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."'"
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 ...
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
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.
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.
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
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?
"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
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.
We didn't have the ability to gather up enough mass to see if gravity could bend light back in 1919 either, but we still managed to test Einstein's theory of general relativity.
You do not need to actively create an experiment to test a theory. All you need is to make a prediction of what will happen given a certain set of conditions. If the theory is valid, the prediction will be correct. In the case of global warming, the conditions are a marked change in atmospheric composition (mostly increased CO2) and the prediction is an overall increase in global temperatiure. Time will tell.
Regardless, I don't think global warming can be lab-tested and "proven" in a sense that you can prove most other theories. The real question here, though: Can we really afford to ignore the possability it may be right?
=Smidge=
Hey, that's almost Pascal's Wager!
how to invest, a novice's guide
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.
Dude, when you're arguing with someone that thinks the Earth is 14,000 years old, they're completely oblivious to anything called evidence. Your evidence is wrong, because the Holy Book says I'm right. QED. Then they'll throw in your basic FUD about the unenlightened mind, not seeing the truth and so you can quote scientific evidence by the metric ton, and it will not make any difference at all.
People can hear all the evidence they want, but without religion their life would be emptier. There's noone to watch over you, there's no higher purpose, there's no afterlife, humans are just a slightly more advanced animal, there's noone to pray to, there's noone to right injustices, noone to thank or beg for help - it's all rolls of a dice and you stand alone. Religion is adults' version of an imaginary friend.
Let me play along, and assume ex facto that there is a god (as in any, Jesus' dad, Allah, Jahve, Jehova etc.) That still means at least 2/3rd of the world's population are worshipping a false god (depending on who's right). Let's also assume he's very tolerant of other religions, none of that "you shall have no other gods before me" but clearly worshipping the wrong god shouldn't "work". Then how come every religion seems to "work" for their worshippers? Because they create it themselves, their imaginary friend. Either that, or you have those who claim they're all the same by which I can only conclude that god is schizophrenic, given the number of conflicting teachings.
I think all evidence suggest religious people are wrong, particularly when they try to contradict science like this. And even if one creation myth is right, most of them have to be wrong. However, clearly it is everyone else that is wrong...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
Ahhh, but in this case, it wasn't the person that was being attacked. It was a filter that that person had chosen to apply to their perception with demonstrable effects on his ability to draw logical conclusions *in certain situations* which was being attacked.
His stated belief that the earth is 14,000 years old demonstrates this filter applied to his ability to deal with many sciences such as geology, paleontology, etc.
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.
That's a perfectly valid argument.
There is consensus that the earth is getting warmer. Al Gore's theories about the cause do not meet with the same consensus. I am willing to keep an open mind to this issue but I would like to hear about potential remedies that will actually do something. IMO, Kyoto appears to have been designed more to damage the US economy that to do anything about the environment.
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.
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.
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
There is nothing at all wrong with showing political films in school so long as your students are not being indoctrinated via presenting the film as fact. I welcome discussion of global warming even though as of now I haven't been shown (though I admit to not having looked in detail for a while now) evidence that convinces me that global warming is and issue or that humans are the cause of it. The key (as with evolution vs creation) is teaching the children to be critical thinkers and giving them the skills to take information from various sources and weigh and measure it before synthesizing it into thier view of reality. If more people were capable of this many of the silly yet world shaking arguments would melt away.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
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.
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?
> 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?
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
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.
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.
Ok, I'll bite. You have at least are registered, not some AC.
Let me dissect your post a little, and vary between philosophy and science...
'But Global warming is far from fact...'
Let me first define 'Global warming' : global warming is a theory, supported by the majority of the scientific community.
Central to the theory are the following observations:
- Ice caps and glaciers are becoming smaller.
- The Tree-line is creeping north and upwards.
- The perma frost line is going north.
- The artic and antartic ice-caps are getting smaller
- The Sahel (region below the Sahara) is getting dryer (average annual rain fall).
- year over year averages of weather stations show an increase in average temperature (since 1830).
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up.
The theory explains these observations as the result of human activity. Specifically the increase in CO2 and Methane which have been identified as so called 'greenhouse' gasses.
