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."'"
"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.
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
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
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