Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Only a Theory, Says School Board
BendingSpoons writes "A Seattle school board has placed a moratorium on screenings of 'An Inconvenient Truth', having found its subject matter too controversial. Echoing the language of the evolution debate, the school board found that students must be told that global warming is only a theory and presented with an opposing viewpoint. The ban was prompted by the complaints of a parent: '"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."'"
Federal Way is almost 26 miles south of Seattle, and the only thing in common both cities have is that they both share the same county. It's like saying San Jose is San Francisco, because they both have "San" in their names.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
When global warming isn't a theory anymore, it will kind of be like hell on earth. So I guess the bible is right?
- Aetheral Research -
Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
The fundamentalist Christians are out breeding the rest of us. We must catch up.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
...that this nonsense is being spoken by someone who couldn't possibly be even considered sensible or correct... having anything close to a valid argument against global warming.
I just want to say sorry from all us normal Christians.
You are all a bunch of idots.
But what do other opposing sources say?
The Koran?
Hindu beliefs?
Various Native (North and South) American legends?
Buddhist Teachings?
If you are going to provide one opposing viewpoint, you better be ready to provide many others as well.
This space unintentionally left blank.
In other words ...
Washington, Gore, the whole lot. We all know that the truth about both the age of the earth and cause of global warming lies in the truth as told by His Noodleness on high.
Ramen.
><));>
"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.
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
I'm getting disgusted with these people whose minds are so narrow that they are oblivious to the world around them. I am a Christian myself and people making comments like the ones in the article only make all of us look ridiculous.
Hard Hat Area: Sig Construction Zone
Kids are often surprisingly smart, if you just tell them the real deal. A critical missing element of public education is teaching kids to adjudicate competing claims. This topic is a wonderful opportunity to teach science, civics, critical thinking, and world religions in a single issue, without being dry.
It would be a shame for us to simply demand that the school board decide that global warming is the truth, and miss a great teaching opportunity. I hope we don't do that.
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
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.
"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.
If you RTFA you'll notice that teachers are still free to use the movie in their classes, all they need to do is present an opposing viewpoint. That is consistent with the school's position on all controversial topics, and yes, global warming (and especially its causes) is controversial.
If the theory behind global warming is so strong, then surely it will hold up under debate and scrutiny. Global warming advocates should welcome this opportunity to confront their skeptics head on.
Instead, they attempt to shout down and silence their critics (which seems to be a liberal trend). That doesn't strike me as being confident in your position.
I respect your religion -- and all religions -- but I am one of those people who loathes fundamentalism and bandies about terms like "religious nuts" and "religious fascists." It is not the "religious" side of the equation which I find loathesome, but the "nut" side of it.
Religion does not belong in politics. America fought a revolution to support the idea of brotherhood and equality between humans, and rid the world of archaic notions about some humans being more worthy than other humans, such as so-called "kings" (who, it must be remembered, were thought to derive their political power from divine power).
There is so much about Christianity (and other religions) which is patently un-American, including its references to this dude who died 2,000 years ago as some kind of currently existing "Prince" or a "Lord" or "King" to be "worshipped." Attributing divinity and specialness to certain humans but not others is a slippery path which desensitizes us to tyranny and allows for the hateful mullahs and popes and all the rest of the religious rabble who claim to speak from some special tyrannical authority from on high, instead of from persuasion and reason.
All that said, again, I respect yours or anyone's personal thoughts. If you want to bow down to a green tomato in your own house and predict that one day that green tomato will come flying through the heavens and rapturize people, so be it. But I hope you can understand that in a pluralistic world, many of us have very different faiths about how spirituality and creation and all the rest work, and the most sensible course of action seems to be to respect all faiths.
Take the Moslems and their "infidel" epithet, for example. Poll after poll consistently shows that 96% of the American people believe in God. You would think reasonable people could rejoice in the things they have in common (God) than always fighting over the minutae (whose prophet is the "right" one?)
