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."
I thought one of the fundamental aspects of modern empirical science is that, unlike a religion, it is ALWAYS open to revision and dispute. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Whether there is a significant modern consensus or not, I think it goes against the core spirit of scientific inquiry to EVER say "This matter is settled and no future scientist may ever question it." That's the very kind of anti-empirical position the Creationists themselves take in presenting their religious take on science.
And I'm certainly glad for Einstein's sake that no one ever thought this way about Newtonian physics. "Sorry little German, the matter is settled. Stop being a Newton denier."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Humanity is not going to give up modern convenience for something that will effect future generations.
No.
If the science for climate change continues to pan out for another fifty or hundred years, then maybe those people denying it can be classified as cranks. Right now, though, it's ridiculous to claim that climate change is as well established as evolution. That's insulting to the theory of evolution.
It's an ice age! It's warming! It's change! It's not quite the new ethereal soup, that's dark matter.
I am still fairly skeptical about climate change. Make no mistake, though - moderate skeptics like myself are NOT the ones arguing against the teaching of climate change in schools at the national, non-internet-commentator level. Oil companies (and related industries) have a LOT to lose if the next generation sees climate change as a real thing. Moves like this are not based on science as much as they are on the cash flow that follows peoples' opinions.
Isnt denying that the huge-scale human intervention/activity on the planet - which goes from releasing boundless amount of heat to atmosphere to releasing radioactive substances to sea - can NOT have an effect that is considerable, as stupid as denying that the earth is older than 6000 years ?
one has the motive to control the masses by some private interests behind, the other has the motive to control the masses to protect profits.
Read radical news here
So, 97% of the world's scientists are religious zealots?
Check your premises.
So is anthropomorphic climate change when you blame it on Mother Earth or Old Man Winter?
What bothers me most about the controversy over climate change, is even if it turns out human actions don't actually have a significant impact on climate, we damn well know we affect the environment. We also know fossil fuels won't last us forever and acquiring them is becoming increasingly volatile due to who does and does not have access to their source. So sure, we should be cautious and treat climate science as we would any other science where we need a critical eye, but we need to be taking the same actions regardless of the conclusions (due to our knowledge of other affects). How is reducing pollution and non-renewable resource consumption a bad thing? Who the hell honestly thinks unregulated energy consumption and dumping of various emissions is okay?
No
We have plenty of proof and independently gathered data. The deniers are the ones having faith that they aren't doing anything wrong. And are just lazy and like the cheap oil status quo.
I mean basic science is teaching that a gas layer can form a greenhouse by absorbing heat. Look at Venus compared to Mercury. Earth compared to Venus.
Now, what will happen if the Earth warms up and the weather gets more energetic is for debating and further research. But the basic Earth sciences are facts until they are disproved.
The climate science debate has two important components to it. This issue focuses on one component, and that is the anti-science attack on climate science. This has the same source of ignorance and zealotry that has challenged teaching evolution in the classroom. This is a stand of religious based ignorance against science. I have not met anyone who understands the scientific process who challenges the theory of evolution. I am using the scientific definition of theory, which is an operating model, and not the "theory is not a fact" arguement that my religious friends pick up.
The second component to climate science is that there are some great issues of modern science and society that can be taught here. To not teach this in the classroom is missing out on a real opportunity to teach critical thinking that children can get passionate about.
You can teach about data collection, and how this can be a source for controversy.
You can teach about computer modeling and statistical analysis. What these tools are great for, and where they fall short.
Plenty to teach about weather vs. climate, and what the climate means for other systems on the planet.
Lab experiements on basic components of the atmosphere, and why they don't always translate to the actual model of the world.
You can teach the ethics of how to prioritze science against society and economic concerns.
Lots more stuff that I am not getting in to.
My point being, this is another area where zealotry is screwing up a great opportunity to train the next generation of scientists.
The problem is that people seem to conflate the science, facts, and the politics of climate change. They think if you disagree with any part, you are a "denialist". So what do I mean?
