Slashdot Mirror
Is Climate Change the New Evolution?
sciencehabit writes "Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups? A growing number of education advocates believe so, and yesterday, the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which fights the teaching of creationism, announced that it's going to take on climate change denial as well."
A closed system is one that does not exchange matter with its environment; it is allowed to exchange energy and heat. (Yes, I know matter and energy are the same. Blame the thermodynamicists.) You're perhaps thinking of an isolated system. Technically the earth is an open system, as it gains and loses matter from its environment, but that effect is probably minimal.
Also, the amount of energy the earth gets from the sun is far more than 99%.
The fallacy of your argument is this: you equate the leaders of the argument of both sides, and give them equal footing.
Leading those who accept the scientific evidence are... the scientists. Yes, the people who train for their lives, who thrive on evidence, logic and the scientific method. To be sure, some are corrupt, but if you argue the majority of them are, then you are effectively arguing against the entire profession. You sure you want to go there?
Leading the other side are those who profit from denial, and those who just don't want to change their way of life, or have religious beliefs about the matter.
These groups are not equally qualified to talk about the matter. And to paint the entire climatologist community as high priests is to equate their science with religion, which is in and of itself a fallacy. An effective one, but a fallacy nevertheless.
Check your premises.
Really?
There really is a lot of corporate based funding for anti-climate change "science". (Though, right there, it's not really science, as it starts with bias. But the funding is there.)
And even when they manage to get scientists to go along with the whole denial thing, it has been known to backfire. Rather spectacularly.
Check your premises.
but it's hardly the place to go for unbiased reporting.
I find it extremely difficult to have confidence in ANY reporting that claims to be unbiased nowadays. I am extremely scorn when it comes to trusting anything to do with the mainstream media, and have grown increasingly wary of some of the sources I once trusted. This is why I was excited when stuff like Wikileaks started happening, because at least it was devoid of bullshit and just official documents that you could draw your own conclusions from. Granted that is still possible, but with a much larger amount of effort required now as opposed to the the searchable database of cables and closed-door documents that were available for a while.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
So you call anyone who disagrees with you Nazis and suggest that they should be murdered. Are you really surprised that there is some resistance to your approach?
Not one SINGLE climatologist has EVER said that even the worst possible projections of climate change will result in reaching the point "where civilization cannot be sustained". Spreading that bullshit propaganda does nothing but harm to the attempt to make the public aware of this problem. Climate change is a problem, but it is NOT going to end civilization and only someone without a fucking clue about what climate change is, why it's happening and how to prevent it would even suggest that.
Not only that but you go off the deep end and try to argue that even suggesting that it's not world ending it is a crime punishable by death.
Welcome to Fascism, population you. Seek help.
Your revisionist bullshit fails to take into account the report that landed on LBJ's desk about global warming some years before some journalists played with the global cooling idea.
Give up on the luddite bullshit and please entertain the idea that people who are experts on a subject know a little bit more than a random economist, lay preacher, or bug-eyed snake oil saleman.