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."
1.There is no problem
2.The world has run out of oil anyway
3.They just don't believe in your climate religion, get over it
4.Even if I could stop the tide, I wouldn't want to, you are a moron for trying
5.Go watch George Carlin on climate change.
Well-said! Let us *pray* then that religion doesn't get in the way of science! ;)
Just as your point 1 is equally denial. ... when did they run out again? ... finance people make lots of money, drive fancy cars and get laid).
Point 2 is far from `blindingly obvious`; in fact, gas prices here have gone down a bit in the last year
Far from being Creationists, the global-warming scam scientists are just crying wolf to get some attention and, most importantly, more funding and influence (they're really jealous of the finance people these days
Point 4 is simple pragmatism which is unacceptable to liberals given they typically feel they can't survive if things go bad (`lock and load` is not a term they're typically familiar with).
George Carlin, while not perhaps being scientifically trained, at least doesn't have a self-interest like self-aggrandizing and propagandizing pseudo-scientists with lousy career paths.
Piffle and nonsense--the article is basically an elaborate form of "have you stopped beating your wife"?
Any objective scientist will tell you that the AGW idea doesn't remotely reach the standards of a real "theory". It *does* explain some observations in the same way Creationism does, but only by cherry picking data and incorrectly confusing "correlation" with "causation". Anybody can show correlation (http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php) but that don't mean one thing about *causation*. All the thermometers in the world showing temperatures are great to see and it's always good to have reliable data (though apparently not all of the AGW stuff is all that reliable--http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Docs/hurrell.soundings.jclim98.pdf), but one needs *proof* to tie everything together.
Is the Earth warming? Maybe....the observations are definitely mixed on this (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg , http://isthereglobalwarming.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/2010_2011_winter_2.6753403.gif). (NOTE that the second is a decidedly anti-global warming site.)
If the Earth is warming, are increasing CO2 levels the cause? Doubtful. CO2 levels were higher during the last Ice Age (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261) and the current CO2 levels are practically rock-bottom compared to the bulk of the collected data (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm).
The AGW theorists have made numerous predictions using their various software models, which have been shown to be simplistic and unworthy of a first year software student (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1813/US-Government-Scientists-Shock-Admission-Climate-Model-Software-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available). As a simulations expert I've had the chance to examine much of the code that was released from the Hadley Institute a few years back....it was *horrifically* poorly put together. If these had been my student, they'd have failed the course.
Nor frankly do those predictions pan out. Just a few years ago Al Gore (basing his statements on information various AGW alarmists were spouting at the time) said that "...the Arctic will be ice free by 2013..." (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/horror-junk-scientist-al-gore-predicts-north-pole-will-be-completely-ice-free-by-next-year/). I'm guessing that Mother Nature didn't get the word.
AGW models also predicted that the ocean deep sea temperatures would rise by approximately 1 degree Centigrade (http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/99641/tracing_the_upper_oceans_missing_heat and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025). It would seem that there are some parameters missing from their calculations.
Lastly, in order for AGW to rise to the level of a theory it must be able to postulate experiments that would prove it to be true. This hasn't happened and can't without a few dozen parallel Earths. You *test* a hypothesis by performing controlled experiments and seeing how well observations match experimental results as well as predictions. We've already shown that many of the predictions are flawed, and as to experiments--hard to do without some Earths to test against.
AGW is at best an unproven hypothesis in much the same way as Creationism is, with fewer religious overtones. It doesn't belong in schools any more than Creationism does, and for very similar reasons. Stick to *facts* and leave the activism for college.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
I agree that bullshit can be used to push a political agenda because people want money (q.v. 'weapons of mass destruction', 'the war on terror', and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). But to say "it's not science" is ludicrous. On what do you base this assertion? How long, exactly, have you studied astronomy and/or meteorology and/or climatology? I'm dying to know where you found definitive proof to out the lie of this sham/conspiracy called "climate change."
What the fuck is your point?