Denying global warming because your religion makes you think, through faith instead of evidence, that the world is only 14,000 years old is like standing in front of a speeding car and daring it to hit you. The philosopher David Hume tried that with a horse, got clobbered, and realized that reality is actually, in fact, real, and it hurts! Reason is not at all incompatible with faith, but a supplantation of reason by faith is ludicrous and ultimately, evil and tyrannical, leading to concepts like, "Because I believe watching soccer on TV is un-Islamic, I'm going to kill you. Never mind what YOU believe."
It's easy enough for a non-Christian Deist like me (I love God - I hate religion) to denounce guys like this fellow in Washington State. But I really think it is incumbent on the religious who are not "nuts," as you characterize yourself, to do a better job at shouting him down. If the non-tyrannical Christians, Moslems, Jews etcetera don't start stepping up and putting the nut/fascist types of religious folk down, then all that we godly albeit non-religious folk will be able to conclude is that you stand with them, too. If the world needs anything returned or supplanted, it is the replacement of religious nuts by the "normal" religious. Is there such a thing any more, in 2006? Or are you all fascists?
"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore."
Use in the following way:
"X doesn't belong in Y, and neither does Al Gore."
Examples:
"Cheese don't belong in hot dogs, and neither does Al Gore."
"Riker doesn't belong in the captain's chair, and neither does Al Gore."
*Note that verb tense can be changed at the leisure of the poster.
Here's to hoping that this one spreads better than the "Except in Nebraska" one of Steve Ballmer fame.
The greatest proof that these people have already succeeded in derailing our educational system is the very use of the phrase "just a theory."
They show a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. What they should be saying is "it's just a hypothesis." Unlike creationism, however, theories have overwhelming evidence in their favor and little or no evidence against them. I consider global warming to be a theory; what is more of a hypothesis is if humans are responsible for it, though I also consider this to be the case.
All of this is immediately rejected by them, of course, because of the failure to realize that truth is independent of one's belief in it. This is the reason why science cures disease, increases food production, and improves our lives; religion has accomplished nothing in comparison.
Religion doesn't teach logic, it teaches anti-logic, and these well-indoctrinated fools are thus unable to follow the above arguments. More's the pity, truly.
Jesus wasn't a teacher, what makes you think *he's* correct?
And I very rarely learn anything new on these threads, since I started reading RealClimate; and even the entertaining troll posts about not wanting to go back to living in caves, and anyway it's all a scam by the Chinese to destroy American industry have died back in the last year or so.
So how's the weather back there in the States? Pretty miserable in the NE this time of year, I bet.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has evidence that global warming is actually caused by the shrinking number of pirates since 1800. I feel that students should be made aware of this in their science classes and encouraged to think about becoming pirates to aid the situation.
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
"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
The real implication of the mandate that Hardison got is that if the video is shown, the "opposing theory" that gets presented is his a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
I think the Supreme Court has already made it clear that that kind of fundamentalist BS posing as "science" doesn't cut it. No, I think a good starting point for the "opposing theory" would be Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist . Show "An Inconvenient Truth", then make the kids read Lomborg's book. Randomly assign half the kids to the "pro" side and half to the "con" side, then have a debate or have them write reports or whatever.
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.
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.
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
The parent may not be a teacher, but the parent is still the parent and has a say in his/her child's education. Al Gore, in this matter, is nobody.
I don't think the person's religious beliefs are really an issue here. Global warming is happening, but why it is happening is what is under serious debate. The looney crowd shouting "they sky is falling" uses a scientific study that completely ignores long term historical trends. From what it looks like, the earth is in a NORMAL warming cycle and there's not a damn thing humans can do anything about it. What we should be doing is getting decent theories on the extent of the warming trend and taking measures if necessary, e.g. if crop growth is going to plummet, we need to stockpile food with long shelf-lifes to prevent world wide famine. MREs anyone?
Unfortunately, the "end of the world" crowd has decided that it's all man's fault and refuse to discuss/debate anything else except how much the U.S. (and only the U.S.) will destroy our own economy to save the world.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Here is the solution to Global Warming...
