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."'"
...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.
"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.
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.
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.
...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.
But ... the schools are publicly (tax) supported, while churches are privately funded. Surely you can see why one would suggest that the schools should not be for indoctrination, but instead be places of learning where balanced viewpoints are presented about controversial issues.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Ah Christian Fundamentalists... they're just like Islamic Fundamentalists... only different.
No matter what truth, facts, or educated postulations you try to help them understand and consider, to them, the world will always be flat and the Earth will always be in the center of the galaxy.
I was raised Baptist. Of all the wacky stuff the pastor threw at us, we all could appreciate a few simple principles: Mind your health, don't sleep with my wife, try not to kill anybody and education is fundamental. Traveling beyond the doctrines of common sense tends to lead to the swamps of stupidity.
If these fundamentalist zealots, in all their glorious wisdom, wish to outlaw science, deductive reasoning and critical thinking from education, then it's only fair to outlaw their solipsism as well.
And for the record, the Grand Canyon was NOT created 6000 years ago by a disastrous flood survived only by a zookeeper with a really large ship and a meticulous knack for breeding animals... hey that's genetics! Oops, sorry, too scientific, I meant that's the will of our Lord.
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
Last I looked, churches are indirectly subsidized by taxpayers:
Tax the churches same as any other business, and don't allow deductions for donations to them, same as you can't deduct for other Sunday entertainment such as a movie, and you'd have a point ... maybe.
There is no controvery about whether global warming is happening, except from those with a vested interest in pushing ignorance - the religious right and the oil companies. That's not "balanced argument." Religion is superstition, and has no place in the schools. A "belief" that there is no global warming has as much scientific validity as a "belief" that God exists ...
On the other hand, I'm seeing the effects of global warming right now. Montreal winters used to come with a guarantee of snow and cold weather. I can see the grass right now ... in January!!! WTF? Its raining outside. Instead of snowbanks, I'm seeing ... lawns and mud.
Normally, by now there'd be several feet of snow ... it makes me worry about how hot the summer is going to be. I've already decided to buy 2 more 10,000 BTU air conditioners as soon as they go on sale.
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
Ashamed that the school is required to present alterative scientific viewpoints.. This isn't exactly the evolution debate in which the schools were being forced to provide unscientific things. geez
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?
The problem is that teachers have to present opposing viewpoints, but they have to keep the weight of the evidence in mind when they do so. This means that a "fair" hearing of opposing viewpoints might not mean "equal" time to all sides. A vast majority of scientists are convinced that the evidence shows both the existance and causes of global warming. A small majority of scientists disagree. In terms of class time, that means global warming gets about 95% of the time and global warming opponents get 5%. To give EQUAL time to both sides would inaccurately reflect the debate.
And yeah, liberals have to shout pretty loud. We're usually outnumbered and the critics don't like to listen to the facts.
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.
Where does it say he was an agnostic? All the evidence suggests he was involved with groups that preach Christian Identity.
And why would an agnostic by upset at the government actions at Waco (a religious group) and Ruby Ridge (a White supremacist with connections to the Christian Identity movement)? There are many other events that are less charged with religion that he could have been mad at and justified his actions with.
Bottom line is that it is not all fundamentalist Muslims blowing up buildings....plenty of other lunatics out there who are fundamentalists of one stripe or another who are willing to blow up buildings.
If you want a list of "Christian" terrorists, just ask any Londoner who lived during the heyday of the IRA attacks in London.
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.
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 ?
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
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
Indeed. I wrote a letter to a nearby district to help nip this in the bud. I would encourage others in the King County area (or even nationally) to do the same. Feel free to use my words if that is helpful.
Again someone who doesn't understand the scientific method. Proven is not a scientific term it is a legal term. It is used as a form of hyperbole in science to refer to a "well tested theory." Although just as you brought up Einstein's theory of general relativity that has not been "proven" by any means. In fact at a molecular level it breaks down completely and is very dis proven. Just because it hasn't been "proven" doesn't make it any less useful though. Just as Einstein's theory is able to be used to predict how large objects will interact, a "theory of global warming" will help in determining how we should react to it.
Now, repeat after me, "There is no such thing as 'proven' in science. Only Well tested and accepted."
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The fact that he believes the earth to be 14000 years old does not automatically discredit everything he says. Each factually-toned claim someone makes is inherently true or false regardless of what you think of the speaker. I am sure Hardison is correct about some things once in a while.
However, his belief does prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is an idiot. Since we have limited time and effort to expend on scrutinising people's statements, it highlights the fact that his require more scrutiny than most.
A political party's support for a particular point of view is not sufficient to make it a partisan view.
A partisan view is by definition subjective. And an objective scientific statement of science is an objective scientific statement. It does not become less objective just because the Republicans have a cynical financial interest in publicly disagreeing with it.