Well first take the fact of climate change: That the average global temperature is changing outside of known cycles. Provided the data on which this is being based, this is true. It is a fact, a simple observation about the world.
Then there's the theory of climate change: That this change is being cause either primarily or exclusively by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as a result of human emissions. This is a theory, it provides a logical proposal to explain the facts. Like any theory it could be subject to revision or dismissal later should more information come to light. Doesn't mean it will be, but it can (if it isn't falsifiable, it isn't a scientific theory).
Now after that you get some additional theories like the theory that this will be a net bad thing for humanity. Remember that this is not a fact, it is a theory, and that the overall theory of CO2 causing climate change could be right, and this could be wrong. As such one could reasonably examine the evidence and accept the first theory and reject the second.
Then you get in to politics or policies: That the only thing to do about it is to massively reduce CO2 output, institute carbon taxes, etc, etc. That isn't a scientific theory there, it is politics. There are other solutions that would work. One example would simply be to prepare for the chance and deal with it. You could argue that even if this particular change is human caused, in the future a change will happen that isn't, so better to spend resources on becoming resilient to change than trying to avoid this one. Geoengineering would be another approach to dealing with it. Different policies can be debated, the costs, the benefits, and so on, there is no one right answer here, there are options.
However if you disagree with any part, you get labeled a denalist. So you can say "I think the Earth is getting warmer, and I think manmade CO2 is the cause. However my examination of the evidence leads me to believe it is not a bad thing, in fact it'll be just fine so we shouldn't do anything," and you get shouted down as "denying climate change." Or you can say "I think it is happening, manmade, and a bad thing. However I think reducing CO2 production is the wrong approach. I think we should do geoengineering because it is cheaper/more effective/etc," and you get shouted down as a "denialist."
That's my real problem, is people confuse the levels of it. There are facts (all scientific theories have to start with facts, observations), theories, and then policy suggestions as a result. Calling it all bullshit can be accurately called denying it. However being skeptical or disagreeing with parts cannot.
Also there's way too much stock put in computer models. Not that they are used, but that people think they "prove" something. No, a computer model proves nothing, it is a model. It makes predictions. If the predictions are repeatedly accurate, it is probably a good model of reality and can be counted on to produce accurate predictions in the future. If they are inaccurate, it needs to be revised. However it doesn't "prove" shit. It models.
So while models should (and must) be used in climate research, people need to stop saying things like "This model proves that X will happen in Y years!" No, it predicts it. Well and good, that's very different from proving it.
Warmer earth = more icecap melt = more freshwater. Warmer earth = larger temperate zones = more food production. More CO2 = more vegetation growth = more food production.
The only thing stopping food production and access to drinking water is militaristic governmental controls. Free societies don't seem to have these problems.
It's easy to do experiments that test gravity. Much, much harder to test climate change.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
I think I'll side with the climatologists when it comes to talking about climatology. Maybe I'm crazy.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
As someone working in this field, I would just like to make some clarifications. The term 'Climate Change' is better viewed as two separate questions: is climate change occurring, and if so, is it due to human influence? The first question is effectively settled; temperatures are increasing and extreme weather events are occurring more frequently. The second question is more complex, although the vast scientific consensus is that it is indeed due to human influence. In particular, the greenhouse effect has been conclusively proven. The slightly-informed seem to misinterpret scientific uncertainty (a very specific term referring to statistical probabilities) with a much more general 'scientists aren't sure if this is true or not'.
It is true that there is a long way to go in climate science. However, this is no reason not to teach it in schools. There are many unknowns in the science (as with any field of science); these should not be understated, but neither should they be overstated - it would not be helpful for teachers to spread yet more excessive doubt. Finally, it is of particular importance that climate science is taught in school - the consequences of climate change are likely to be extremely grave for mankind and will impact the next generation much more than this one.
I take it you never realized that "Bullshit" is carefully crafted libertarian propaganda rather than independent investigative reporting for entertainment. I don't say 'libertarian' figuratively, either; they cite the Cato Institute constantly, of which Penn and Teller are both research fellows. I'm not saying the libertarian viewpoint is inherently incorrect, but it's hardly the place to go for unbiased reporting.