It is reasonably well known that atmospheric particulate pollution reduces the amount of the Sun's radiation which reaches the surface and is also able to reflect more radiation back into space. Such effects, called "Nuclear Winter" are theorized but there is very strong evidence that huge volcanic eruptions do chill the whole planet dispite putting out an extremely large volume of greenhouse gases.
So what can we do to reverse Global Warming?
1. Remove particle filters, especially ESD-type filters, from our coal and oil burning power stations. This will help increase the amount of fine particles in the atmosphere and will also help reduce carcenogenic dioxin output from those power stations.
2. Switch to Diesel! Our petrol/gas vehicles just don't put out enough carbon particles. Electric vehicles are ok as long as the electricity is sourced from a coal or oil burning power station which has already had its filters removed.
3. Burn waste in your back yard! Stop filling landfills and burn the junk. This reduces the amount of land wastefully used to store our waste and help put more particles in the atmosphere. Burying waste only leads to greenhouse gas emissions while they decompose.
We have unwittingly been doing well for ourselves - globally, the amount of radiation reaching the Earth's surface has been reduced by more than 10% over the last 50 years due to atmospheric particle pollution. Okay, there are a few downsides, a few impoverished nations will suffer crop failure when the global weather patterns change but we are saving the planet from becoming another Venus!
(I wonder if anyone will take this seriously? Well, there is some valid science. Look up "global dimming". LMAO)
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
It's because we've stopped teaching Latin in schools.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Can you name the scientists? Also do you have link to a study from respected peer review science journal(nature etc) that the sun is getting hotter?
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
From the article... 'that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented,"'
Talking about a pocket banning... Is there such a thing as a credible, legitimate opposing view that has been peer reviewed in a scientific journal?
Good point. So is there a term or scale or something to quickly convey the soundness of a particular theory?
For example... how would one communicate to the maturity and support for two theories say giant impact theory which suggests that the moon was formed by a large body colliding with earth while it was still relatively young and the theory of gravity (which I hope we're all familiar with). Even theories about the causes of global warming are less proven and tested then the theory of gravity... and of course there are many theories that have been proven wrong or are still very immature and generally untested.
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.
An Inconvenient Truth is politically charged propaganda. There are much more straightforward, less politically charged videos that use better science and fewer dishonest tactics. Teachers ought to be showing something like "Global Warming: What you need to know" with Tom Brokaw, which gets the point across without being deceptive, plus it spends a lot more time talking about practical solutions than Gore's movie. Additionally, Gore's movie is politically charged, so right wing students are going to ignore it just because of the (unnecessary) politics Gore put into the movie, and some left wing students are going to take it for gospel regardless of the science behind it. Brokaw's special is straightforward, unpolitical, and talks about a solution.
While we may not be entirely responsible and there may very well be natural forces causing the Earth's weather to act in a drunken manner, that does not mean we can not change it!
Doesn't this seem awfuly contradictory to you? If we're not causing "global warming" you're suggesting that we should attempt to change the natural process of the earth. What about all that jazz about humans fucking up the environment? If we're not causing global warming then we should try to cause global cooling? That seems like it would have a lot of unintended consequences.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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
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 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)
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,"
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
What really concerns me is that schools AVOID controversy. Think about that. The place we send our children to in order to become knowledgeable enough to integrate with society and contribute to our pool of knowledge (Or at least, this is the supposed ideal. The execution and goals of specific individuals within may vary). And they do what they can to AVOID subjects kids may have disagree with?
Am I the only one here who thinks this is a good thing for kids to see, whether or not you AGREE with Mr. Gore? How about watching it... and then forming an opinion? Or is that a skill we're no longer supposed to possess?
How about dissecting the movie? Taking classes to identify facts, identify opinion, where people may be just guessing, where people are just trying to sway your opinion, and so on?
Personally, on Global Warming, I'm rather neutral. I don't feel that I know enough to form a truly educated opinion. However, I do think that pouring poisonous chemicals non-stop into the atmosphere we breathe isn't very likely to have many "beneficial" side-effects, regardless of whether or not it's contributing/contributing a lot to global warming.
