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!
Am I the only one that remembers that "a theory" and "hypothesis" are different and that the former is used by laypeople that don't understand the latter?
N.B. A theory is a more-or-less estabilshed explaination backed with observerational evidence.
"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.
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.
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.
Yes, indeed you could be wrong here and you forgot the "IANAP" disclaimer.
In fact, I Am A Physicist and I can tell you that what we don't know is exactly how much and how fast the temperature will rise, how the climate change will vary from place to place and how exactly all this will affect our world.
What we do know is that the temperature is rising and that for at least half a century we are the ones mainly responsible for that. We also do know that if we don't do something the consequences will be dire. Again, we don't know exactly how bad it will be, but that is no excuse for not doing anything.
If you want to know, the drop in temperature that starts the ice age and the warming after it are very slow processes like most others in nature. Forget about what you saw in "Ice Age", it was quite funny but the Earth will not freeze in a few days (and Scrat can't possibly survive after all that he goes through!).
Now, if I want to be more precise, the "unfreezing" part (that you inappropriately compared to the current problem of global warming) is slower than the "freezing", probably by a large margin. This is because temperature lowering at the start of the ice age is accelerated by the formation of snow and ice which increase the surface albedo and thus decrease the absorption rate of solar energy. But let's not get off topic.
The Earth is a very stable environment judging from how it has nurtured and preserved life for millions of years. So, for a temperature change so sudden as the one observed in recent years, a significant catastrophic event has to occur. Such an event could be a large meteor hitting the surface or a Supervolcano erruption. In our case, the catastrophy was the 20th century man.
On the other hand, apart from your post I also agree with Richard Dawkins' line of thought that moderate christians are those that allow fundamentalist to exist by supplying the ideological background.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
http://politeindian.wordpress.com/2006/10/03/is-is lam-violent/ ... ...
Well, there are 6236 verses in Quran and according to one website there are 337 verses with violent passages. The article has an excellent comparision of the violent passges in both bible and quran. Bible has 853 violent passages. Now does that make it more violent than Quran? If you do a percentage comparison then Bible has 2.74% violent passages and Quran has 5.4%.
Christianity
"When your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying 'Let us go and serve other gods,' . . . you shall kill him, your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God. . . " (Deuteronomy 13: 6-10)
My personal favorite... (first read when I did a paper on organized religion back in college)
"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But spare for yourselves all virgin maidens" (Numbers 31:17-18).
Islam
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful." (Surah 9:5)
Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
Judism
Jews are Divine, Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews, Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile. (Islam has this too- as far as I know Christianity doesn't so you can trust them a bit more at their word).
(There is some distinction between the talmud and the torah that I miss here tho).
It goes on for many other religions.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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 ?
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
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)
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
"There is nothing at all wrong with showing political films..." ...in science class? Yes there is.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Reference: Bush has killed more people than Saddam Hussein: 654,965 people.
"Riker doesn't belong in the captain's chair, and neither does Al Gore."
Riker became Captain of the USS Titan, BTW.
Are you an adult, that you know the difference between a lie and a mistake?
http://zfacts.com/p/581.html
Oct. 7, 2002
George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
Not "we believe", not "we have evidence that indicates", not "sources tell us"; he said "we know." Yes, I know the difference between a lie and a mistake.
Aug. 26, 2002
Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I agree that political films should not be shown in science class. However, this film seems to be classified as a documentary by most people who aren't rabid Republicans. While there is a political aspect, most of the film tries to show the hard science that underlies the theory of global warming. The fact of the matter is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in the last 600 million years. My somewhat limited understanding of the CO2 cycle on a world scale leads me to believe that we are approaching a crucial tipping point. We are rapidly reaching a CO2 saturation level in the oceans that will destroy a crucial part of the ecosystem. When organisms such as plankton, shrimp, and shellfish can't form their skeletons/shells, their collapse will have a disastrous domino effect. Dead oceans = dead world.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
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.
You seem to misunderstand what theory means in the context of scientific rigour.
Evolution is a theory. Global warming is a theory. Gravity is a theory too! So is light.
"Respected members of the scientific community" stopped making such statements as soon as contrary 'evidence' was examined. It's becoming very clear that global warming is happening--that doesn't make it less of a theory, by the way. The relative causes are still getting sorted out, but anyone who actually takes the time to study and understand the evidence can't avoid the obvious and clear conclusion.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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 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
There is nothing at all wrong with showing political films in school
If you'd have read the article carefully and maybe thought about researching the topic a bit more you'd learn that the school had a policy about controversial films. This film was identified as controversial and they applied their policy. Regardless of the claims made by the man cited in the article, the film is certainly controversial and so the policy was rightly applied.
