven't been discovered yet
Loopy, distasteful statements, with glib reference to a liberal sneaked in, so to imply "this fruitcake is one of our opponents. You're not like him, are you? Then you'd better vote for us."
Remember, if it's liberal, it's an asshole!
Funny you should mention that one, as it was eventually proven to be incorrect. That's was Einstein's claim to fame.
No, Newton's totally correct. He just didn't consider that the universe was non-constant.
- Some scientists are only confident about data from the last 400 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
- Other scientists are only confident about data from the last 1000-2000 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
- Yet other scientists are confident about data from the last 800,000 years. They'll tell you that current years are hotter than any of those.
- Most scientists (I think) believe we have good enough data going back a billion years (more than 1,000 times that last number) to say that it was in fact hotter on Earth at some point during the last billion years. Of course, humans weren't around then.
Note that none of these scientists are contradicting each other. And with regards to the last point there are two things to keep in mind:- Humans weren't around then.
- It most likely didn't heat up as quickly (although I'm not sure the data is granular enough to know for sure).
Of course, if you read the article that was posted here, the person in question thinks the Earth is less than 14,000 years old, so...Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I just watched it, and if a quick dramatic climate change is going to happen in the next 10-20 years, with dire consequences around the world, I think it's not far fetched, that President Bush and possibly other American politicians will be charged and put on trial for crime against humanity due to their negligance.
If Saddam Hussein was hanged for his attrocities, it's not impossible, that George Bush could have similar faith, should catastrophic events happen in the USA or around the world.
It's just a matter of time to classify negligence to protect global environment the same crime against humanity as warcrime.
However, how many parents argue that we shouldn't be teaching Newton's theory of Gravity unless we also teach Einstein's? (Or, how many parents argue that we shouldn't be teaching the Schwarzschild metric without teaching one of the, um, Hocking metrics?)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Is a theory...
n _climate_change/
Global warming is a measurable anomaly and is very definitely real. However there is not a consensus opinion amongst climatologist that it is man made. And so man made climate change as the film implies is a theory.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o
Survey of US state climatologists 1997
In 1997, the conservative advocacy group Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [8]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."
60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. By a 39% to 33% margin, more climatologists agreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period" [9] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.
Not saying I disagree with the theory but it is a theory at this point. Many political organization have stated that they believe climate change is largely attributable to man made causes as have the American Meteorological Society. I have not seen another study specifically targeting consensus amongst climatologists. And since they are the scientists that study global climate patterns I would guess that would be the group to ask. There can be no denying though that there is an increase in mean temperature and a corresponding increase in "green house gases" over the same period. So it is logical to conclude that they two may be related.
As for Occam's Razor, I like Einstein's version: "Everything should be made as simple as possible and no simpler." Sure, it's not a literal translation, but I think it captures the essence.
As for global cooling, it was the popular media who were responsible for that myth, just like the summer of the shark. See Real Climate's article on it.
That said, one is well advised - whether it is the hottest day (or even year) on record or the coldest - to not take a single data point as proof or disproof. What makes the global warming theories so compelling is that they were advanced during the time that the popular media was going hysterical about global cooling. It's not exactly a new theory. It's just that normal people are just now beginning to see some of its effects - and, of course, blame random weather on it as well.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I love how this article is formulated to offend as much as possible the "oh nos! irrational (read: any) religious people." Yet although actively religious people are often conservative and conservatives often think global warming is exaggerated it doesn't mean there is a connection between the two. Global warming may be just as Al Gore says, yet opposition to this view doesn't stem from religious beliefs. A more likely explanation is the desire to maintain the status quo on the level of individual lifesyles and the national economy, wrong as this view may be. There are, one should note, significant exceptions to the stereotype. An example is the signed statement of Evangelicals concerned about global warming. Evolution, of course, is a different story. That is not, however, what this article is about and conflating the two issues doesn't help at all.
How many of these "scientists" are climatologists (or at least in a related science) and not, say, into mining? Can you name one? If you go with Lindzen or Michaels, I'll have to ask for you an actual quote, because, as far as I can tell, they no longer disagree with this "consensus".
I model the brain. It might surprise you to find out that it is also inherently non-linear. If it were linear, it wouldn't really have to be modeled by a computer. However, if you don't trust the models, that's fine. The models only help nail down some of the details. (Well, for very loose definitions of "nail" and "details", granted.) Climatologists were warning about global warming as early as the 60s, when computers were about as powerful as your watch.
I thought this was common knowledge. (There are others, as well.) Sure, not all of them were paid scientific shills for the tobacco industry, but to the best of my knowledge all of them are being paid by fossil-fuel companies now.