Sorry if this sounded inflammatory, but I'm just rather irritated that the U.S. (from my experience) is doing the best it can to avoid hearing conflicting opinions. "Freedom from offensive or disagreeing speech" is not a Constitutional Right, and I'm sick of people having their lawyers on speed dial for every instance someone decides to bring up unpopular/unorthodox/taboo ideas.
'"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old.
C'mon, this has to be a put-on. One man's life can't be this unintentionally funny.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Newton's Law of Gravity
Funny you should mention that one, as it was eventually proven to be incorrect. That's was Einstein's claim to fame.
In other words, even the most rigously tested theories are still just theories.
Cheers.
Reference: Bush has killed more people than Saddam Hussein: 654,965 people.
On the subject of climate change we are in a different level of argument. You see the Earth's temperature is anything but stable. History suggests that in recent times our planet has been much colder than it is now and at other times much warmer.
Ever wondered why the icecaps are littered with Mammoth and Sabertooth corpses but not a single dinosaur? The formed long after those creatures were extinct.
What is in dispute however is:
1. Is the Earth warming up too fast. I.e. Will this trigger an effect outside the normal cycle.
2. What effect is that? Will we go into a Greenhouse spiral and become a humid furnace like Venus? or breakup the icecaps so that when they reform the planet plunges into a freeze cycle and becomes a virtual snowball with no summer.
3. Is the current warming cycle being hurried along by humans?
BTW: Ever notice how really ancient cities are mostly inland while recent constructions are mostly on the coast?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
So, he's against teaching kids about safe sex, and quite obviously doesn't use it himself. He's also obviously some kind of literalist Christian. I mean, no self-respecting science journal would EVER claim the Earth was 14,000 years old. We Humans have been around a lot longer than that (despite being no more than a mere blip on the time line of the Earth), and we have skeletal remains, carbon dating, sedimentary layers, etc. etc. etc. to back it up. Unless just about every form of archeology is ridiculously wrong in every conceivable way (or you go with that "God put that there to trick us" logic, which is a whole other can of worms), there is no way in Hell that can be right.
So, why is it that a man who is obviously not very well versed in the realms of science trying to have so much say in what takes place in a science class?
> 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
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
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.
""Condoms don't belong in school(.)" said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven"
According to him, they apparently don't belong anywhere.
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.
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
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.
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
Even if the weather is abnormally stable for the past centuries, it's not very clever to play with the curve before understanding the system more thoroughly.
We can always look at Venus to get reminded how a runaway greenhouse effect ends.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
No scientist was predicting "freezing to death", nor were any peer-reviewed journals publishing articles to this effect. The "1970's prediction of an iceage" myth is based on two media articles by National Geographic and Newsweek where the journalists got their science wrong (more so in Newsweek.)
a better explination is here
This is myth is keept alive by the likes of George Will (a fairly respectable conservative on most other topics) and that "expert" Michael Crichton. The only thing close was the discovery in the 1970's of teperature variations with a periodicity of 20000 years. Well below the time scale of anthropogenic warming (on order of decades to 100s of years.)
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Why should we view Christianity this way? All the evidence points to the opposite - that it's a massively organized big business based largely on telling people how they should act. Just because it's a personal relationship for you, doesn't change the reality of what Christianity is today.
In fact, rather then keeping the Jesus relationship personal and private, you came here to tell us how we should think about Christianity. Doesn't that directly contradict what you said about it being a personal relationship? Why would you care what we think of Christianity if it's such a personal thing?
... and then they built the supercollider.
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one"
And the problem with Occam's Razor is that it is seriously misinterpreted. "All things being equal" being key. His original words were "Thou shalt not pluralize needlessly." This is of course the extremely bastardized english translation. When "All things being equal" comes into play, it means that all information is in hand. Which in almost every circumstance Occam's Razor is used in, is not the case.