As an ex Londoner, I'd like to point out that the IRA wasn't particularly Christian.
E.g. look at their political wing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_Féin
Certainly they were much less motivated by Christianity, than the July 7th bombers were motivated by Islam.
Got to say your comments reminded me of this
http://reformedchicksblabbing.blogspot.com/2006/0
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;
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)
50 years from now? Hah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rideau_Canal
Of particular interest is the part on the Skateway. Of even more particular interest is that it has yet to freeze over this year. More than that, I went rollerblading last weekend. Right. Global warming is a myth. That green stuff on my lawn is called "snow".
At the risk of sounding like a cantankerous old fart (which is wrong, I'm 25, a cantankerous young fart), I can distinctly remember having snowball fights on Hallowe'en with my brother. This year, we haven't had a snowfall that lasted more than a day or so, and the Rideau Canal is still flowing. With liquid water. In January. It's unlikely that it will freeze at all this year. The first snowfall didn't even come until Boxing Day, and that was gone by the 27th.
Oh, but Global Warming is a Myth (tm).
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
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".
An increase in solar radiation will only exacerbate the problem of
global warming. Combining an increase of solar radiation with
increased CO2 levels will create an even hotter greenhouse. One only
needs to study Venus' weather to get an idea.
Lowering the CO2 levels and other greenhouse gasses is one of many
approaches to tackling global warming. There are two major approaches
that go hand in hand; 1. reducing the amount of CO2 and Methane into the
atmosphere, 2. actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
The Sun goes through many short and long cycles. It is true that
we cannot conclusively state the amount of solar radiation remains the
same. However, there are many stars of similar composition and mass
like the Sun, none of them break the principal relation between Mass
and Luminosity. Do you have any data to support a recent increase in
Solar luminosity, say over the last 100 years?
Up-leveling a bit, one of the most effective treatments of global
warming is to reduce the amount of solar radiation the earth receives.
In fact, a proposal has already been put forward to launch a
solar-shield and put it in the Lagrange-point between Sun and
Earth. Calculations have shown (and I apologize for not having a link
available), that this shield would only have to reduce total Solar
radiation by one or two percent to effectively mitigate the effects of
extra CO2. If the Sun where increasing its output, such a shield
would greatly help. However, reducing CO2 levels would still help
since it makes it easier for the Earth to radiate excess heat into
space.
The one thing I certainly agree with is that humanity should not rely
on a singular approach. Spending money only to reduce CO2 would be
bad. However, in my opinion, doing nothing to curb CO2 emissions would
be an even larger folly.
My first language is Dutch. My education is in astronomy.
There is only one thing I take issue with in your reply. It is your assumption of the existence of cyclical events in Earth's history. Many of the events you mentioned are nothing like cyclical, they are recurrent. The earth's diurnal and the seasons are cyclical. I think there is a real danger in assuming, without hard evidence, that these recurrent events are endemic to Earth, i.e. there are no additional causes.
One possible explanation for the early ice-ages was a period of diminished sunshine. Possible causes are Solar activity, or the Solar system passing through a dust cloud. There really is a precarious balance between the influx of solar light, the composition of the atmosphere and the average temperature on Earth. All the reported trends show a marked increase over the last 100 years in temperature and CO2 concentration.
How is the cyclical/recurrent nature of Earth the simplest explanation? Make your case, for I don't buy it. What is the mechanism that generates these cyclical/recurrent events? What are the dampening factors? Why now?
You say: 'the problem is that you are defining a disease solely by its symptoms', is there any other way? If you say you are thirsty, I would ask more questions to correlate symptoms and most likely end up at diabetes. I should infact turn that statement around, it is you who is saying drink more... Since you accept as fact the existence of cyclical events ( I don't, they are recurrent), you *think* you recognize another cycle... But, the planet might in fact be seriously sick....
Let me be honest, I started studying Global warming issues back in the 1980s, long before it was 'in vogue' so to speak. It takes real effort to understand the observations, their meaning, the theories and their mechanisms. It is also a fascinating subject. I hope I have challenged you enough to make you delve deeper and critically into the subject.