So, I guess one has no idea whether or not to believe in General Relativity until one studies Riemannian Tensors, launches a few satellites to gather data, and closely monitors the precession of Mercury's perihelion, huh? Do you believe that General Relativity is a valid theory? (Not the end all, be all, but the best we've got?) How did you come to that conclusion?
Sure, it's great to study non-consensus science. But for theories outside of your field, the safest course of action is to trust the majority. As you've pointed out, if conflicting theories hold weight, they eventually do convince the majority of their merit.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Guess we better stop teaching that also.
The only thing that is known fact is good old fashioned Christian faith.
My Dad (a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in '00 and '04, and was also rather neutral on global warming) saw Al Gore's movie. He said "I still don't like Al Gore, but I'm convinced that global warming is a real problem." If you have not yet seen the movie, I strongly recommend it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Let me say "Thank you Washington"
I think that we might have different definitions of the word "serious". I'm just sayin'...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There is not now, nor has there ever been *any* evidence to support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood, not a jot,
Really? Are you sure? Just because you are unfamiliar with the existence of evidence does not mean that it does not exist. People who have preconceived notions about the facts tend to overlook or ignore evidence that does not match those notions.
I'd respectfully suggest that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. I admit my bias. Will you admit yours?
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
You do realize that the article you linked also mentioned Frosty.
A question I have is, why did the Washington Times not mention Frosty's other "scientific" theories? Did it really think them unimportant? Or does it have its own bias?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Just to be clear, there are rabid Republicans who also classify it as a documentary. My Dad comes to mind. Also, although I know he might not "technically" be Republican, O'Reilly is definitely rabid, and he has now come around.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Just sayin'...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
And I was taught that electricity took the shortest path in my highschool physics class. Several of us argued with the teacher and said that electricity took the path of least resistance, but the teacher pointed to the textbook, and that settled it.
Don't confuse highschool science with actual science. I taught highschool science for two years, and for the second year, I actually did not have them use the textbook as it had way too many factual errors. Instead we used the Cartoon Guide to Physics. (I recommened they buy it, and there were enough after that to share.) No errors in that book, and much easier to read. Also, it covered all of the topics in the thicker book plus a few additional ones.
Your teacher probably read the National Geographic or Newsweek article and decided that she needed to "educate" her class. Not a bad idea, but unfortunately misguided. However, even during that time period, climatology had already developed their theories that predicted global warming.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So, you believe a site paid for by ExxonMobil over a site run by climatologists? Really?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
When is some parent going to counter-sue to get these Bible thumpers out of our school system? If they don't like what is being taught then they can send their kids to private school.
However, the argument that he presented to the school board, and on which it ruled, had NOTHING to do with HIS evaluation of the theories of global warming.
Fair enough. I wasn't addressing that though. I was just pointing out that the exact argument made in this thread that was called ad hominem wasn't.
I love it when some really smart critical thinker reads a couple things on a topic and suddenly feels confident to rail forth with all the stuff they know that legions of people spending their lives studying the matter have obviously missed. If only they'd pay attention to this one detail they'd see how it overturns their whole area of science.
Or, quite possibly, you're the one who hasn't studied the issues enough and you're the one who is missing out on a lot of science that quite possibly is actually already aware of what you're talking about and accounts for it quite well. But who needs large scientific communities and peer review when we could just pay you to interpret 1-2 studies a year and formulate more accurate hypotheses?
Sure, it happens now and then that a maverick will disrupt a whole area of science, creating a new paradigm. But usually these people who notice something new for the first time are actually members of that field with a lot of study under their belts. Not random smart guy on the internet who read a couple of stories somewhere.
"Bug guy" indeed.
Seattle school board should have responded to him in such an equal way.
An Inconvenient Truth is politically charged propaganda. - I second that motion. Once I started watching it and after about 10 minutes stopped, I just don't need someone to politicize this issue for me, it should be about facts, not about agenda.
You can't handle the truth.
Dr. Patrick Michaels
Dr. Sherwood Idso
Dr. Robert Balling
Dr. S. Fred Singer
So "Sanskrit" means "without krit", right?
There's plenty of common threads in anti-science thinking, a sort of non-defense where the reasons for opposing the established and long-investigated consensus are based in what the opposer wants, or would rather believe, or emotionally-based defensiveness.
1) We need to distinguish between long term climate change and short term climate change.
I hear this (a lot recently), and yet I see no one showing or pointing us to anyone who shows that a) there is a distinction, which sure, there may be (I believe the universe is a fractal, after all, so this IMO stands to reason), and b) that even if there is a short-term change, that this disproves long-term climate change.
About 15 years ago my stepmother, listening to me relate what I'd been taught about global warming, told me it's all bunk, because there's an 11-year solar cycle. Now I'm hearing it again. Clearly if this 11-year solar cycle explains over 15 years of climate change research, it must be really taking its time this cycle. Certainly an 11-year solar cycle does not explain 150 years of increasing average temperature.