Take for instance, our lack of data previous the 19th century. BIG problem. We don't know whether we've seen similar temperature differentiations in the past because the technology did not exist to measure regional temperature averages, let alone global ones. When we sit here and argue about mankind's affectual nature, temperature is often at the basis of the argument. Being as how we didn't even have remotely reliable thermometers until the early 1900's; man's way of thinking that we are at fault for the minimal raise in temperature in remote areas not nearly to be construed by any analytical mind to be on global scale is very vain. The average temperature of the earth hasn't seen an increase in years, yet because of the increase in isolated areas due to easily defined variables not related to emittance of vehicles we have a global crisis on our hands.
Let's take my case for example. I'm sitting in -2F weather..........a temperature we haven't seen since the early 90's. This is in Colorado, we've been getting hit by precipitous weather non-stop for almost a month now in a manner unheard of for more than a decade. This change in weather I believe is not an artifact of our "pollutants" but a matter of natural phenomenae. Anybody remember the "global cooling" crisis? I'm not even old enough to have been alive during the period, but let's suffice it to say that the "Cold War" was aptly named. I remember Al Nino, I remember certain hurricanes resulting in myself and family members getting sucked out 10 feet into the surf after hurricanes near the east coast, I even remember the Berlin wall. I can say with empirical certainty that such weather is a normal occurance over the course of time; but people insist on being paranoid.
Which brings us back to my point.
"All things being equal"
When this is said, it means all information available being measured against the applicable results. We have results, but scant amounts of data. Terrestrial weather patterns have been patently cyclical since man has existed (which is more than 14,000 years, thank you very FUCKING MUCH); and have been observed since modern measuring equipment and variants thereof have been in production; yet we fail to take that into account and cannot take that into account until we have at least 2 weather cycle's worth of data to compare to. We're phasing into cycle two.
Before using a man's words, at least do him the favor of using them as they were meant to be used. To do otherwise is to piss, shit and throw any manner of excrement on his name. I do hope to god any wise words I have to share with the world would not be used for such half-assed, imbecilic retardation as Occam's Razor has been used for in the past years. Occam by all technical accounts is a many centuries old shit-fucker. I'm talking about getting a hard on for the stinkiest, unhealthiest corn-filled feces on the planet.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
Maybe I should change it to: Poverty enables terrorism. But I also believe that poverty enables religion so I guess I'm stuck in a loop. And yes, it is a broad trollish statement. I guess the day I wrote it I felt like using a two-by-four to whack some sense into people. I seem to have more and more days like that.
Damn kids, get off my lawn!
But that thanks for the reply Ingolfke, it's well taken.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
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.
Is that an ad-hominem? Could there be, perhaps, very firm reasons to dismiss and even ridicule Hardison while taking Gore seriously?
Reasons like dozens of climate models and as close to unanimity as you ever get from scientists (especially when some are paid to say otherwise)?
It is a "political argument" in the same way that "condoms prevent unwanted pregnancy and STD's", "abortion does not cause breast cancer", "HIV causes AIDS" and "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory" are political arguments.
That last one is particularly appropriate, because it's been forced on science and scientists in opposition to the same anti-science, go-back-to-before-the-enlightenment crowd behind the "GW is a political controversy" position.
"Global warming and oil depletion mean we should abandon technological civilization and go back to dirt farming with animals" is a political argument. Politics is about policy. When people take the position that a statement of fact is a political position when it can be proven right or wrong, they are stretching the definition of "political" beyond its breaking point. They are doing exactly what the Roman Church did when it demanded that Galileo recant his position that the Earth was not the center of the universe.
Someone as intelligent as you - and believe me, unless you've taken a blow to the head recently (or taken up heavy drinking, you teetotaler you) I know what that is - also knows that science education at the K-12 level is drastically simplified. It has to be; HS biology doesn't have time to deal with matters like introns and RNA interference and all the non-trivial elements of genetics, to list just one thing in one class. Given the enormous complexity of the body of knowledge and the slow pace of education in public schools, it can hardly be otherwise.
"An Inconvenient Truth" is a scientifically relevant presentation on matters of current interest. I would hardly say that a science class wouldn't be complete without it, but it is not out of place in K-12. In an AP-level class, it would ideally be used as an introduction to one-dimensional atmospheric modelling, perhaps with a tie-in to integral calculus.