What is inherently incorrect are their interview tactics and editing techniques; they're even more misleading than Michael Moore's. Ever notice how rarely you hear the question that was actually asked? Penn's voice-over introduces a topic on their own terms, the video cuts to the interviewee answering an unknown question that was asked by a different interviewer off-camera, and he mocks their response - often while they're still talking. It's all trick editing and impatient over-simplification; it's reality TV disguised as an interview.
Believe what you want, but don't go around thinking "Bullshit" segments provide a good justification for any of your beliefs.
Oh, we're doing an experiment, all right. Unfortunately, if it pans out the way the vast majority of the scientific community, the military, the disease control folks and the insurance industry thinks it will, we're all pretty much screwed.
In other words, all the folks whose job it is to make predictions about what could go wrong and prepare for those things think that we're running such an experiment, and that it won't end well.
Check your premises.
Confusing facts and theories.
So with gravity there's the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity. The fact of gravity is that objects attract, or on a more human scale that things fall down. This is an observed fact. It's not up for debate, it just is. Only thing you could claim is that the observations were incorrect, but of course in the case of gravity there's way too much of that.
Then there's the theory of how gravity works. How fast do things attract, based on what, etc. This is a logical explanation to try and explain the facts observed and how they relate. So you get things like Newton's Laws of Universal Gravitation. An explanation of how it functions. However like any theory, it is possible it could be wrong, that the explanations could be incorrect.
Well, in the case of gravity, it is likely the case. There are things Newton's theory cannot adequately explain, and some inconsistencies with further observations. It is correct on the scale we deal with on Earth, but not in terms of large cosmic scale things. Einstein gave us a new theory, general relativity, which explains it differently. Newton's theory is still a very useful simplification for the every day world (much like the Ideal Gas Law is a useful simplification) but it isn't correct.
Now as that relates to climate change someone can very well look at the facts and say "Yes, the average temperature is increasing," but then say "However I do not believe the theory put forth to explain it is correct."
Do not conflate facts and theories. They are related, not the same.
It is open to revision in response to, and dispute in the form of, results that contradict the existing explanations and more parsimonious explanations for the results which have been produced.
Defending against pressure to teach, as science, "controversy" which does not actually exist within the scope of the scientific work in a field is not anti-science.
Yes, it would be, but that's not what the National Center for Science Education is saying, so that's what's known as a strawman.
And its the anti-empirical ideological-based approach, and the pressure to present the results of that approach as science, that the NCSE is opposing in the two areas in which it is taking stands.
Unlike the non-scientific work at issue, Einstein's work was scientific, and there wasn't an enormous amount of pressure to teach "the controversy" between Einstein's models and Newtonian physics in primary and secondary education when no such controversy actually existed in the scientific community, so the issue is in no way parallel.
It's not really "Is the climate changing." The climate changes all the time, from short to long term.
The question is - are WE causing the climate change?
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
And I'll side with the phlogistonites when it comes to talking about phlogiston. And priests when talking about religion. And Scientologists about anything related to science.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Feynman make a good point about the problem of consensus in his biography that just because you have a lot of people agreeing on something, doesn't mean those people know what they are. Maybe the really knowledgeable/smart people are the ones who disagree. He was talking about it in relation to textbooks and how a bad textbook was getting approved because X number of engineers at Y company said it was good.
Also the thing that strikes me about running to consensus is that is what marketers do, not scientists. I never see consensus appealed when discussing evolution. People don't say "Well X% of scientists agree with evolution so it must be true!" Rather they point to the evidence.
My personal view is that we should expend more effort into advanced nuclear technologies. LFTR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor looks particularly promising. This can be augmented with wind/solar/hydro etc where it makes sense to build them. If we need 100% proof that GW will destroy us before acting, we have to wait to be destroyed first. This is a stupid position, hence models and predictions, as imperfect as they are.
1 - History. I'm a student of history. I became a skeptic when they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
\
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics because WHY again?