I might be moderately more impressed by this "short term change" and "11 year cycle" and what not if someone would actually tell me *when* the last 11-year cycle started, and show how it explains the past 150 years of recorded temperature history, and beyond.
2) We need to distinguish between human-causes and natural causes.
First, you need to identify a single natural cause that has been consistently occuring since the start of the industrial era, and then, identify how it could possibly cause the global temperature change seen over that time. And then, show how it has continued without any influence by mankind.
Secondly, no, I don't agree that there is, in fact, any need to make this distinction. There would be a need to make this distinction if one could illustrate that the solutions to man-made global warming are in fact harmful. Recycling reduces raw material demand and cost. Greater fuel economy reduces dependency on foreign oil. Alternative fuel, e.g. ethanol, could actually boost the nation's agrarian economy. Reduced driving and mass transit will cut down on air pollution, increase air quality, reduce smog. Increased walking instead of short drives will help keep us all in better physical shape.
Even if you could argue, as some do, that reduction in fossil fuel use will lead to an erosion of American industry, I'd argue you're far too late -- offshoring and international competition with American manufacturing has already done the job; steelmaking, automobile manufacturing, even computer chips and electronics manufacturing. These were once American industrial stalwarts, and now they are either obsoleted by new technology or moved where they can made much more cheaply (and with much less quality). The argument that solutions to man-made global warming destroy America's industrial economy presumes that America even has an industrial economy anymore. If you're worried about American's industrial economy, then you've got lots bigger problems to deal with than conservationism and environmentalism.
3) Skeptics must be heard and not shouted down and ridiculed.
This a great one, because to me it exposes a fundamental anti-science, an "Our Man Flint" fear that scientists are natural totalitarians who lock out opposing theories, or that their personally adopted opposing belief on the topic somehow got locked out of the debate. This ignores the decades of debate that has been going on about global warming, the steep opposition that the theory has been presented with for decades, and that the research has continued to overcome with more compelling evidence.
The reason the skeptics are vehemently opposed now is that they have been disproven by continued research, and that their advocacy of inaction on the matter is potentially harmful.
There is no real or potential harm to the world by adopting the solutions to man-made global warming. In fact, the solutions have multiple side benefits. There is no real or potential benefit to the world or anyone else by not doing anything .
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
That's an interesting definition of "totally correct". Newton's theories are wonderful, and very useful, but they were written as complete desriptions and they weren't complete descriptions. In fact I'll say that Einstien's is an incomplete description. And if/when new evidence comes to light we respectfully demote the old and make use of the new. This is the beauty of science, and why it is not a religion.
Cheers.
Of course global warming is only a theory. Just like relativity, electromagnetism, evolution or economics. Being a theory should not disqualify a topic from being taught in school.
mankind today. Bigger then...healthcare
Actually Global Warming is a healthcare issue. As the world warms diseases spread faster and farther. Take the carrier of maleria and ebola, the mosquito. As things warm up the mosquito are found further and further north. Where once because of the cold they were excluded from going too far north, they can now be found closer to the Artic Circle. Also because of the cold they weren't often found at high altitudes, not they can go higher up mountains. Or take the killer bees in the southwest USA, their range was limited by cooler temperatures as well so as it warms up they can expand their range.It has also been shown some weeds grow better in CO2 rich environments, one such weed being poison ivy. with more poison ivy more medicine is needed for treatment, or more herbicides (which causes more problems), energy, and other resources are needed to limit it, resources which can be used elsewhere. Fact is is that global warming is a serious public health issue.
Personally, I'd much rather have $.01 of every tax dollar go to buying a goat for some poor farmer in Africa then to pay for 5 minutes of jet fuel for someone's private jet.
Personally I'd prefer the one who makes the money to be the one who decides what to do with the money they make. As long as they don't harm anyone else they should be able to do whatever they want.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This isn't exactly the evolution debate in which the schools were being forced to provide unscientific things. geez
Yes, it is exactly like that.
Point me to a credible scientific alternative explanation for global warming. PLEASE. I'm dying to hear it. To date, the only one presented so far is the Book of Revelation.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
It's amazing how many people see that "scientists" say that global warming is a hoax and then don't stop to think about why all of these scientists are being paid by fossil-fuel companies or why many of them have degrees in things like mining - totally unrelated to climatology.
Personally, I am a scientist, so I'm in a good position to judge the validity of junkscience (not valid - also supports tobacco, btw) vs. the validity of realclimate (valid). (I hope you're sufficiently hypnotized by me.) Seriously, I'm amazed by anyone who actually cites junkscience as if it weren't junk science.