His other beliefs are quite relevant, as they have been tied politically to denial of anthropogenic global warming. Anti-science views in general are strongly associated with religious fundamentalism, and it cannot be wrong to say so unless Hardison has dissociated himself from same.
Geez. Of all the people I'd expect to adopt a relativist position on matters of science, you are the last I'd think of. Has moving to the Bay Area finally affected your mind, or is it just reaction to all the fruitcakes around you?
Sustainability and energy independence essay
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.
Gravity is a theory, too. So is the theory of evolution. Yet, both are seen as true by almost every modern scientist. The word theory has a certain meaning when used in science.
[sig]
Geez. Of all the people I'd expect to adopt a relativist position on matters of science, you are the last I'd think of. Has moving to the Bay Area finally affected your mind, or is it just reaction to all the fruitcakes around you?
That's because you misunderstand my point.
I'm not taking a relativist position on matters of science. (Nor was the original complainant, nor was the school board.)
I'm pointing out that the issue was the suppresion of one side of a political debate in a government-funded, mandatory-attendance, school.
I'm pointing out that, as such, the particular opinions of the complainant, no matter how ill-grounded they may be, DON'T MATTER.
And I'm pointing out that the reportage of his opinions is ITSELF propaganda directed against those who don't believe that public schools should be government-run political indoctrination mills.
To the extent that I'm taking a position of my own on this, it's against mandatory government indoctrination of youth in politically correct thinking and against propaganda in the press disguised as unbiased reporting.
Does that fit better with your opinion of my thinking based on my other postings? B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
First of all, it's not ad hominem to examine the beliefs of someone who is claiming authority in a subject. For example, it would be perfectly legitmate to put in a story "Dr. J. Smith, who believes in the healing powers of crystals and smoked banana peels, etc."
Second, the only ad hominem argument being made here is yours. You are dismissing all arguments and evidence in "An Inconvenient Truth" because it is narrated by Al Gore. This in itself is enough, in your mind, to label the entire movie "partisan", though you neglect to include any examples of partisanship. It's been my experience that the word "partisan" is the last refuge of those who really, desperately want to ignore an argument for which they can not form a counter.
Science isn't Democratic or Republican. Thinking so is dangerous and foolish. The current climate in American reminds me of German authorities earlier in the century rejecting "Jewish science" in favour of "Aryan science". That worked out really well, didn't it?
Iraq Body Count says about 55,000 people have died because of DIRECT violence caused by the U.S. government. However, that does not count the people who died because of indirect causes. Iraq Body Count is defending itself against criticism that it is undercounting the deaths due to U.S. government violence; you can read the discussions on the site.
An estimated 150,000 Iraqis died because of the first U.S. government-Iraq war. So, the Bush family has killed about 205,000 Iraqis, even using estimates that are low because they count only direct violence.
The total number of people killed in the 24 countries that the U.S. government has invaded since the 2nd world war is, sensibly, I think, estimated at 11,000,000. This counts the number of people who died because of the violence that violence causes.
The U.S. government has started a civil war in Iraq, as well as starting its own war. The people who die in the civil war must be considered to have died because of Cheney - Rumsfeld - G.W. Bush violence. The U.S. government violence did not create a peaceful democracy. It created an even more unstable country; that's exactly to be expected; violence breeds violence.
Preface: I am a person who believes that our greedy consuption of resources without taking into account the fact there WILL be consequences is wrong. So don't mix me up with those "I have the right to drive my hummer, I'm an American" idiots. I do NOT agree with the posters conclusions, but he is basing it on REAL experiences.
To all you naysayers out there. I was one of the MANY people that was taught about global cooling in school in the 70's, I was taught it as Science, and it was taught as a fact. So go ahead, claim this is a myth and should be discounted, or the parent is not worthy of his mod points, I was there and I know it IS truth.