2 - Statistics/Data Analysis. M&M made Michael Mann's Hockey Stick look like a total fraud.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands atmospheric physics AND statistics because WHY again?
3 - Physics. Most serious skeptics will grant that CO2 absorbs energy at one important wavelength. They will grant as much as 1.4 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. The thing they won't grant is the feedback necessary to get dangerous warming.
And I give a shit just how a student of history misunderstands the relative importance of isolated "facts" in physics he scrapped off some denier's site online because WHY again?
4 - Instrumentation. Anthony Watts has demonstrated the pathetic state of some of our temperature records.
Anthony Watts is a non-scientist, college drop out full blown, outed fraud: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
It goes on. There are other mechanisms that can explain the late 20th century warming. If you want to seriously talk about skeptics, you really should study them a bit more.
And that's the real irony. Skeptics, whether evolution deniers or AGW deniers, will go to almost insane levels of skepticism about the theories they reject, and yet will show almost stunning gullibility when it comes to sources they agree with. In my years frequenting evolution debate forums, it was amazing to watch guys saying things in one breath about how we don't have video tape evidence of evolution of humans happening and then with the next breath proclaiming that Noah's Ark and Paluxy footprints were real.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Most people aren't qualified to understand the data on their own, or to model it, or do do much of anything besides let scientists filter it and understand it for us.
The libertarian fantasy that the common man has the time, ability, and motivation to understand any subject is just that, a fantasy, and has no place at the adult table.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It's easy to poke fun of astrologers and the like, that's not what people take issue with. It's when they decide to go on a Libertarian rant about something that isn't painfully obvious pseudoscience and start quoting the Cato Institute as though it's an authority on anything that people cry foul.
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.
All science is modelling. Do you really think that is voltage your multimeter is measuring? Somewhere in your hardware (either explicitly in the software, or implicitly in the circuit design) is a model of how your multimeter is supposed to respond in the presence of a potential difference, something which is again derived from another model, electromagnetism, which is itself dependent on ideas about space and time from contained in special relativity.
All science is done by embedding empirical facts into paradigms which are thought to lend a coherent description of reality. This idea that you can have empirical proof wholly divorced from the framework in which you are doing the investigation is laughable.
Science does not work based solely on empirical facts. Science is embedding and explanation of empirical facts through theory, that is, through models.
Both evolution denial and climate change denial arise, not because some people believe evolution or climate change are not real, but because they know they are.
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."
As a scientist, I can tell you that climate science is one of the most open fields of science in making raw data available to the public. There is more than enough data available so that anybody willing to spend a few years developing the appropriate expertise can verify the major conclusions of climate science. Here's a starting point
It's only the ignorant who continue to deny man made climate change.
Not at all. The only ones completely convinced of it are either unintelligent or dogmatic.
A massive MAJORITY of world governments, corporations, scientists, leaders, and intellectuals in the world recognize that man made climate change is the number one challenge the human species faces this century.
This statement itself shows how bizarre your view of scientific research is. Political opinions does not amount to scientific certainty. Most dogma-drive drivel (such as what you espoused) comes from people who cannot name one skeptical opinion. They only argue with straw men in order to make themselves feel better about belonging to their perceived "correct" opinion. This is how religions are born.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Conservatives often believe in the power of "common sense" and dismiss subject experts as biased by the "liberal education system".
True, science is supposed to be empirically verifiable, but the common man cannot perform most of the tests and verifications on their own. Thus, they rely on alleged conservative subject experts to judge the topic.
If you point out that most of those with "proper credentials" don't support the conservative view (that X is false), they'll just say that the education system bias weeds out most conservative experts such that conservative experts won't have such degrees.
Until their own house bakes to a crisp, they won't believe climate experts with formal degrees because they believe the whole education system is corrupt and biased due to the "liberal commies" running the universities.
(And if their house does burn to a crisp, they'll probably think, "Damn! I'm baking in hell because I talked to liberals.")
Table-ized A.I.
I exist, that's all I know for sure, *everything* else is a belief.
I think I'll go with solipsism personally.