On the other hand, if you don't know anything about science, your best option is to look at the credentials of those speaking, and at what they're actually saying. You'll find that most (all?) "scientists" who speak "against global warming" either aren't climatologists or aren't really speaking against global warming (anymore).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
What is global warming?
Obviously it is warming of the globe...
It is hotter now than it was 100 years ago. Fact.
What exactly does this prove?
It proves that it is warmer now than it was a few years ago! Congratulations, have a biscuit.
All this about people driving too much, using too much electricity, breathing too much, eating too many burgers and cows farting too much, being the unilateral and sole 100% cause of all global warming effects is simply not the case.
Global warming has happened before, it is now happening again.
One volcano going off has a much larger effect on climate than a few cars being driven about.
Never mind the US were blowing holes in the sky with nuclear bomb tests.
Scientists have measured a decrease in the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and an increase in solar activity: CMEs, solar flares, etc. since they bagan measuremens.
What effect might that have...
P.S. Don't believe what I say, and especially don't believe what the US government, or some Christian parent believes, as gospel. Look at the facts, filter the sensible conclusions from the chafe, and come to your own conclusion. Debate in an intelligent manner with your peers, and don't waste your time with legal or policy non-sense.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
So, they agree that it's more than just a hypothesis? That's pretty progressive. Maybe they're warming up to the idea?
2 words: Soylent Green :-)
> Well, yes and no. Settlements have appeared and disappeared in the area
> we call London during that time, but it hasn't really been consistently
> "there" in the same way as somewhere like Rome, and it certainly wasn't
> anything like as big for most of that time.
Are you suggesting that the settlement currently known as "London" has not been continuously inhabited for more than 2000 years?
If so, please cite your references.
It is a theory. Whats the problem? I swear some people get hyped up with true - bnothreligious nuts and science nucts and they for get that a large portion of what we choose to believe is more faith based than indisputible fact - regardless if it is religion or science.
For what it's worth, the Dalai Lama accepts the teaching of science, even when it contradicts the dogma he learned as a child. The Dalai Lama wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
... plus I can't remember my password.)
Though IANAB, I gather that this is pretty consistent with the teachings of the original Buddha, insofar as we still have them today. And while there are plenty of people who practice Buddhism as if it were a superstition, a dogma, or some sort of social hierarchy, I don't thik Buddhism is really a "religion" in the same sense that Christianity is. Some of the more prominent Buddhist leaders tend to describe Buddhism as just a way of living. I don't think it has anything one could call "beliefs" the way "God made me" or "Jesus died for my sins" is a "belief."
(For the record, I am not a coward either, I am just not sure there is such a thing as an "identity"
Global warming is a theory. It has a lot of supporting evidence, otherwise it would just be a hypothesis. But to say it is "only a theory" is the double talk of the Creationists. In science 'theory' has a meaning that is much stronger than the wishy-washy definition of the wider community.
Bitter and proud of it.
http://www.konformist.com/2001/hicks.htm
Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.
"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."
Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?
"That's right."
Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?
"Uh-huh."
Dinosaurs.
You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.
"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
Absolutely, and there actually is some merit in this. (If we scientists didn't have a personal stake in being right, then we'd give up to easily on theories after experiencing setbacks.) That's why it's also very interesting to note when a bunch of scientists who used to claim A, now claim ~A. I'm not suggesting this in lieu of actually thinking for one's self, mind you, just as a useful filter. (After all, we can't all investigate all science news.) Of course, as with all anecdotal evidence, no one scientist switching sides is all that newsworthy. And, some scientists switch sides without really letting anyone know. (As I suspect is the case with Pat Michaels - read what he's saying these days.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
aah, the old 'someone elses problem' angle. how predictable.
I think I'm going to retire from all of this intellegent debate and go on a ski trip in freezing LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
http://cbs13.com/local/local_story_013162155.html
This is the double-edged sword of modern liberalism. (Note that I am not talking about liberals vs. conservatives, as most in the US frame the debate, but about modern democratic government, which is, by classical definition, liberal). We've been so devoted to the idea that everyone must have their say, and that all sides must be heard, and that everyone's opinion is equal and must be respected, that we can't make any progress at all. It has led to education of the lowest common denominator, in which no-one's precious beliefs must be challenged, no crackpot idea dismissed for fear of hurting someone's feelings.
Ironically, this was done for good reasons: there were a lot of minority voices asking for decency and respect that were being drowned out by the majority. But it's gone too far.
Full disclosure: I'm a teacher. And one of the first things I introducein class is this rule: not all opinions are equal. You are more than welcome to introduce your own argument, if you can back it up with facts. If you can't, I'm not terribly interested about how you "feel" about something, or about how what I'm teaching you contradicts the sayings of your Great Being In The Sky.