What? you say that this was not the common scientific thought? I'm not so sure, I did not see the outcry in the scientific community about it. Trust me, if they do disagree with something being taught in school they go balistic (see creation science, or do they have a double standard?).
P.S. Do I seem bitter about the crap I was taught in school. Maybe. Once the subjects strayed outside pure maths, the info was really sketchy. The stuff we were taught as Evolutionary fact was pure B.S. Most of it had been proven false decades before, but don't let that stop the science teacher... We wouldn't want him to have to upgrade his skills, or change his message from "this IS what happened" to "this is our best ideas on what happened". (And it is funny, as much as the textbook publishers like to churn text books and profit, it seems to take FOREVER to get this stuff out of them)
You are half right.
The difference between the IBC's 55,000 figure and the Lancet's 650,000 is partly due to the fact that the IBC excludes indirectly caused deaths (for which Bush is liable under international law), but mostly due to the fact that the IBC is an estimate of the deaths reported in English-language media, whereas the Lancet is an estimate of all deaths.
Since reporters in war zones generally have the ability to report no more than 10% of the casualties that occur, the two figures do not conflict significantly.
No, Newton's law is quite correct in its own domain: non-relativistic speeds and not very massive objects. Einstein determined boundary conditions for Newton's laws.
I intend Newton no disrespect -- for nearly all practial purposes his theory of gravity gives accurate enough predictions. It's just important to remember that the hallmark of science is that all theories are open to be disproved. Once any theory is accepted as dogma it's not science. That's why science is not a religion.
:)
That said, I tend to live my life as if most scientific theories are fact. No point questioning things every day unless somebody has evidence
Cheers.
Isn't this usually called consensus science? Hence peer-review, etc. etc? Last I checked the overwhelming majority, no wait, the entire scientific community is in agreement on "global warming". Read this as 2,500+ scientists from over 130 countries agreeing over the basis of the IPCC. Note that the opposition is comprised of a lot of the same crack team of "scientists" that defended the tobacco industry in the '70s. Their integrity notwithstanding, their arguments are still just about as transparent as their lives.
So what does the IPCC say? Let's paraphrase it: CO2 is related to warming of the temperatures, humans are causing this, and that we ought to do something about it because we can. Oh, and btw, warming is Not a Good Thing(tm), especially at the rate with which we're inducing it.
On a more philosophical note, I think you struck a cord with me on the shaman quib. I've recently been interested in Richard Dawkins and his arguments on religion. In my travels I found that his philosophy and reasoning fairly sound, but that something was possibly lacking in what he suggested we ought to do: if religion isn't responsible for what we believe, who or what is? Surely someone will say, "Science! Duh..." It sounds good, but is wrong because science isn't about belief (Or is it?). Or perhaps someone will suggest that each person be his own judge for truth. This is closer to a good answer, but rather impractical. How exactly should everyone be informed of everything such that they can always make the correct judgments on truth? If I tried to discern all truth on my own with no help or instruction of what others think or how they did it, I wouldn't get much done in a day. Nor would I ever learn much.
We are limited information processing machines, hence the convenience and necessity of "beliefs". This leads me back to the beginning: how do we know what to believe in when we're ignorant? Consensus science. Sure, it's failed a couple times here and there (Galileo, Copernicus, etc.), but for the vast majority progress within science the consensus works just fine. And that is why I believe the understated findings of the IPCC.
Look, there's no need to defend Newton... his theories are still applicable to nearly all physics situations. But the fact that Einstein found previously unknown boundaries is proof that the original theory was wrong. It was incomplete, like all scientific theories, because they are models of the world, not the world itself. That doesn't diminish their importance at all. In fact, it is the acceptance that all scientific theories are incomplete that separates science from religion. True science has no dogma. And that honesty of its own limitations is why I can trust it.
Cheers.
There is an alternative explanation as to why ancient civilizations were not necessarily on the coast.
Ancient civilizations relied on efficient farming practices which required plenty of fresh (not salt water) to be readily available (either close by or through irrigation). As a result, most ancient civilizations were somewhat close to a source of fresh water. For example:
- The Indus valley civilization was located around the Indus and Ghagger-Hakra river valleys.