So back to 'But Global warming is far from fact.' What is your statement here, do you deny the observations or do you deny the proposed theory?
Let me assume that you deny the link between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as causes of increasing temperatures. Would you be so kind as to propose an alternative theory that explains these phenomenon? Please use of Occam's razor.
The 'war on drugs' and 'war of terror' are artifacts of American policies, they only live in the US (but with devastating global effects). Global warming is supported by a much larger group of countries world wide, a group which went as far to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty.
'They are a creation by some entity to gain power and take money.'... please be specific, who would benefit and why?
'There are a lot of specious claims about what the truth is, but no one knows for sure.' True, such is the nature of debate. But human discourse is a way to contrast such opposing view points, investigate their supporting evidence and move to a new level in rational discourse. It is called learning. "Eppure si muove," (Galileo)
'There are more than a few studies that endorse global warming. There are just as many (though not as well publicized or funded) that dispute it.'
There are many studies that report on observations supporting an increase in temperature, CO2 concentration, greenhouse gas increase or albedo reduction. There are also many studies that link these observations together into a comprehensive theory named 'Global warming'. There are not many studies that dispute these observations, there are not many studies that dispute the trends presented. There are a few studies that present alternatives to the CO2/Greenhouse gas model of Global warming. Where many studies differ is in their predictions on how bad the situation is, in other words some believe we have already crossed the threshold, others believe it will take many years. None of these latter studies advocate doing nothing.
'There is no proof, but let's pretend.' Here you are plain wrong... go visit a glacier. The debate is NOT on the rising temperature, the debate is if this is a cyclical pattern in the earth's long term climate and what role humanity has.
etc...
'there is evidence to support his position.' Cherry picking goes two ways, you are accusing the leading scientific establishment of cherry picking their way into global warming. Crichton is cherry picking his way as a critic...
Having been to the Columbia ice-fields, Glacier national park, and some more glaciers around the world, I can tell you for a fact. They are retreating. Whatever is heating up the earth is doing so fast and it will have consequences for humanity.
Now I believe that the observations I mentioned above are most comprehensively explained by the theory of global warming that links the concentration of CO2 and Greenhouse gasses to the average temperature of the planet. I also believe that human activity is a major producer of
Same as if yu really believe someone is going to pull the trigger on that loaded gun pointed at your head if you eat that twinkie, you'll ignore your craving for junk food.
Yeah, like all of those smokers who know it's bad for them but don't want to stop... or overeaters... or every other person who has an addiction of one type or another.
BTW, as for those "millions of christians doing good" - if someone is doing something good because they're trying to please their god, their actions are worthless, according to the bible.
You've misunderstood or have been misled on this one. Jesus talks a lot about doing good deeds for show in Mark 12, but he also makes it very clear that his followers should demonstrate their love for him by following his teachings.
Of course your last paragraph betrays your true feelings. Look, I believe the earth is getting warmer... the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I, and MANY individuals who are not Christians, aren't convinced that it's a man made problem that is fixable by cutting down on fossil fuel consumption in the US (although I'm also very interested in looking for cleaner safer fuel sources).
You're interesting because you have a particular belief, that man is causing global warming and man must change in order to stop it, and can change enough to actually stop it at this point and you're now going to belittle anyone who disagrees with you and work to push your ideology down their throats.
You don't need to be so biggoted. You could very easily have said... "You know, I don't believe in the Bible as a source for scientific evidence or policy making... so this guys argument means nothing to me and I think it probably doesn't mean much to a lot of other people too... he's going to have to do better."
My final point... trotting this guy out as the example of an expert on alternative theories to global warming or a Christian theologian is equivalent to me citing some space-looney who believes in cosmic rays and alien abductions and that life started on Earth when the aliens created the pyramids as a leading naturalist. It's a strawman argument.
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.
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.
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
That's what I've seen here in Germany. I looked up the abortion rates; MUCH lower than the US, as are the teen pregnancy rates. German kids know precisely how further German kids come about and how they can avoid this happening ahead of schedule.
Young Germans are also far less religious than their American peers, so I doubt the majority think premarital sex is wrong.
Grüß Gott aus Bayern!