In media, this same condition has lead to "balance" for fundamentally wrong ideas. It's lead to columnists equivocating over facts, because "all sides have to be represented." There is no controversy over anthropocentric global warming. From a scientific standpoint, the case is closed, and the more evidence we find the greater the prosecution becomes. The exceptions are for the most part industry-paid pundits, industry-paid politicans, and their constituency, who have been led to believe that anything more than the most trivial of gestures to the environment will mean that their way of life will end.
Yes, consensus is important. Yes, respect is vital. But you cannot advance by listening to every opinion. Attempting to do so shackles your intellect, your imagination, and human progress.
Geez, if you can't study a controversial subject in school, where can you study it?
// This is not a sig.
Somebody should point out to "Frosty" that the Bible also permits parents to sell their children in to slavery. Oh yeah, and working on Sunday is punishable by death.
We have different definitions of 'wrong' :)
By 'wrong' I mean that theory does not work in any domain, for example, law F=G*m1*m2*r^2 is wrong in any domain. Newton's laws, however, are just a special case of more general theory.
And of course, every theory is probably incomplete and that's the most exciting thing with science.
Fair enough -- I think we basically agree. But didn't Newton and most scientists before Einstein think that Newton's theory applied in the general case? I guess that's what I meant by wrong. But perhaps I'm wrong about that :)
Cheers.
Troll?
Did I sum up reality too well, forget to use a pleasant euphemism for stupid or is slashdot overrun with people who believe the earth is 6000 years old and take things too seriously?
The other poster summed it up well. We don't really have that much choice here.
You can agree with them and promote it. You can disagree with them and get into pointless arguments that just give them more publicity and promote it. You can feel sorry for them and help give them more publicity and promote it. Or you can laugh it off and turn it into a joke(which it is) and keep some sense in the world.
Religion drives people to defend and try to justify the most illogical things. And to disagree isn't to bring sense to them but to stand against God. If nothing else we may as well get some amusement from them.
And for anyone who missed it this is science.slashdot.org not answersingenesis.slashdot.org, mod accordingly and get a sense of humour.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
Spatially speaking, the universe is constant -- far more than Newton expected, in fact. The key insight of Special Relativity is that the universe, including the speed of light, is constant and the same in an arbitrary reference frame.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
Ah, thanks for that. The usual anti-global-warming trolls don't mention that the concern was reflective particles, which I understand is still recognized as an important factor in climate models. They're usually more set on the "Scientists Flip-Flop! Vote Republican!" line (apologies to any sane Republicans who are reading).
;)
With regard to the 30% contribution of solar variation; now that I read the Wikipedia article more thoroughly I see it does mention figures in that ballpark. I can't quite figure out if that means that a 0.1% variation in solar output can contribute 30% of measured global warming, or if the two numbers come from conflicting sources. The conclusion is clear: I should shut the hell up
.evom ton seod gis eht
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Give me a break on the "physical modeling" stuff. I've been attending the major super-computing conferences for several years now. The creators of the global climate models themselves say they still have not reached the level where they have any predictive value. They are hoping peta-scale (10^15 mega-flop) computers will allow them to solve this and have presented global climate modeling as one of the "grand challenges" for the next generation of super-computers. The map is not the territory, if you haven't figured that out you're just another "born-again" scientist! If you a-priori ban "arguments against it", you can be sure there will be none!
Yes you're right, thanks for the info. I wasn't meaning to imply that models are useless, I was reacting to the over-awed and trusting tone of the previous entry when he cited "THE COMPUTER" as primary evidence. I suspect the modeling will improve rapidly over the next 10 years but will still be unable to tell me whether it will rain next week...
Same goes with "evolution".
Until the editors decide to start editing article introductions to frame intelligent discussion, I'm tuning out.
Just a quick guideline... the major questions in the "global warming" arena are: It's beyond pointless for someone to make vague claims about question 1, and then have arguments about question 3 in response.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
In fact, the world is warming at an alarming rate. There is not a single reputable scientist who denies it.
It's comments like this that really show how shallow the debate on Global Warming has become. Any scientist who disagrees with the statement about the world warming at an alarming rate is dismissed as disreputable.
In this case, it's just not true. Several quite reputable scientists, many of them atmospheric specialists, dispute the political correct "consensus" that claims global warming is a result of human industrial activity. Look up the Heidelberg Appeal, the Leipzig Declaration, and the scientific community's response to the Kyoto Accords and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for some (thousands) of examples.