- Mesopotamia was situated near the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers
- Ancient Egypt of course, was situated near the Nile river.
- Ancient China, was situated near the Yellow River.
As civilization evolved, however, the importance of trade increased and the dependence on large local fresh water supplies for farming had also decreased (due to trade and improved farming techniques). Therefore, one reason why many modern cities tend to be formed on coastlines is that their access to the sea is condusive to trade. There are other reasons such as military defence, imperialism, access to the ocean for fishing purposes, etc.
Most large, modern cities today which are located on the coast are, or at one time were, major ports. For example, Vancouver, Montreal, Los Angeles, Puerto Vallarta, New York, Antwerp, London, Cape Town, Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai, etc.
More than that, the debate is "what to do about it?" Should we pursue Kyoto, which will spend a HUGE sum of money to delay global warming effects by one year? Or should we do something intelligent instead?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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
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
The trouble with school vouchers ... is then you start to argue over what constitutes a school. If public money is paying for it, can it go to a madrassa? Or a Catholic school? Or Joe's School and Lube? Or Russ's "We teach computers ... and only computers" school for nerds? And then there's health and safety mandates. Don't want kids to play on monkey bars!!! They'll all die like we did when we played on them!! Don't want kids to eat trans-fats for Gosh's sake! Remember, catsup is a vegetable.
There are *multiple* tarpits here that can't be avoided because of the very nature of public funding.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
But to suggest that philosophy "takes over" the rest implies that anything useful could ever come of it, and this is so far from the case that it's ridiculous. I would argue that there is no possible answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing - what kind of answer could possibly satisfy us? Any answer would necessarily be of the form "Something exists rather than nothing because of X," which presupposes that X exists and that the truthhood of the chain of logic leading to X exists, thus begging the question. God is no way out, either, and when people claim that their philosophy or religion allows them to investigate things which science "is not able to," they are being disingenuous since they can do no better. The best you can do in that direction is to assert that we exist because of God (or a higher power, or whatever you want to call it), and God exists because of Himself. That's all well and good, and trivially consistent, but it doesn't tell us anything useful. It's like suggesting the insertion of an axiom into a system purported to represent reality that says "This axiom is true" (maybe a closer analogy to religion would be "This axiom is true because this axiom is true") - it might be true, and it might be false, but either way it's neither falsifiable or very enlightening, and certainly not worthy of more than an amused chuckle, let alone a massive investigation on the scale of modern scientific research.
Back on point, though: a question that by virtue of its content can have no meaningful answer is a bad question, end of story. And it is true, science cannot answer bad questions that don't have answers. But this is not a limitation; rather, it is an indication that scientists are not stupid enough to get bogged down thinking about things that will never amount to anything useful. To me, that is what makes science great, not what leaves it lacking...the philosophers are more than welcome to hole up with these bad questions and argue over them until they are blue in the face. But I can tell you for sure that whatever they "discover," it just won't be all that interesting.
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.
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".
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
And I was taught that electricity took the shortest path in my highschool physics class. Several of us argued with the teacher and said that electricity took the path of least resistance, but the teacher pointed to the textbook, and that settled it.
Don't confuse highschool science with actual science. I taught highschool science for two years, and for the second year, I actually did not have them use the textbook as it had way too many factual errors. Instead we used the Cartoon Guide to Physics. (I recommened they buy it, and there were enough after that to share.) No errors in that book, and much easier to read. Also, it covered all of the topics in the thicker book plus a few additional ones.
Your teacher probably read the National Geographic or Newsweek article and decided that she needed to "educate" her class. Not a bad idea, but unfortunately misguided. However, even during that time period, climatology had already developed their theories that predicted global warming.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
We have different definitions of 'wrong' :)
By 'wrong' I mean that theory does not work in any domain, for example, law F=G*m1*m2*r^2 is wrong in any domain. Newton's laws, however, are just a special case of more general theory.
And of course, every theory is probably incomplete and that's the most exciting thing with science.