Seriously, we have a number of them that have transplanted to Colorado. And at this time, I think that they have a serious neuro virus that has destroyed their ability to think. They believe that cutting taxes, waging multiple wars, raising spending, and denying science will solve everything.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Would you agree or disagree that "there is no climate change" is a valid talking point?
It is a valid point for introducing the concept - it would be a good way to introduce the evidence in a thought provoking way and get the students to think about whether there is a better explanation for the data than climate change. Of course to do this you need teachers capable of really understanding the observations so they can point out flaws in arguments.
However I've noted that the climate change proponents are just as guilty of anti-science rhetoric as their opponents. For example an A-level physics question in the UK once showed a plot of remaining fossil energy reserves (decreasing) and energy demand (increasing) and asked how this plot showed that the UK must develop renewable energy sources. Of course the graph did not show that - it just showed that eventually fossil energy sources would not be enough given current demand predictions. This is also solvable by developing other non-renewable sources (e.g. nuclear) or simply by being more energy efficient and reducing demand.
So opponents of climate change may be anti-science by denying evidence but the proponents are often just as anti-science by ignoring other solutions and just pushing the "green" political agenda they want to see enacted. Neither side seems to be actually interested in what science really has to say when it is not what they want to hear... which is precisely when you should listen to science because that is when you learn the most!
The problem is that the NCSE doesn't just want to teach about the science of climate change. They want to push specific policy proposals as "The Solution" to the problem:
http://ncse.com/climate/teaching/humans-can-reduce-climate-change
Why not actually read something on the subject, before you make yourself look like a moron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Don't you feel the least bit foolish? I mean, it's pretty clear you have no idea what science is, what the evidence for evolution is, and worst of all, you're so fucking pathetic you don't even have the intellectual curiousity to go out and look it up. You're a prime example of the kind of proudly ignorant pseudo-skeptic who makes the most ludicrous, moronic pronouncements without the least sense of irony.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In In case you haven''t paid attention to the Republican Party over the last dozen years, they've got a lot of tightly organized talking points that the party leaders push out through all the different media and craziness groups - Anti-tax, pro-war, anti-gay, Obama's-a-socialist, anti-deficit if the Democrats are in office, don't-worry-about-deficits-we-have-higher-priorities if Republicans are in office, etc. Some of these are core values that the party leaders really care about, and others are tactical positions that are useful for getting different groups of voters involved. The finance folks don't really care about gay marriage, but they'll go along on that because it brings in religious conservative voters who show up at polls and rallies and donate money.
Anti-science is a tactical position; anti-climate change is a core message from their corporate sponsors. Bashing evolution makes it easier to bash climate change science, as well as bringing in religious conservative voters, and gets the rabble in the habit of believing talking points their leaders hand them, but the party leadership doesn't really care about evolution - they care very very much about not having Congress make laws about climate change that would affect Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Agribusiness. And they don't care if it means destroying science education in schools for a generation as long as their bottom line is protected for a while; the kids who are going to be scientists can learn evolution in college.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's easy to poke fun of astrologers and the like
Say what you like about astrology, but no one can deny that an opposition between Mercury and the Sun is something to worry about, for example.
WRONG.
Science begins with an observation.
Your understanding of science is....weak. Clearly you are just spouting off things you have read others say without any thought or actual knowledge on the subject. Quite frankly I am tired of you poor excuses for a limp wristed cum stains talking like you understands something when you clearly don't.
"a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."
So, new data that doesn't support the current hypothesis will falsify a hypotheses. Since every other data that looks at temperature increase above normal cycles has been ruled out, what we have left is AGW.
One test that was done was when all the air traffic was grounded. That data was startling.
Another test would be 'does the temperature go down with the appropriate cycle'. It does not.
Another test is evaporation pounds.
in fact, there are many, many tests.
Please, what other conclusion can you come to with the data?
the Sun has been rued out, as have volcanoes, cosmic rays, and 'bad karma'.
Increased CO2 has cause a trapping of more energy.
When all other factors are in a known state, does the temperature return to that state? No? well their you go.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on