As for the claims of many activists that mankind is responsible for all the warming that is occurring, consider a few basic points:
First, is has been established that the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere accounts for about 33 degrees of the temperature at the surface of the Earth. So what is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere? Carbon Dioxide, right? Wrong. Between 95% and 99% of the greenhoust effect is caused by water vapor. That's right, good old H2O, dihydrogen monoxide, is the cause of 32 degrees of the warmth trapped by our atmosphere. CO2 is responsible for maybe one degree, and only 2% of the 1,800 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere can be tied to human activity. We're not really making that much of a difference in this way.
Another point to consider is that historically the rise in CO2 levels that is tied to temperature increases follows the temperature rise by about 50 years. In other words, the rise in temperature would seem to be the cause of the increased CO2, not the other way around. This makes sense, given the amount of CO2 trapped in permafrost and the oceans.
Most of the "theory" of global warming is tied to the results of computer modeling of the atmosphere and long term climate change. The reliability of these models is definitely a subject for debate. While many models have been shown to be amazingly accurate over short periods of time and small geographic areas, that hasn't translated to equal accuracy for the global climate over a century of time.
"[N]ot a single scientist"? Methinks the lad doth protest too much. I wonder why? Could it be that this issue has become more political than scientific? Could that be why one of the more partisan politicians of the day has adopted it as his pet cause? Does anyone think that modern politics lends itself to reasoned and rational debate? I didn't think so. The art of politics today is to defame your opponent, not debate his ideas.
For sure, let kids watch this movie, but be sure they have some background first, not to mention some instruction about recognizing what is propaganda and what is fact. If one side is spending more time critiquing the other side than presenting ideas, maybe their ideas have a few flaws they'd rather not discuss.
FYI, if you'd like a good book on the subject of how science today can be as dogmatic as some religions, get a copy of Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan. It's not always right in the scientific alternatives it presents, but it's dead on in how the scientific community responds to those who question the assumptions behind the "truths" that "everyone knows".
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to.
Several quite reputable scientists, many of them atmospheric specialists, dispute the political correct "consensus" that claims global warming is a result of human industrial activity. Look up the Heidelberg Appeal, the Leipzig Declaration, and the scientific community's response to the Kyoto Accords and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for some (thousands) of examples.
Hiding behind claimed "thousands" of studies that "agree" with you is not a convincing means of argument. I am quite certain you have never read most of those documents. The IPCC, in particular, has concluded that the warming in the last 50 years is primarily anthropogenic in origin — the opposite of what you claim. The Heidelberg Appeal makes no reference to global warming. The Leipzig Declaration is 10 years old (since when the case for AGW has only strengthened), contains numerous signatories with dodgy or nonexistent climatology credentials, and at best represents only a tiny minority of climate scientists. As for the scientific community's response to Kyoto, some have agreed with it, some have disagreed on economic grounds, some have disagreed with it for not going far enough, but very few have claimed that it's addressing a phenomenon for which human beings are not responsible.
Between 95% and 99% of the greenhoust effect is caused by water vapor. That's right, good old H2O, dihydrogen monoxide, is the cause of 32 degrees of the warmth trapped by our atmosphere.
That's a specious argument. The existence of H2O is why the Earth isn't 32 degrees colder than it is. But the amount of H2O in the atmosphere doesn't explain the increase in temperature in recent decades.
CO2 is responsible for maybe one degree, and only 2% of the 1,800 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere can be tied to human activity.
Once again, what's relevant here is not the absolute amount, but the change. Roughly half of the change in CO2 from pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic sources, and through climate nonlinearities, those sources are responsible for most of the warming since pre-industrial times.
We're not really making that much of a difference in this way.
Compared to what the temperatures would be if there was no H20 or CO2 in the atmosphere, we're not making much of a difference. But that's the wrong question. The question is, how much of a difference have we made to the temperatures over the last 150 years, and how much difference will we continue to make in the future? Using the IPCC point estimate of 3.5 degrees warming by 2100, that's not compared to the 32 degrees that H2O has already warmed the Earth, but compared to today, 3.5 degrees is a significant change in climate.
Another point to consider is that historically the rise in CO2 levels that is tied to temperature increases follows the temperature rise by about 50 years. In other words, the rise in temperature would seem to be the cause of the increased CO2, not the other way around. This makes sense, given the amount of CO2 trapped in permafrost and the oceans.
I've never seen any 50-year lag in the temperature/CO2 record. What is the reference for that claim?
There is, however, an 800-year lag in the paleoclimate record during deglaciations, in which the temperature rise does precede the CO2 rise. As you say, warming liberates trapped CO2. What you ignore is the fact that this new CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the warming over what it would be otherwise. You can't evade the fact that Earth gets hotter when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
While many models have been shown to be amazingly accurate over short periods of time and small geographic areas, that hasn't translated to equal accuracy for the global climate over a century of time.
They get more inaccurate over century time scales, certainly. But they're not totally unreliable either. And they all predi
Science is not religion.