If I start a political party and start proclaiming that 1+1=3, does that mean that 1+1=2 is suddenly a "partisan" claim?
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Promoting critical thinking and debate is exactly the idea of this decision. As it says in TFA, they didn't ban the film, they made it mandatory for teachers to present an opposing view. How do you expect to teach students critical thinking and media analysis by only presenting one view?
Furthermore, I would say that critical thinking and media analysis are key components of the educational system. Speaking from my educational background, (as a high school senior in Shoreline, WA) every social studies class I've had starts out with some sort of media analysis. English classes too. In my composition classes, pretty much all we do is analyze authors' opinions with respect to other authors' opinions.
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.
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.
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
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.
The IRA was ostensibly made up of members who identified with being Catholic. Hence the "Christian" label being applied. (and as a former Londoner myself, I witnessed the aftermath of many an explosion and was nearby at a couple). The violence in Northern Ireland was frequently sectarian, with Protestants attacking Catholics (and vice versa). Indeed, reading about the IRA (a political wing may not refer to the religious position of the terrorist wing) following the wikipedia link in the article you linked to, we find this:
The Provisionals, on the other hand, advocated a robust armed defence of Catholics in the north and an offensive campaign against Northern Ireland to end British rule there.
Seems pretty clear that RELIGION is a key factor in the formation and actions of the IRA, and therefore Sinn Fein. Unless you are declaring that Catholics (and specifically, Roman Catholics) are not Christians?
And I would say that the Christian Identity movement is about as close as one could come to as a religious terrorist movement in the US (www.splcenter.org), especially with some of their members attacking Jews and other minorities. Indeed, the term RAHOWA used by such groups is a short version of RAcial HOly WAr.
And the definition of murder is usually made by the winning side....if you kill the enemy in a war and win, you are a good patriot. Do the same and lose....you are a murderer.
This is why global warming raises such an alarm bell with me, because it never seems to be presented in this way. People trumpet it as something of which there is NO DOUBT, a fact, not a theory
You seem to be of the opinion that there's two categories of knowledge. Facts, of which we are certain, and theories of which we aren't. I have a theory that yesterday happened. My evidence is that I remember yesterday, I have records that were produced yesterday, I have video, newspaper reports, etc of yesterday occouring, and everyone I talk to also remembers yesterday occouring (I occasionally run into some people that don't recall yesterday, but all those people were either drunk, or have demonstratable problems with memory.)
But how do you know there's not an all-powerfull evil deceiver that merely manufactured all this evidence to fool us into thinking yesterday happened? You can't disprove it, can you? And I sure did dismiss those people that didn't remember yesterday quickly. Maybe they don't have memory problems.. maybe they have memory ENHANCEMENTS! Perhaps the evil deceiver isn't all powerfull and his powers don't affect those people, or people who were drunk at the time!
Ok, so my alternative theory isn't very good and doesn't explain anything new. That wasn't really the point of course. The point is to illustrate that you can look at everything as "theory", and there's not as hard a line between "fact" and "theory" as some people would have you believe. There's no such thing as a fact that's totally unquestionable down to an infinite amount of decimal places. I don't even have to go to ridicous extremes. Our memories aren't perfect, our senses can deceive us, etc. If you look out and see your car in the driveway, you'd think it's a fact that your car is in the driveway. But maybe it just LOOKS like your car and is in fact someone elses car. Or maybe you've had brain damage and your memories are faulty. We dismiss these alternative theories because they're not very good without any evidence to support them.
Another important point is that all theories aren't equally well accepted. We'd be VERY surprised if helio-centric theory (that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa) were wrong. We're so sure of it that no one really questions it because there's no good alternative. People that DO are considered quacks and fools.. not because they're questioning something unquestionable, but because they don't have any good alternative that stands up to scrutiny. My evil-deceiver theory falls to Occam's razor (simplified down to "all things being equal, the simpler theory wins"). It requires un-observed phenomenon like an evil-deceiver that's all powerfull and violates our understanding of essentially all of physics.
(it is a theory, so is how gravity works, and so on). If you question it you are stupid, or an industry shill, or ignoring the issue, and so on.
No, I think the problem is that the criticism that gets through is all rather stupid or miss-informed. Some people seem to think you can be some guy off the street and just topple global warming with a flick of the wrist. Others think that you can topple it if you're "real smart" (but don't have the knowledge or training to understand the central arguments of global warming). The evidence for global warming is complex enough that you need to be educated in the science surrounding it. Rush Limbaugh (and probbably other global warming critics) has occasionally poked at global warming through referencing that the amounts of CO2 produced by volcanoes far exceeds that produced by humans. This is actually true, but isn't relevant to the debate since the CO2 in the atmosphere is a balance between what's emitted, and what's absorbed. Change the balance, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. This is an example of information that sounds like a gaping hole in global warming to anyone that doesn't have the whole picture.. but it disappeers when you actually understand what's going
AccountKiller