Onless we are dealing with evolution. Then you get a very dogmatic response when any aspect is chalenged.
I.e. Gee... Here is a dinosour bone with meat inside, maybee the dinosourse died out less than 65 million years ago and that's why it's not all rock.
Response? "It can't be that. We are not sure what it is but we know the timelines cannot be even a little bit off"
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Actually, I've read most of them at one time or another. Not recently, true, but that's neither here nor there. These are merely examples of reputable scientists who disagree with the view that climate change is primarily a result of human activity. Here's a more recent example: Don't Believe the Hype and Climate of Fear, both by Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Last time I checked, MIT isn't in the habit of hiring disreputable scientists. As for the IPCC, it's hardly a sterling example. Most of the signers were political representatives. Many of those listed as contributors had indeed reviewed a portion of the document, and disagreed with it. No mention of their contrary viewpoints can be found in the document, however. In fact, after the document had been signed, the IPCC steering group rewrote the executive summary and removed any language which might indicate a lack of agreement on the conclusions such as "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases" and "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? . . . [T]he best answer is, "we do not know.".
But the amount of H2O in the atmosphere doesn't explain the increase in temperature in recent decades.
And I never claimed it did. What I'm pointing out is that, contrary to popular belief, carbon dioxide is not responsible for most of the heat retained by the greenhouse effect. Even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere tripled, it would still be a distant second to water vapor.
I've never seen any 50-year lag in the temperature/CO2 record. What is the reference for that claim?/> The direct reference is Kicking the Sacred Cow, chapter 35.
:
As you point out, this might cause even more increase in temperature, some sort of vicious cycle of greenhouse warming. Historic
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to.
What I could find indicates that the last global heat wave is believed to have occurred over about 10,000 years. Humanity has raised the CO2 content of the atmosphere by about 30% in one century, and unless we decelerate our burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc. at least as quickly as we accelerated them, we'll do it again in this one. We're already up about 0.6C and that includes the dampening effects of pollutants (aerosols like sulfur) and the thermal inertia and CO2 absorption of the oceans. When the oceans get warm enough, that CO2 will fizz its way back out.... along with lots and lots of methane from the decomposition of clathrates on the continental shelves (which some people speculate may have been behind the odor in NYC last week; there's plenty of methane clathrate in the Hudson river canyon. And once those start feeding back through greater ocean warming, we could wind up with the arctic ocean at bathwater temperatures like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
I'd rather not do this at all, let alone in a century. If we have use Paul Cruzen's idea and pump a million tons or so of sulfur into the stratosphere to push back towards center while we deal with the GHG's, I'm all for it.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
You are quite right... not so much on evolution specifically, but in that many people have latched on to science as if it were religion. However, that is just people's shortcomings; we all have a strong desire to find something permanent and unchanging on which to base our worldview. Probably because we're creatures of habit and we hate having to adapt, and also because we are all insecure and dislike being wrong. In any case, pure science is about discovery, so it must always allow the presentation of new evidence and be willing to adapt. That has to be tempered, though, with wasting time listening to every crackpot that comes along. In some cases (like the argument about evolution), it is tiresome to go around in circles with people who refuse to believe it, so you may encounter some responses that seem like closemindedness when it's really just fatigue.
:) But the general principles of evolution are as sound as just about anything ever is in science. Including it matching our observation in the past century.
Specifically on evolution, I'm sure the timelines are off a bit, maybe a few million years here and there. It is hard to be more precise with things that long ago
I don't see how meat encased in ancient bones is proof of anything imparticular, except that if something is sealed away it can last a long long time. That particular bit of evidence doesn't seem to say much about the timeline to me... if something is stored in a way as it could last 6000 years, I'd guess that 65 million years later, undisturbed, it might be similar.
But I'm always curious to hear more thoughts.
Cheers.
Sadly, thats a dangerous road to go down.
So, you admit that encouraging schools to bring in alternative viewpoints on global warming is a dangerous road to go down, fraught with conspiracy theorists and allegations of criminal activity. Just what we need in the schools!
You chided the global warming community for being "ashamed that the school is required to present alterative scientific viewpoints" and that "isn't exactly... being forced to provide unscientific things".
Then when I challenged you come up with a credible scientific viewpoint, you backpedaled, saying simply that Gore expresses "many extreme views that plenty of climate scientist don't agree on".
Then when I challenged you to come up with a single extreme view of Gore's on which a single climate scientist didn't agree on, you choked on a mess of "conspiracy sites".
It's not a dangerous road. It's a dead end.
Go down it and prove me wrong. Please. For the sake of your fellow mankind-influenced global warming deniers.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Here's a more recent example: Don't Believe the Hype and Climate of Fear, both by Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Okay, that's one scientist. Is that supposed to support a position that there is scientific uncertainty about the origin of global warming?
As for the IPCC, it's hardly a sterling example. Most of the signers were political representatives.
Wow, just a minute ago, it was one of thousands of groups supporting the skeptical position. As soon as I point out that they don't agree with your position, suddenly they become a meaningless data point.
Tell you what, why don't you look at the published literature and see how strong the evidence is against anthropogenic global warming, and what fraction of papers support this conclusion. For that matter, let's just continue the scientific discussion we're having below. As all your claims have been wrong or irrelevant so far, perhaps repetition will drive home the point.
What I'm pointing out is that, contrary to popular belief, carbon dioxide is not responsible for most of the heat retained by the greenhouse effect.
Who cares? That has nothing to do with global warming, so why are you even bringing it up?
Even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere tripled, it would still be a distant second to water vapor.
Again, so what? Tripling the CO2 certainly would certainly cause a great deal of global warming.
I've never seen any 50-year lag in the temperature/CO2 record. What is the reference for that claim?/> The direct reference is Kicking the Sacred Cow, chapter 35.
I meant an actual scientific reference. Where can I find this "detailed analysis of the timings"? (You'll forgive me if I don't just take Hogan's word for it, considering how he has championed practically every nutball denialist cause from the 20th century.)
As you point out, this might cause even more increase in temperature, some sort of vicious cycle of greenhouse warming. Historically that hasn't happened.
Hardly. Historically, the vast majority of warming has taken place after the CO2 has started to increase; see here.
Most of the warming in the 20th century, about 0.5 C, occurred before 1940 while 80% of the CO2 increase happened after that time. You can't evade those facts.
I certainly can evade those "facts"; they're wrong. Most of the warming of the 20th century occurred after 1940 (see here). However, if you consider the period 1910-1940, that had as much warming as the period 1940-2006 (although not as much warming as the period 1950-2006).
What you neglect to consider is that CO2 is not the only contributor to climate. (You make a big point of it elsewhere, but ignore it here.) You have to consider what the natural forcings are doing. In fact, it has been known for some time that the natural forcings have been contributing to cooling since the last half of the 20th century. (This is part of what the media hyped as "global cooling" a few decades ago.) The warming due to an increase in CO2 is somewhat offset by this, producing less overall warming than CO2 alone would predict.
In any case, the idea that we as humans have all that much influence on the global climate is far from being accepted by all "reputable" scientists, much less proven to be true.
It is not only accepted by the vast majority of reputable climatologists, it is strongly supported by both data and physical modeling. The debate now regards how much warming we're going to see, not whether we're having an influence on it.
I personally don't find the evidence that human activity is responsible all that compelling.
It is rather trivial to calculate the amount of g
Science is fluid and ever changing. What scientists call "facts" are really just the best understanding of the world around us at this point based on the information we have. Case in point. Astronomy. Our best and brightest at one point calculated the size of the universe and with that it's age. Then they built a telescope that could see well beyond the edge. What did they find? More galaxies and stars and well... more universe. So they went back and calculated again.
i ence/T-rex_soft_tissue.html
That's just how science is. You only think you know everything when you know almost nothing. My own belief system/world view straddles both science and religion. I.e. I do believe that evolution happened and is continuing today. I don't believe it was all random. Note: I used the word "believe", The evidence is somewhat shaky.
I guess my mind is just too limited to accept that this universe, as wonderful, orderly and chaotic as it is was the result of random chance and the application physical laws.
Just for fun: If I was god and saw mankind label and categorize lifeforms into mammal, reptile, bird etc... I would probably sneak in something like the duck billed platypus as a practical joke.
BTW: If you missed the story about T-Rex meat see lazy links below.
http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_sc
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Though I agree with much of what you say, you do propagate the lie that 96% of Americans believe in God. The percentage is lower than this according to exactly how the question is phrased; see http://www.religioustolerance.org/godpoll.htm for a survey of some surveys. Also, a fairly recent Harris survey http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=408 indicates why people might, in fact, say they believe in God
when they have doubts. A more recent Harris survey supports the encouraging notion that un-belief may be
on the rise: http://www.dentalplans.com/articles/5938/.
3 8-8995r.htm. Wonder why that
could be? I don't suppose religious people would lie, would they?
These, ahem, "discrepancies" about belief in God may in fact be for the same reasons that more people say they attend church once a month (about 45%, when asked) than actually do (about 30%, based on church attendance).
Though, if you look at the survey by Baylor, the largest Baptist University in the US, this supports your number: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060911-1033
As a non-believer, I also take a little comfort in the statistic that, among the US prison population, un-belief is much lower than in the general population (though I can't find a reference for this one at the moment.)